Well, I am working on a route, and it didn't take long for a major problem to occur. The minor cliffs that you can jump down from in the game make building the route nearly impossible.

In the games, there is no noticable elevation difference between below the cliff and above it. The problem is not where the cliff is. It is what the relative elevation of any given square is.

Imagine two steps. They are adjacent. They both are occupied by trees. They appear to be at the same elevation, the tops of the trees are at the same height, along with the bottom of the trunks. However, just south of the eastern one, but not in it, there is a cliff. That should make it so that one of them is higher than the other, but it doesn't.

Something very similar to that example can be seen due west of New Bark Town, literally just steps away.

Another problem with the cliffs is not as step to step. If you built the cliffs as is, Cherrygrove city would be higher in elevation than New Bark Town, when both of them should be at sea level.

So the question is: How do you acount for the cliffs?

Though it would result in a low degree of quality, I have considered not even having the cliffs. Some cities would be lower in elevation than they should be, but it would be quite easy to build.

The other option requires making up where the elevation differences are. However, this option is bordering impossible, and would result in parts of it not looking right.

There really is no good option to this problem. If you have any ideas, then please say them. As for now, I won't be able to build until I decide how I'm going to build it.
Permalink

Oh wow. Didn't see that one coming. I guess there are two choices to take here. We could either make cliffs and then have to make up for it by sloping parts of the nearby area, or we could simply put brown plates down as markers for these paradox-causing frustrations. Either one is bound to look less than ideal.
Permalink

Though it be somewhat lacking in acuracy, I think it would be best to not have them at all, because if you just make up where the slope is supposed to be, it looks kind of wierd. It would not be as acurate, but it wouldn't look bad. The markers as you suggested, would just look bad (sorry!).

It is important to note that I am only talking about the small ones. The large ones are very easy to tell where the slope is.
Permalink

I think you're probably right, but it seems a shame to just cut them out completely. If anyone finds a way to make them work without having to make some major revisions, don't hesitate to share.

One more option that I just thought of would be to have the elevation change be very small. Only one plate's thickness even. That way, the slope to make up for it could be just a plate of a different color, or even some tiles.
Permalink

I have tried that technique, but I am not sure I am going to use it. I have posted pictures on my homepage
http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/66228
As you can see, having the tall grass be a block has its disadvantages. I may have to come up with a better way of doing it, since by using this idea it makes the tall grass taller than the cliff. Regardless, please tell me what you think.

And yes, it would be a shame to just cut them. That is why im even CONSIDERING other options
Permalink

I really like how the cliffs turned out. The blocks for grass, however, really don't cut it. Aren't there grass pieces in LDD? If there aren't, that's even more of a bummer than not having cliffs.
Permalink

Yeah, I think I'll use that cliff method. THANK YOU. Oh, and by the grass pieces do you mean the flower ones? Because I hadn't thought about using those 'till now...
Permalink

Yes, but without the flowers. ;)
Permalink