Going by the description and screenshot of the forthcoming EBE, I am very excited! I think this plus an AI overhaul will propel GameGuru into the limelight, the cream of game engines.

I applaud Lee, the Blackbelt coding warrior!

The random building creation feature sounds very appealing*... as long as the randomisation systems produces truly unique results. I mean, producing a building then discovering someone else has created one exactly the same would be like a lady turning up a party wearing a lovely new dress only to discover.... Well, you know the rest!

*I might have been mistaken about the intention to include such a feature, but I think it would be cool.

I don't recall seeing that mentioned, but it does sound very appealing, but you're right, there is a high probability that two buildings could turn out exactly the same, after all, it isn't truly random, unless your random number generator is connected to a lava lamp or some such nonsense!

I think you are right Jerry. Computer random is not truly random. I often wonder how computers generate random numbers. My short-lived hobby of online gambling persuaded me that computer random is not true random.

It's not, that's why I mentioned the lava lamp! Several years ago, a guy really made a truly random number generator using a lava lamp. I've long since forgotten the specifics, but the motion of the "lava" in the lamp is truly random.

Yeah never do online gambling I tried to do the double up method at roulette some years ago. And everytime i reached a certain amount/round i would lose no matter what (Always played the same amount every round so don't know which one it was)

To get back at the topic i'm looking very much forward to EBE! Has it been explained yet how textures will work? Like if you make medieval/fantasy compared to modern etc.

Details of the EBE are sketchy so far from what I can find.

The lava lamp thing sounds interesting.

I think Blackjack is the only game where you can have a tiny advantage over the House if you use a system (I used to know it but have forgotten). I doubt it works on online casinos because I would guess they are rigged.

Yeah the results of the EBE look cool and I like the way its put together with .ebe files so even non-modlers can add there own blocks, its looking very promising indeed and I'm really looking forward to all those new characters


I used to love a game of BlackJack and its true a system helps even if just to break even, only at the tables though those online things are programed to take your money, they trump you by design not chance!

Hey where do see all that info ? especially interrested about the new characters! When was that announced ?

It was in the recent dev blog along with last week's twitch broadcast. Check it out!

Hi Lee,

Regarding what you were saying on the broadcast about the slots for the possible shapes, I think you might need more than you realise.

As you pointed out, you'll need the 45 degree slopes facing North, East, South and West (or -X, X, -Y and Y, if you prefer), but artists might also want them facing Z rather than -Z (that is to say, upside down, for doing sloping ceilings, or for creating a 45 degree platform with a non-jagged bottom edge.

Also, if you're doing angled slopes you'll also need inner and outer turns where you're linking slopes together (or just finishing them off). I did a quick blender demo to show you what I mean:



If you imagine the darker shapes are your slopes, you'll need an inner and outer corner, each of which facing north, east, south and west, and the same again upside down.

Just wanted to point that out!

As I watched the Twitch I was wondering what was meant by needing four 'shapes' for different directions, particularly since I could also see that larger parts such as walls could be easily rotated, so I see no reason for similar parts facing 'N,S,E and W'. Myself and others may be getting the wrong idea of what was being said and I remember it said more about smaller 5x5 sizes but even then why cant these be rotated also?

Seems like a long road for a shortcut to me requiring the Artist to provide all the parts for face direction and the user having to select and place several shapes where one will do it all.

I just watched the twitch and I wondered the same thing.

EDIT: I think it's because there's not enough room in the 1 byte for rotation info. Two bytes, please!

Lee rotates wall shapes in the vid so I don't see what the problem is since it shouldn't require further orientation in the shape byte info once placed in the editor. I would like a clearer explanation on this before any release as any changes in future would affect anything created using the EBE, particularly for Artists wanting to create packages to use in it.

I think, a simple cube or wall only has 3 dimensions (width, depth and height) and rotation, but slope shapes require more information, I don't think we need four actual shapes for different directions but we need enough space to save the data for the four possible directions of the shape in a single data package, that's how I understood it anyway

Definitely would be better to be able to rotate anything rather than having to pick a new object each time (even if it's only in the y axis for now)

As a modeler I understand that a sloped shape uses only six vertices and a cube requires eight so the idea that vertex info is stored in byte data for the EBE editor is probably the wrong way to do this, vertex position should be stored in the shape/model itself, only position and orientation of the pivot point is needed so it shouldn't count as stated. Otherwise more complex shapes could never be used. In simple terms a slope shape uses less data then a cube to create in 3d. Hope I am making sense

As I said above Lee could rotate a wall in the EBE editor so I see no reason why you cant rotate any shape/model you use, I need more info on why you cant before I decide if this is usable or not, increasing Bytes wont solve the issue of N.S.E and west being a drag for artists and users alike in an 'easy building editor' and seems incredibly un-intuitive to me.

I am hoping he was just tired and non compos mentis when he made the vid

If you have to draw out using zero's and ones then it would still be a case of using the same amount of info for every 'shape' but I am pretty sure he also stated that mesh could be added such as doors etc, so maybe the EBE created 'shapes would be pretty much kept to a basic minimum. Seriously I woudn't use it as it seems so primitive. Other game engines will allow you load in a primitive shape which can be scaled in any axis and even some will allow face selection for texturing not a drawn primitive using 1's and 0's with one texture so I expect it will advance a lot in development. Just not so sure it is the right start for this.

" If you have to draw out using zero's and ones then it would still be a case of using the same amount of info for every 'shape' but I am pretty sure he also stated that mesh could be added such as doors etc, so maybe the EBE created 'shapes would be pretty much kept to a basic minimum. Seriously I woudn't use it as it seems so primitive. Other game engines will allow you load in a primitive shape which can be scaled in any axis and even some will allow face selection for texturing not a drawn primitive using 1's and 0's with one texture so I expect it will advance a lot in development. Just not so sure it is the right start for this."

I agree with rolfy

As I stated in the broadcast, I really want to avoid creating a whole 3D modeller inside GameGuru. Partly as such an effort would basically freeze development of GameGuru for a year while I attempted to compete with even the most basic features of Maya, and also because I am not a huge fan of reinventing the wheel and as there are very many excellent (and free) modellers out there already, the opportunity is to create something that users might want 'instead' of a 3D modeller built into GameGuru.

As to the slope shapes vs rotation, it was right to say the rotation information would have to be included in the 8-bit data structure if we resolved to have a single slope shape that could be rotated. The larger wall pieces are rotated, but the individual cubes are not, they are simply oriented into a different configuration of box positions (think axis aligned boxes). If we opted for a rotation value in the byte item, that would use up 2 bits (4 states) leaving only four possible shapes limited to the four compass directions for rotation. I have not yet ruled out a 16-bit item data structure, which would open up more options at the cost of using more memory and increasing file sizes (but might be well worth it).

I also like Rolfys' hint that perhaps the cube could be replaced entirely by a primitive geometry piece provided by an artist, so you could effectively construct anything from these custom building blocks. That said, I am keen to get a first version rounded off and in the hands of users just to see if the EBE approach is a terrible idea, or if it scores a win for the majority of users looking to make buildings quickly.

As an aside, remember you can create textured geometry primitives right now and import them as static entities, then use the snap grid to build larger structures. The only downside is that the connecting surfaces will not remove the polygons the player would never see, but apart from that slight waste, you can create some very interesting structures right now. If this is of interest, please let me know and I will commission the creation of a few hundred primitive shapes for the entity bank.

Great all you talking about slope shapes, due of this I'm in love right now!

http://classroom.synonym.com/slope-sides-shape-18043.html#

A beautiful girl speaking my lang. WOW.

Now seriously, I though that binary file (0,1) should be generate by the engine as final result, when you are done, and save your build.

We seriously has to ask ourself (?) if we want a combo (ebe + our models or artist one), or just editor to make our own builds.

Perhaps at the end, the goal here will be build something than match with your models, rather than the opposite.
Anyway, ebe does not the same quality than artist assests, since the idea here is not build some 3ds max or something like that. Just my thought.

3com

Does this meant GG working with splines?
If so, wow!.

3com

3 bits for direction if you include an upside down bit. Using 16 bits as an example; 4 bits for texture slot, 3 bits for direction leaves 9 bits for shape, so 512 different shapes potentially.

Maybe I am coming across wrong, I am not suggesting a modeling app. I have apps for all that, all of which have primitive shapes at the basic level and obviously the level that the EBE is intended to have. There are around a dozen primitive shapes...box.sphere, torus etc and using these you can build just about any basic model.
My question is why a simple primitive cant be dropped in and rotated in the editor instead of creating an individual 'shape' for these, it just seems so inefficient and awkward. I certainly don't want to see the EBE as a modeling app and it should be a simple brush setup for drawing out rooms and corridors which should be a more optimized method and quicker than models. I am confused because you seem able to rotate a wall but suggesting that something like a slope shape would need to be 'drawn' out using the binary pattern showed in example and rotation would require a whole new 'shape'. whereas I assume it is the same thing since the wall is also created this way albeit it would require more bytes to create anything other than a box shape.


I understand this.. Maybe I am being a bit thick but surely it would make more sense for something like rotation using instances to be in editor rather than created as individual item .

You can commission hundreds of shapes if it suits but you will likely find that users complain about the huge menu this would create, they already complain about the way entity menus get bloated as it is.
Here's how it will go with this as it looks just now.....users will play around with it and you will see some interesting builds at first as they do a minecraft with it, but this will be short lived and peter out pretty quickly. The EBE should be a basic and quick way to brush out structures, if you try to get fancy with it then it will defeat the purpose and will hardly be used as it should. Too complex and folks will stay away from it, it is not intended to be a modeling app nor should it be presented as an easy way to create awesome models any more than the character creator will ever replace modeling as the best way to create characters. These are ways to bulk out your level quickly and easily with npc's or buildings but when you want to get something specific then your not really going to achieve it using these alone.

If this what it takes then you have to do it, makes more sense to have a single shape and rotate in editor than have to scour through several shapes and drop in as single ones particularly when four is required when one will do.
If you want to create a different hundred shapes then your actually going to require four hundred in the menu for rotation with the current method, not really sensible Stick to a dozen primitives and if users want more then they can create their own.

Yes, I'd love to see a few primitives, (spheres, cylinders, planes for glass, etc) be able to be dropped in and scaled along the grid system. It would open up the possibility of curved walls, cylindrical pillars and so on.

I'd say it was also important to add in a few 'building' shapes which were not primitives, for example skirting boards, coving, door frames, pipes, different types of joinery for creating rafters, eaves, chimneys, friezes), which would link in with the existing geometry along the grid system.. Adding these things in as entities afterwards would work but from experience, trying to line up coving or skirting boards with walls is very time consuming and if you're required to stretch them it can look a mess once the texture is stretched along with it. For instance below I have just about managed it but scaling and positioning the skirting board entities took a long time.



It's also these smaller features that turn a box into a building.

Looks like we're warming to the 16-bit data structure Thanks for the feedback so far, plenty for me to get stuck into!

I'm glad that the EBE isn't a modeller, got enough of those coming out of my ears I think Lee has done a good job so far, yes 16 bit sounds the way to go, I also watched the twitch session it's pretty impressive already, I actually like the basic functionality of the EBE, very promising.

I can understand why Lee went 8-bit as memory is at a premium with GG. It reminds me of User defined graphics on the Spectrum and other 8-bit machines. I would have personally liked something like Sketch-up. Very easy to use for buildings and I'm sure someone who is used to it would easily knock up a similar building to the one Lee made as fast or at least not too far off, but with greater detail. Making simple boxes, extruding, adding cuts and such is really easy in Sketch-up. The ability to stretch textures over walls and such is good as well for quick building (even a skewed texture can be stretched to look straight), as the texture can be used to then shape the model into it

If a re-design is decided, I would really like to see a Sketch-up style system made I know it's a modelling app, but it is streets ahead of any other 3D apps I have used for this sort of thing.

Edit - I also think having to build with tiny squares looks very time consuming indeed. You may be able to build a box house quicker than any other 3D app, but no-one will really want box houses, they will want some more details and shape. Again, in the time of the broadcast in Sketch-up you would have ended up with a house looking like a house, sloped roof and all (pretty much).

Sounds like we need a Sketch-up importer

I think if the 16 bit approach is taken the shape selector mechanism will need to be extremely simple and intuitive, maybe a 4x4 grid next to the texture selector with 'styles' with each opening up a sub selection of variations within the style. Maybe the editor can take a stab at initially setting the orientation based on the previous brush and the user overrides, arrow keys maybe?

The other thing that will be essential is to be able to group select a bunch of 'cubes' and then copy/cut/paste, maybe even having 'user slots' where multiple selections could be stored for later use. For example using the window sill as an example, design the shape once store it in slot 1, design the lintel/sash whatever and store in slot 2 and 3, then you can simply go to another window and select slot 1, paste, slot 2, paste etc. Finally the user should be able to store the state of the slots, textures etc as a named 'user palette' so the next time you need a building you can simply select the palette you used last time.

Personally I can't wait to play with this!

The EBE looks so good. Can't wait to start playing with this.

This is what I suggested with my vid above.
A lib with pre-made walls, floors, roofs, windows, doors, etc.
and a texture Lib.
All that with the possibility to extend them with your own, and/or store ones.
And why not, a blueprint lib, so you choose a blueprint you want to use, and automatically it is "printed" into the map, so you just has to place all the needed primitives following the blueprint, so the final result would be better. Just my crazy thoughts.

3com

There are already doors, walls, doors etc available in the packs, the problem is that if you use them to build a building what you end up with is a very high poly count, multiple texture loads, conflicting collision maps and basically a pile of ....

Maybe if the model builders made all the components to a pattern so everything fit together properly and all used the same texture set then there would be no need for an EBE!

I think what Lee has come up with (bearing in mind I haven't tried it myself yet) is a pretty good design, what people do with it is down to imagination and ability. It doesn't matter how easy you make something if people don't have the imagination or ability in the first place then they are going to moan about it not being easy enough.

There is a good reason why sandbox open world building games are so popular (even my 5 year old grandson can build vast palaces in MC or LegoWorld) and this EBE style system of construction is similar to the systems in those games.

Combine that with a configurable grid (variable size in all 3 dimensions) and a more intuitive entity display and selection process and it could work, there would need to be a strict standard though!

No it should be something like 3dsMax which I am used to as I could easily knock up a similar building to the one Lee made as fast or at least not too far off but with greater detail

Well......*shakes head* Thanks, but no thanks, not in the least bit impressed or do I want it.Made my argument, got ignored, so be it.Rather give me the FPSC segment editor and segments can make far more interesting designs and paint it even quicker then the EBE.

*Drops mic*

/exit left disappointed

LOL ... Problem is its what Lee is trying to avoid which is a modelling program ..
Even sketchup although does have those features that would make the EBE pretty powerful ... To powerful though and it wont be so easy.
To good and no one will need to buy models

@Wizard : I am a little confused dude! In our conversations offline, you clearly stated "You only build with cubes nothing fancy, the result is you can construct simple structures or really complex ones with just cubes. You don't even need CSG cutters for this you simple place a window in a wall and delete the cubes not needed". I was inspired by your idea, are you saying I have implemented the above idea wrongly? If your goal was to duplicate Sketch-Up style (1. create box 2. stretch box 3. reduce one side to create slope) then this clearly strays into (a) modelling territory, and (b) re-creating what already exists (i.e. Sketchup Export) and (c) completely impossible to implement using Octrees (which are subdivisions into recursively smaller cubes)!

It is not often I strongly disagree with a user (not good business) but in this instance allow me to completely and absolutely refuse to create anything resembling a 3D modeller that current exists out there complete with export capabilities. Life is too short to simply recreate what someone else has done. It is far simpler (and thanks to ASSIMP, this plan is underway) to allow greater import capabilities. I am also very happy to agree to disagree, and then throw the gauntlet down for anyone to come up with a version of the EBE that allows everyone to create buildings quickly and easily (and then send me a prototype so I can license it, and incorporate it into GameGuru).

I have a sneaking suspicion that any kind of easy building editor will be totally loathed by every 3D artist in the GameGuru community. Would be great to get some extra encouragement from any 3D artists out there who see the value in the current EBE implementation for users who are NOT artists and want to create buildings and structures quickly (without imposing the rules of tools already freely available right now).

At your pleasure, let the flame war begin!

Seriously I agree with your current ideas for the EBE if I want to model I will use a modeling app and lets be honest here I have several years of experience with the one I use, I don't have any intention or inclination to learn another. If users who never used a modeling app expect it to be easy to create awesome models using the EBE with all the functionality of Blender or maya then they should try these and see how far they get, many give up after a few minutes of looking at these and even learning the functions wont help create anything worthwhile without some Artistic talent, give someone a lump of clay and they wont be giving you a Michelangelo any day soon without talent.

As I stated above the building editor should be a quick way of brushing out structures, if you want to add mesh to these to get the details then that's even better since mesh can be scaled to suit, I can easily throw up a pack of architectural details to add on, if you can include mesh into the build which can then be moved and rotated within the group structure pivot it will work perfectly. If it can't be included this way then it would be simple enough to add details after your happy with positioning of your EBE build

Doesn't worry me in the slightest.

I have tried every 3d modelling program out there and haven't found a single one that I would class as 'easy'! They all have a huge learning curve that I just don't have the time to climb.

The EBE that Lee demonstrated otoh looks intuitive and very simple and when combined with imagination and additional (existing in some cases) entities could produce some very attractive, and more importantly functional, buildings.

I for one would love to be able to 'model' in 3d without having to select 18 different buttons in 13 different menus before pressing shift-ctrl-K-left-mouse-drag while whistling dixie and tapping both feet to different tunes. (at least that's what using Blender feels like to me!)

Now if someone could please come up with an Easy-Creature-Creator to go with it.

By way of words of encouragement, I really like the EBE so far.

As someone who very much plays in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy league of modelling, certainly compared to many of the Premier League artists on this thread, I'm all for it.

A good artist could whip up a building in Blender/Maya/3ds Max/Milkshape or whatever in a few minutes. It would be pixel perfect and put my boxy, blurry designs to shame.

The problem with this is that designing your building in your modelling program beforehand assumes that you know exactly what you want before you start. For those of us without a professional workflow, who don't move logically up the gears from concept drawings to slowly fleshing out levels, furnishing them and populating them, then adding a final layer of polish, being expected to methodically plan out your building in your 3D program of choice is the reason the EBE should exist. In the best cases I have a vague idea of what I want before I start my level, therefore if I've created my building in Blender and I suddenly decide it should have a porch, I've then got to go back and redesign the model and re-import it.

Its market should be those users who have rushed to their PC saying "I've got a great idea". It should then let them easily execute it, which I think this does. Obviously it needs some refinement. At present we have Minecraft in GameGuru.

I don't think the answer is to copy Sketchup or any other modeller necessarily. I'd work out how to make editing in the existing system faster (by extruding the cubes and cutting holes in them in one fell swoop, possibly), and also work out how to make it less boxy and include the primitives and other building-related geometries above. I'd also love to see texture painting to get a bit of grime on those walls. I actually think GG needs texture painting in general for all entities, but that's a different subject altogether.

Speaking in terms of "easy building", there is much you can do with the help of geometric figures.

As I noted above, EBE should only be a quick and easy way to build simple, and low poly buildings .

Of course it is important the bility to move / rotate / scale, these figures, to create something like a building, the rest depends on the imagination and creativity of the user.

Those above plus a good texture palette, would do the trick.

3com

I also like the way the EBE is going ....
Like I said above ... To powerful though and it wont be so easy. To good and no one will need to buy models ..
An exaggeration I know but you get the gist
However knowing this community they will work wonders with it and somehow blow us away as always and create stunning buildings anyway.

The version we previewed wasn't even complete but already my head is spinning with ideas

Having watched the video of the early prototype of the EBE I will say this,...somethings I
liked and somethings I'm not so sure about,...those little blocks may well be good for
little details here and there, but as we saw in the video it was obvious they are a little
tricky, tedious and fiddly to place, that to me would say,....not so easy, taking into
account Lee also had a bit of a problem positioning the camera to see them properly
in order to place them.

For now,..I would suggest this,...let Lee make V1 of the EBE the way he want's to do it,
rest assured us on the beta testing team will tell him if he has got something right, but
also rest assured that we will tell him if he has got something very wrong, in no uncertain
terms,...perhaps even in wizard of id and rolfy terms,....you never know.

I think even Lee realised that as he was building
I did wonder that had he have locked it ( if possible ) other models become semi transparent which I find great for placing assets so maybe something along those lines may help or maybe its already there but he didn't think to do that ?

just read the latest news on the EBE, still sounds amazingly promising..well done Lee

Yes I agree the EBE is looking great. Am I right in thinking that are 16 texture sets per building. Can't wait to try this out Lee. Great Job.

Agree

So I really like the EBE design. It reminds me of creating custom graphics back in the BASIC days by plotting pixels onto some graph paper.

Essentially if someone doesn't have the time or inclination to build their own brushes, it will only be a question of time before a bunch of them appear on the forum or on the store. The structures and the windows and stairs already looking nice plus you get the benefits of the entity system.

I think the more important thing now is ensuring enemy AI can navigate them properly with stairs and slopes etc. I would actually develop the EBE and new AI system at the same time as they really need to work together.

If we find we get to having complex building structures very quickly but AI who do not understand them it will be for nothing.

I cant help feeling that the EBE will not get a fair trial from the beta team as theirs already bias towards it, I mean no disrespect to anyone with saying that I agree its boxy and basic but its a start and to be honest I can spend 4 hours in blender and create a very nice building but its just as boxy so for my talents its perfect because I cant do much better with better tools and the EBE will shrink hours off my dev time, no UV mapping, no boolean operations and for me anyway a very similar result, there are more pro's than con's in this package and from todays news it sounds even more promising

"expands the shape painting menu so you can create your own custom shapes"

does that answer everyones needs, am I interpreting that correctly as we can have any shape we want not just a shape made with cubes?

"'texture pick', 'import custom texture set' and a special texture paint mode which does not add/remove cubes, but paints what is there."

sounds perfect to me, I can UV map, I know how and can do it just fine but I do not in any dimension enjoy doing it, automatically textured, uv mapped and optimized building blocks in a snap together grid, sounds pretty awesome .... for what I personally want out of GameGuru anyway

As frustrating as it may sound. I expected a bit more. The idea is there, will have to wait and see, it seems still a bit lego blocky to me, from the first view there is a couple of things I would have done differently, I unfortunately only got half of what you created. My problem is that there is still no reasonable way to create indoor levels, it is still a OUTDOOR game creator, which frustrates me to no ends. You have seen the top down scifi content I am working. Will I be able to do that with EBE ?In some tiny bit, have a look at what I have done so far, by using simple 300W x 600H x 200L entities and snapping them together.



The short answer would probably be no, or not to that extend, or with some limitations. Then honestly, I can't say I will find any value in using it or providing content for it, as I am positively sure I can do better detail in 300 x 600 x 250 unit space then the EBE can, and that was my problem to begin with, I create structures a massive amount of them, lost count, there is 90% of the time no fancy modeling involved simple cube, subdivided and manipulated. While given that a 3d modeler allows editing of points, edges and faces. An onctree system that just supports face manipulation or edge manipulation would have vastly improved what could be achieved, as you say without having to recreate a 3d model editor.

It would mean supporting convex and concave shapes, which EBE doesn't. It means not having to create a bunch of unnecessary EBE files waste more time outside of gameguru.Which was the number one complain I had, I barely spend any time in gameguru at all, it wasteful time management EBE doesn't exactly improve it massively.

So I definitely need to get my hands on EBE to see what I can and can't do to give a final verdict, now while you have gone all angry me Which is fine, unfortunately EBE is not going to work for me, I don't want to spend additional time outside of gameguru, I might as well spend it that time once of in a 3d editor get exactly what I want or need once of without the need to go back and forth, back and forth creating EBE files which might be useful for me, it is still a bit counter productive.

As mentioned in the email, that I barely spend 4 hours in gameguru, I want to spend 20 hours in game guru, doesn't look like it will happen any time soon. While I admire the resolve and the frustration I can only imagine the look on your face and the neck veins about to pop, it's nothing personal, my reply should have been a little less sarcastic and more straight to the point. Great job lee, unfortunately is doesn't look like it will suit my needs, I am sure other users will find it useful. My goal with the email suggestion was take it one step further allow convex and concave, no need for ebe files then.

The issue now is what about INDOOR ? At some point I would love to see the segment editor make a return, it would be better suited to INDOOR then EBE.

Now smile drink your tea, and don't forget I still love my favorite developer even if we have fights like normal couples do and disagree, I would say that we stop short of stabbing one another with jagged polygons.

I'm sure it will.


As I see it, the shapes will be just different block configurations. So no circular looking items. No angles. Okay for now, but still a little limited.

As said, until we get our hands on it and see what can be done, it's hard to properly judge. I think though, if the old segment system was used to design a building, it would look fairly similar at the minute (square rooms, with 90 degree adjacent rooms or corridors).

Perhaps a way to add old style FPSC segments as walls, floors and ceilings would be a useful addition? That way we could have great detail instantly, with the ability to add a bit more here and there if we want. There would be a huge library of walls already made readily available to boot

I like that idea! But, as has been said many times, let's see what we can do with it. To me, it looks pretty promising for a first run. As has also been said many times, it's not intended to be a modeling program, nor is it meant to replace one. I'm sure there will still be many buildings and architectural elements still being produced externally.