|
This part is not a BasePart.
For one, its anchored.
It also has no Velocity, Size or Single Position.
Instead, it has 3 Vector3 values. One for each corner.
Before going '3 Vector3's? More lag than normal Parts!' think of this:
Parts have 4:
Position
Velocity
RotVelocity
Size
They also have CFrames, which these dont.
Also, they only have 2 Faces.
If an object has its Face set to anything apart from top/bottom, they just wont show (OR they will show on the Top).
Uses: Maps. Do you want a basic flat brick with some spherical hills or CFramed ramps? Or maps containing hills of gradual slopes, craters, more 3D? Like the maps from games like Halo, Call of Duty and other great games?
These objects will also cause less lag on the Rendering engine and possibly Physics engine. Although they might need to have a PHYSICAL thickness of 0.4 studs, they can be rendered as a 2D Shape (Only 2 triangles per object in oppose to the 12 triangles of a part (More if beveled)). They also are not Anchored, have no CFrame, have no Velocity, have no RotVelocity, have no Size, Have no [Front/Back/Left/Right][ParamA/ParamB/SurfaceInput/Surface]
Nor will they have Shape, formFactor, ResizableFaces or ResizeIncrement.
True, in order to produce these shapes some maths is needed but it really wont be much, and it can be saved in it so it doesnt need to re-calculate every [...] seconds.
In order to produce squares you just need to put two of these together, and you can make quite complex shapes (Triange-Based Pyramid, Pentagon, Hexagon, Octagon) quite easily.
TL;DR: 2D anchored Triangles that lag less than bricks, have 3 Positions (One for each corner) and allow building maps easier. |
|
MeriadocJoin Date: 2008-09-24
Post Count: 710 |
Good idea.
Although I doubt we'll get a building update any time soon. =/
Anyway, support. |
|
|
|
NOBODY wants good places? |
|
|
If you read but dont post you failololol. |
|
TelamonJoin Date: 2007-01-30
Post Count: 3614 |
Interesting idea. We'll probably do something like this in the future. |
|
IwataniJoin Date: 2008-03-13
Post Count: 6866 |
Support!
We need building updates. ROBLOX, STOP US FROM BECOMING A SOCIAL NETWORK!!! |
|
|
Im suprised. This got noticed without more than 2 pages of support :D.
Anyways, Support form me :P. |
|
apokoJoin Date: 2010-08-06
Post Count: 24480 |
Support. It would be good for doors ect... |
|
|
Doors? Lol, triangle doors.
And Telamon either likes it, or doesnt want me to feel bad. |
|
|
|
|
Some unique shaped like a triangle sounds cool. But yeah, probably no building updates for a while. |
|
|
I forgot. We had our update of the half year... |
|
|
scubameJoin Date: 2008-08-31
Post Count: 78 |
Good idea! |
|
|
|
for i = 1,2 do
Instance.new("WedgePart", Workspace)
end
Aww, they can't make awesome angles and stuff D:
(support) |
|
|
I was thinking of 2 WedgeParts together, but they are not suitable for large projects (Each part SHOULD cause more lag than a single Triangle) |
|
|
Hmm I read it and I did not understand. Are you saying that ROBLOX should add a Triangle block? One the lines up correctly? |
|
|
Its not REALLY a part - It has 3 positions, no size, mabye no Velocity, only 2 faces (Or surfaces) and its anchored... |
|
|
Post... Falling... Must... Keep... It up... |
|
kension19Join Date: 2008-01-17
Post Count: 6964 |
The only thing I've got to say is yes. |
|
|
Like. Until then just put 2 wedges side by side, facing eachother :3 |
|
|
That will cause MUCH more lag than triangles. And Triangles can produce a wider range of shapes easier. |
|