Hello

When I first played around with the 5 kilometers I was like pretty cool but then I did some research into just how big is 5 kilometers. Turns out its about 3.1 miles and you don't get to use the entire area either. So were really only getting less then 3 miles. Lee was like its massive, not really if you intend to walk around every where ,then yes it's massive but if your going to run or fly or drive a truck or car then its small very small. And lee him self has said that when he gets to adding the RPG part that he wanted horses and I figure that some one in the community will want to make a car or truck or a plane they already tried something like this in Game Guru classics. Well I tried running from one side of the game area to the other and it didn't even take two minutes. Walking takes a while but does anyone really want to walk every where. I would like to ask if lee and the team consider making the play area 14 miles instead of 3 miles
I have done some research into this and most games that have large outdoor areas don't go much past this some do but not many. 14 miles seems like a good limit to me its not as big as grand theft auto but not as small as elder of scrolls 3 which I thank if you do the research you will see that 14 miles is very big and should be plenty for cars trucks and horses and flying too. If you don't want to make it a standard then could you please make it a developers option? Most people might not need that space but I feel some of the other people in the community will want the option. Please give this some serious thought.

Lee mentioned some thing about increasing the size in future, additionally for the moment vehicles and stuff like that isn't being considered for the first release. lee wants to get a solid foundation for FPS games before considering any thing else.That said map area is actually massive.A good developer should be able to take the editable area and use it to their advantage.

With the level map I created for classic called morning mountain stroll I made use of about the 60% of the editable map area by making use of a spiral foot path for the player to follow which takes a good 40 minutes to walk fighting enemies along the way.Even without enemies it still takes a good while to reach the end of the map.It entirely depends on how you use the editable area. Consider this, the new battlefield 5 map area is 5.9kms and it has tanks, planes, and other vehicles.

Fortnite has a 3.5km area and in the battle royal has plenty of vehicles.

When taking full advantage of the editable area, 5km is pretty huge. I would be hard pressed to find some one being able to populate the entire 5km area and not suffer horrible performance issues, with the way max is right now and likely in future as well.5km is pretty reasonable and if it does increase in future great, if it doesn't it is also great. Considering vehicles will not be some thing max will be adding or supporting officially for a good while it shouldn't be a problem, considering max is not intended to be "open world".

I agree with shivers..

I also feel that 5Km is small, while Lee is busy why not increase the size and also add a developers option to make it the size you want.
Why limit oneself for the future.
Its known that once a door is closed it does not get open again in the future.
I know Some will say Max is not build to compete with the AAA game engines but while were are busy lets give it all the potential for the future. The New Far cry 6 map as far as i hear is going to be 88km.

Maybe everyone that thinks it must be bigger can make a vote here.

I vote for a bigger map size and to have the option to even expand it more in the developers option.

Pcs

Lee responded to this exact question in the stream and the reasoning behind it ..
Its not a definite no which is good.
Truth is though we dont even know how a 5km map populated will perform at the moment let alone bigger.

Q> Will the option for more terrain distance be worked upon?
A> For the first version we are keeping the maximum editable area at 5km squared of the available near-infinite terrain. As we see how users explore this space, we can decide how much bigger the terrain's editable area may need to be. Just for reference, it takes about an hour to walk from one side of the editable area to the other at 5 kilometers (in your game level).

I disagree, it is plenty.It is 20km square map. As lee mentioned in a straight line moving from one side to the other takes an hour to walk. Even with a larger map I don't see how you will ever be able to properly populate it without causing some serious performance issues.

As mentioned the new battlefield game maps is 5.9km and fortnite is 3.5km. Fortnite 100 player limit and battlefield 2042 128 player limit. It is a pretty insane scale, battlefield barely manages to pull it off. While still beta, it is buggy and they had to drastically scale down the detail, system requirements blows max out of the water.

Max barely able to provide decent frame rates on a empty map with the current 5km editable area. Obviously your game map you going to design isn't going to be flat terrain nor is it going to a straight line either it is going to zig zag across the terrain, hills, rivers and entities that you have set up.Maybe even back track to another area behind where you started as an example.

I guess people likely want to fit an entire game in a single map and it isn't going to end well to those that attempt it, and most likely going to end up complaining about the performance. It is/was Neither classic nor max's intention to do so, but it complicated things carrying over data from one level to the next which pretty much sucks.

So I understand people wanting to try and fit an entire game on a single map, but I don't see it going well for performance even with a large area to work with, it is still going to have limitations on how much it will be able to handle doubling the current area is going to end up even worse. People are still going to end up complaining about performance.I could easily stretch 5km into 20km without much effort.

I would be hard pressed to say it will be difficult to keep a player engaged long enough to actually try and run one side of the map to the other, without getting bored, giving up and exiting the game, vast open spaces isn't necessarily what keeps players engaged. I am really hard pressed to say more is needed, but each to their own, if you feel you can do it go for it

You can use the entire area if you want to, when you understand the concept as it is atm:

You have the Editable Area - marked by the boundary lines.
And you have the Playable Area - which depends on what is placed on the map around the start marker.

So to make use of your entire 5km map:
- Put an object such as a tree in each corner of the Editable Area - the yellow boundary lines.
- That will now become the Playable Area - and you will be able to walk to the edge of each boundary.

Of course if you can fill that with stuff that makes the level interesting - and not mainly a walk through plain terrain - and get good fps - I really would be impressed.

To me even the default size is huge area....

OldFlak....

i think TGC programmers can decide for themselves what is possible don't you?, through everyones views, what is achievable and if there is enough demand to make it viable to action the manhours to make larger terrains. remember not all the original area 5km has to be filled, nor is it going to be filled with constant houses buildings and items all the time.

procedural graphics, ie terrain and trees which they are working on can take up areas, travelling from a to b may not have any actual items in a 5km area except terrain and trees.

the terrain is in and working now, they are as i said working on the procedural trees and landscape. i think a possible larger area can be achievable if the right game or clever use of area is applied. this could be pointed out in the options to have larger terrain.

this would open up space games, flight simulators, racing, GTA ( tbh kinda able to do that now and would be a full 5km game) but horses riding through procedural terrain with nothing much placed within areas will also make it possible to do it. but im not a programmer or actually Work on the Engine for TGC as most here don't, there are many freelance workers to TGC regarding parts as in models, 3rd party tools etc.
what i am saying is..
a small village approx 0.2km area a few houses an inn and a farm with items and you going to another village 7 km away is not exactly needing 5km of filled area is it? and on a horse it will get from 5km to the other side pretty quickly and im sure cleverly placed spawn sights activated when near will help to remove boredom. just trees and terrain can make the journey more real rather than cram all on one map or areas being loaded ( this will be the option i will take if they choose not to allow a good sized roaming area)

but it cuts up play which can make a gamer also lose interest

not everyone is here to make C.O.D or GTA some want space some want skyrim and others just want to make puzzles. if something is possible why stifle the engines possibilities

i agree we have to wait and see what is possible, but i disagree 100 percent with 5km leave it there.
i am very happy with the engines progress and i agree with TGC and getting the fighter side right and all thats needed to make a 5km map easy to manage, but i do want them to look at it seriously as a possible avenue to travel down. when the fighting side is completed its all there and i think if embraced we can get a huge map if done correctly.

i am in favor of a larger terrain. not all the map is to be used and filled with items and as i said if correctly used can be very immersive

+1 for larger terrain

Yeah, I was not really debating what TGC should or shouldn't do - entirely up to them of course.
I was mainly replying to show OP how to use the entire Area of a map.

Atm you have Editable Area, and Playable Area. And the larger the Playable Area you have, the more the NavMesh has to compute, so will be interesting to see what TGC come up with on the performance side there.

If you could drive through interesting terrain and auto generated trees to pockets of populated areas it could be fun.
Unfortunately they not interested in drivable\flyable mechanics, so you would have to be good at scripting to pull it off tho...



OldFlak....

@oldflak
That was not a post at your comment it was in general to all posts and just putting my viee in.
Agreed it would be interesting to see what develops. I'm sure there are ideas and plans as he aint a daft lad.

I think the concept which isn't talked about a lot or a particular popular concept, which I think runs true here.Which I think Lee applied for the moment or permanently is ''Save users from them self''. Applying restrictions or limitations, might not be fair or a concept that users will be happy with.

A game engine developed and maintained by 100's of people with system requirements much higher then with max barely able to achieve decent frame rates and as mentioned they had to drastically reduce detail and several other things to make their designed levels run decently.You are directly implying max can perform better than a engine 100s of millions if not billions of dollars was spend on developing and with professional game developers with years of experience designing highly optimized and razor thin balances, with twice or 3 times the size. ?

Save users from themselves is pretty apt description here and reasonable.You have years of experience and have a good understanding of limitations and how to design optimized levels, but it doesnt run true for the next person just starting out, complaining about why he wasn't able to place 150000 trees in his map.TGC doesnt exactly preach or teach general best practices with regards to levels designing asset use ect.

So a fine line to walk and it isn't going to be a popular with most, reasonable restrictions and limitations should apply and currently there is an argument to be made that it is fine as it is now and likely as well as in the future. The general engine hasnt even been remotely optimized to consider expanding the size.

I am erring on the side of caution which most will not like, but it is pretty fair and reasonable.

Well if the tree system gets sorted out as they are working on at present hopefully the trees wont be an issue

I have no delusions to the tasks that to get a larger world requires some. Extremely cunning experience programming and techniques.
I Can only Go on Lees comments and what he has said and thats pretty much what I go with. He says it is possible but for now 5km.and i totally agree woth that. There's plenty work to do yet on 5km
As to customer limitations well i agree a 7 yr old with a game making dream wont grasp the concept of optimization and thus will only get frustrated and steam flames cometh.
I do thonk outaide the box and i think cybernessence cMe up with the possibility of breaking up the 5km to smaller pockets scattered. Possibly with basic procedural terrain n trees.
This is what i was wanting to look at when the original is Released and settled. Maybe have an advanced and basic version regards terrain. I think again its up to the tgv guys but they read the boards amd i will voice to look at expansion of size as im sure mamy will voice their concerns and wants. Like when groups was added. That was voiced and as been introduced as have other discussed ideas. Therefore extention of twrrain i will also voice. I do however respect everyones views even if i disagree as people have a right to freely speak

Anyway i agree for now 5km till its. All working and then possible brain storming

Besides the trees, rocks as well.While that is going to be nice, iam looking forward to the terrain editing tools.Can't really use max at the moment as most assets have designed relies on editing the terrain.

Hope it is going to be some thing like speed tree..

Yeah let's hope so. I am also awaiting the super terain tools to place whats needed.
And even the physics have upped their game. So i checked a high poly tree from tgc collection amd changed the physocs to hull convex to about 10 trees fps went up by 10
This is early. Days and im on pretty much an old. Minimum 970 so i am. Optimistic

Regarding the size of the map compared to released games, 5km is a lot bigger than you would have though, for example, World of Warcraft, the whole of Eastern Kingdoms, one of the continents in WoW, is 5.8km by 14.25km, that has 29 zones or "levels" which means their levels are way smaller than our playable area individually, the only real difference being you don't have to load between them because the server is streaming the data as you play so by the time you reach the edge of a zone it's already loaded the next one and it feels seamless. But what i'm trying to say is hat taken individually each of WoW's zones when you are playing inside them actually feel pretty big, and individally they're a lot smaller than the area we have to use.

Belidos that's what i thought the original plan was back in prototype terrain days with nodes and loading. But I am sure the is plenty of game area indeed and i do love it but i was wondering if that is possible what they do, a smooth transition at the edges of 5km or even a 4km or 3km area. Thats what i thought was happening tbh through the entire working on terrain. it was viewed in a basic terrain vid early on. But we have a box and load system at present there is plenty of room to load and unload in the background or at least experiment with
If they unlock the larger worlds they will of hit the jackpot here.

Its not all about wow or skyrim or dungeons or city zombie shoot me. There are possibilities for flight and space and even boats or ships racing etc.
I think how many view things at present is to me like saying is vr really needed as we need to fill a 5km with items and it will never work so they should leave out vr. also is multiplayer ever needed too if it is make it a. 0.2km area as it doesnt need anymore than that as it looks big and doesnt require anymore. This is many views 5km is big yes but for a lot of genres its not big enough or not laid out to work well unless they change the way its laid out ie 5km x 5km or 2km x 12.5km or something to that or 5 x 1kmx1km placed about a larger map
There are options and i think they are worth exploring as will all the want a larger game world people who want to
And as do vr and multiplayer.
Im not throwing my rattle out the pram i jus hope they can look at it seriously and view if it can work and when they have completed the phase 1 and got many more achieved priorities can look into how maps and worlds an be created or set up

Don't forget there may be many games out there, its kinda unfair to apply that logic to gameguru or any game engine for that matter.
Not a single game engine whether unreal or unity or whichever engine out there is suited or does all game types well. Applying a one size fits all to gameguru isn't fair, as gameguru isn't flexible enough for most game types and the ones that were there wasn't particular well rounded either.

Implying if we had infinite terrain we could make a space exploring game, or a flying simulation , doesnt actually make it possible, you can only do so much with lua, after which you would need to start address to underlining code to make certain things possible.It a bit unfair to say if we had this and not consider what else would be needed to make a certain type of game bar the terrain.

Certain game types simply isn't possible in gameguru and certain game types simply doesnt have enough flexibility in the core code to make some thing worth while.

So it is fair to say that certain game types isn't worth doing due to lack of support irrespective whether or not you have near infinite skybox or whatever, people are going to try it anyways regardless whether or not it is worth doing or looks good enough.

For example if you going to try and create a RPG 3rd person game, you are going to fail miserably as there is zero code support for that in max at present. First version is going to have FPS support only and will be the focus even after release for some time. It could be another 8 months before fantasy/RPG is considered. If you aren't aware the current assets for max is pretty much FPS and modern day support only.

Max is going to focus strictly on the first 3 game types for some time, and I would hazard a guess it won't have the same openness classic had with regards to the different game types you could attempt.Just think it is a bit unfair to argue for game types that might actually never happen or perform poorly or lack the needed engine support.

I am not against increasing the terrain size, I am against increasing the terrain size just because, and the current state the software is in and attempting to do what classic did and try and be jack of all trades which it failed miserably at.Even Lee admitted to it being a problem hence the narrow focus and Lee has mentioned it a couple of times that the focus for max is going to be strict and pretty narrow other game type is a big maybe.Keep that in mind, not to count your chickens before they hatched.

Well what ever happens im happy with the new engine i personally want to do rpg game and looking at horse riding and magic carpets etc. So the more distance the better but if it is not possible then i will have to go old school area with loading. But lets see what happens. Im under no illusions about the length of time to get the shooting amd then rpg etc. Look forward to seeing it all. And if it is larger brilliant if not then it's not the end of the world just have to load it in

But i will always champion larger worlds
Because it really would help to make what i wish to do. So i have reason for it to happen. i was looking at the other potential gaming from if you had larger spaces and of course more options more people.
I totally agree to ficus on shooter always said that. Gg was ruined due to the madness of its ideas and manpower. Was never gonna happen amd i dont want that never said i did. I said it should be at least pondered when the release is out. And he has discussed this on the old videos. Remember this thread is a few speaking for the masses. And as I say when the major stuff is completed why not look to see what can be done. It is miles away yet i see that and on most of my posts insay when they are done. Its unfair to say im demanding 10000 of other things. Im jus wantimg and i think a large amount of people would benefit from it.
I think the debate is a good sensible debate and i see both fair and unfair reasons from both sides. However i will leave it here now and i will jus +1 to anymore bigger terrain threads. If im told its not possible from lee then i will humbly accept it and that will be it. But i have always stood firm to what i believe in and i believe that it should be properly looked at by tgc not amyone else.

Anyway nice to have a good view from all sides

+1 larger terrain

Sb

Yeah no problem

Biggest issues I have currently with wanting to increasing the terrain size, is basically every thing is being render. There is zero optimizing code to deal with objects in the far distance, with the exception of the terrain it self, which has a decent system in place to deal with distant rendering of terrain geometry.

You may not be aware, but wicked engine has no native support for camera clipping plane, either near or far. Object clipping plane essentially excludes objects from being drawn entirely freeing up a bit of resources in the process.Which is a huge problem for max especially if you want to increase the terrain size.Because of the new rendering system we have both shadow draw calls and polygon draw calls.

Based on the resolution of shadows you set, shadow draw calls will bring even the mightiest system to its knees, the realtime dynamic lighting system doesn't allow for shadows to automatically drop the resolution based on camera distance, only has draw distance, whether 1km or 100m away, the resolution of shadows remain exactly the same.

Right now you biggest enemy is going to deal with and keep the shadow draw calls in check.The way the system has been setup, is completely anti "open world" or large terrain areas. This isn't some thing that can be change or modified easily, any changes made to the core wicked engine source code will have consequences, like incompatibilities with future version of the wicked engine. so you would need to either isolate the code from the main engine and treat it as a plugin to the main engine.

You would likely need to update the engine and the specific added code every time you update to a new version of the wicked engine, and probably introduce a lot of bugs all over again.

Right now the wicked source code is in hospitable to certain elements you need and for specific optimization you need for large terrain areas or for specific game types.

The cons of course of having a fixed smaller terrain area is that, would won't be able to get a seamless transfer of level design, terrain and object loading between levels like you would with example a game like skyrim as an example.While the entire skyrim game area has been broken up in chunks that can be easily loaded and unloaded as you approach the boundary of the section you were in. Max lacks many optimizations in this regard.It kinda puts you between a rock and a hard place.

You would definitely need things like draw distance, being able to create a level that can be automatically be broken up by the engine into smaller chunks to be rendered as needed, the list essentially goes on and on with regards to what is needed to keep the frame rate in check as needed and keep an eye on the min system requirements.

Max also uses a 3rd party rendering engine with quite a bit of other stuff as well, not related to the rendering system, which limits the actual overall control you have over how things work compared to having written your engine from the ground up like classic. So there is limitations on the direct control lee has on the engine overall.Obviously lee has made plenty of changes to the base wicked source code for things like terrain, physics ect. But you end up running the risk of the more you tinker with the base code, the harder and more time consuming integration will be with future versions of the engine.

As mentioned before and the latest broadcast there is currently no method to clip buildings to enable working inside of them, like we had in classic which makes things quite hard.I have recommended to lee after the broadcast to use the the camera clipping plane, when setup this will allow editing inside of buildings by clipping walls by using the camera clipping plane distance by using the clipping plane.

Lee accepted this solution as it doesn't interfere with the shaders as mentioned by lee in the latest broadcast, however there is no native clipping plane support and lee has two options in this regard either use add a clipping plane, or repurposed the reflection camera clipping plane to allow editing inside of buildings.Lee him self has opened a request for this on github so you can go check it out, if you want.

The bigger issue is that the wicked engine is mostly vanilla, when it comes to certain things we have become accustom to in classic especially with regards to what game types can be supported.

It is a rather complex issue, then simply increasing the terrain size definitely a fine balance that needs to be walked as any additions could potentially not work as intended or degrade performance, or introduce a lot of bugs in the process.We almost heading for the start of the 3rd year of development of max and barely made it to the first version, and very little has been done to currently reign in the performance.
To be honest the terrain performance is still quite horrid, terrain physics while working is still degrading performance by quite a large margin.There hasn't been nearly enough testing with regards to creating an actual level within 5km space to see how performance and engine reacts to a fully fledged level.

Definitely a problematic issue, as there is no evidence to support even the current 5km area having decent performance, let alone increasing the size.

It is definitely an interesting subject to talk about personally have a lot of concerns with regards to even the current editable area. Once you dig a little deeper, and seeing actually how much is actually missing from the product even for the first release next month.You have to wonder is it even a good idea to release it next month, I think again they are rushing it and under pressure to release some thing, that I feel is quite a bit unrefined and probably not going to go down well on steam.Definitely not a pessimist, but we have been down this road before and feels likes we heading down that road again.

I think it is also difficult to explain why terrain increase at this point or even in future might not be the best idea ever, have to laugh here it is probably confusing for most why I am against it, it is definitely not a simple matter of increasing the size and job done.You will have to apply performance systems in order to do it and that doesn't even exist currently even for the editable area we have now.

Yeah they may need to postpone max for this year otherwise a doomed life cometh

Just out of interest how do the other big engines deal with " working on interiors "
I have only really used Leadwerks which although a different mapping system you still have to zoom in to work on anything indoors although you can hide walls etc if you need to ?
But its more like modelling than drag and drop so completely different system.

Not entirely. I completely hate it when people refer to level editors as being like modeling software. It's not even remotely close to the same, while level designing has come along way and is definitely inspired by modeling software.

How it is used is still significantly different that you can't confuse the two. Level editors these days do have some level of convex and concave mesh support, but it isn't nearly as complex as what you can achieve with a model editor. Edge/point/face manipulation is a lot more refined and a lot more functional for one. It doesn't employ convex and or concave restrictions in the traditional sense, this is because modeling software doesn't necessarily rely on the physics system it employs.

While you can do physics simulations in modeling software you can essentially create a custom system, and generally the more powerful the software the more realistic the end result, software like maya, max, softimage, blender has super powerful systems, and more often then not the physics system can be manipulated as a animation and frame by frame.

Level editor can definitely do primitive creation and manipulation of the primitives up to a point, but it isn't nearly as functional and refined as you would get with a model editor. While the two do share some DNA it is mostly still like mixing oil and water.

As for editing interiors, level editors camera system is a lot more refined and functional then gameguru could hope to be, it allows meshes or faces created by primitive to be hidden, it is a much easier task in other engines in general. Same applies to models that are imported.
While some models are imported as a complete finished model.Most engines like unity and unreal uses a hybrid system of mixing primitives and imported models to construct levels.If your levels require a office building, considering it has a lot of flat walls/ceilings/floors it can be created by the use of primitives which allows hiding faces as needed and mixing with imported models.

Designing an interior level in unreal and in gameguru is a lot different, as gameguru relies on constructing interior levels out of models entirely, while you could in max now group a bunch of meshes together to create the final interior design. It doesn't have nearly as refined performance and rendering systems in place like in unity or unreal.

To be blunt gameguru doesn't use close to industry standards as you would expect and while it has functionality you come to expect from other software it is pretty restrictive and mostly a child like in what it can do compared to the big boys.While max has improved in that regard and being a lot more functional with regards to editing, it doesn't have nearly enough freedom/flexibility and functionality.

It is a bit of a catch22 in that in order to retain the moniker or "easy game creator" there is definitely some more advance editing and level design techniques you have to forgo.

What is definitely sad, because of the use of the wicked engine it already has the underlining code to be able to use and render primitives in the software, wicked engine does have it's own editor and the wicked source code definitely has the ability to allow max to create and render primitive creation and editing. Max decided not to use the functionality already present, it is what has made it possible to create composite entities in max now. If you were to assume lee had to reinvent the wheel to allow this, you would be somewhat wrong as it has mostly likely had the underline code already there and just needed to connect it to editor and make it functional and make changes as needed.

This is what somewhat frustrates me at times, rest of the world does it this way and gameguru tells the rest no we will go this way and meet you somewhere in the middle.Max really does have the ability to create and edit primitives like any other engine it has the underlining support and source code in order to implement it with their own editor without much issue. But they again chose not to do it.

Lee's take on this has always been I am not looking to create a model editor and is quite stubborn in this regard, a pity really as he does have a golden opportunity to implement a system of primitive creation and editing, but he choosing not to and resisting and fighting tooth and nail not to do it. It is mostly likely going to end up with a string of bad reviews due to using a lot of none standard industry practices.

You could theoretically increase your reach and appeal to more developers a 100 fold but again, no we do it this way. lol

Over the years i have used Q3 Radiant for Quake, GTK radiant, Uber Radiant for Elite force and Hammer for Half-Life and i was pretty adept with this type of editor. One trick we used back then was indeed for creating items and converting them to .ase models to use within our levels so ye creating levels by manipulating brushes as you would in a Model editor is very similar to what i do when modelling now but of course its not as complex but we are talking 20 years ago.

It is the reason why I like the model editors that use the older style of 4 window mode, you use to find in hammer and such I loath max with a passion, even blender with the widget menu. Started out in the late 90's with game development dabbling a bit with pie in sky game engine, eventually switch over to gamestudio in 1999 and worked on that on off for a few years it was actually till 2004 when I switched to hammer and FPSC classic that I took things a but more serious and actively start with model creation. So I am pretty old school with regards to software styles I like and use.

Just more productive for me with that type of layout even leadwerks has that old school feel and use. Very few here will know when we talk about the old BSP system, it was pretty much the rage back in the day.Been a long long, long time never actually expected that modeling and level design would end up being my primary focus. Haven't actually created a game in many many, many years a couple of demo levels, like the big escape and morning mountain stroll ect. Sadly don't have the funding or time to sit down for a year or two and create a fully fledged game. Mostly have a week or two before the next project. Currently in the middle of another TGC top secret project, for additional special assets. Some indoor stuff for a change

Hammer has been upgraded to Hammer++, it comes with a lot of interesting tools, such as the clipping tool (among others) using some sort of slice tool. It uses 4 windows on the viewport (the editor). Most of those tools could be on the wishes list when GGMax is being done.
https://ficool2.github.io/HammerPlusPlus-Website/

+1 larger terrain

Lol thanks for the laugh :p

aside from simply hiding entire layers (which is the best method for modular builds) you can set the near view of the camera so it'll intersect objects - the near view camera cheat i expect Preben could replicate easily enough in Max.

https://github.com/TheGameCreators/GameGuruRepo/issues/1434

actually that is exactly what I suggested to lee and has been added to github.As explained earlier in the thread wicked engine doesn't have a camera clipping plane at all only for reflections.Has been assigned to lee so, he is the one that will be doing it most likely.The beauty of this method it will work at any height and direction and doesnt require shaders to be edited to allow it either.

additionally having a clipping plane for rendering means you can actually apply this in game and has some thing similar to skyrim using the far view of the clipping plane to reduce drawing distance.Lee has is plate full so not sure that it will make it in the first version one can only hope.

WOI
No problem

@smallg @WOI
Sounds good to me
I hope we get a system like this sooner rather than later

Hello
Great discussion guys a lot of good points here. I'm sure that most people will be happy with 5k. Just thought I would ask guess this means no.

Shiver they aint TGC they are foruum member's voicing their opinions as are you and i. They have no say in the game engines direction if the directors have a plan. They only voice as users. Wether freelancer or mod or user. Its a forum. LEE has the finalnsay not others on here.

+1 larger (reachable) terrain

My interest is to be able to explore by flying or sailing the 'infinite' terrains that Max does so well, total shame if it is only there to provide a really high quality view - though that is nice.

Cheers.

This one was kind of answered by Lee himself really in the 4th post ..
More of a Lets see what happens rather than a definite No.

https://forum.game-guru.com/thread/223059?page=1#msg2643888

Well, I would say there's pretty much zero chance for first official release personally, the incredible slowdown at present is pretty bad for some people. Even people who are still getting 60 fps with a blank map, will find they have issues when adding stuff in at some point dependant on their hardware. In fact the last update or so, as far as I can see, has reduced the size again. Used to be able to make a 5kmx5km map, now it snaps back to 2.5x2.5, wasn't like that in the first terrain update a few weeks back.

Here I have dragged the slider all the way to the right (5km).

Here I have let go of the slider and it automatically snaps back to 2.5.

So I'm pretty sure we may not even get 5km by the end of November, never mind bigger. Not unless there are massive gains in speed across the board. We may know more later today hopefully.

DVader as i expected it to not be more than 5km. not near that yet, i think there is a lot of things going on in the background and im sure the physics is one of the biggest drains at present. once that is solved and sped up which it will there i am sure going to be dramtic shifts. i sampled a few trees on tree collision and i got 30fps then i put them to c hull and gained 10 fps, i am sure there will be some huge changes a few leaks fixed and other concerns but at present i think the main problem is physics from personal testing anyway.
once this as all been sorted i think then he can maybe look into the extension