Asset Block modification?

[BoostedFridge]

I'm pretty sure I'm asking for something that can't be done here, but I'm going to ask anyways.

Is there a way to get the scenery assets selected in an asset block to appear at a height lower than ground level? ie: as opposed to a grass or bush asset appearing with its base at ground level, and displaying the entire height of the asset, I would like only 3/4 of the asset to appear above ground level.

I'm assuming there has to be some instruction in the blueprint for the asset block itself that tells the scenery assets to contour to ground level. I'm hoping there is a way to modify the height above ground level that it tells the scenery asset to be placed at.


I'm trying out a different technique on the Siskiyou for speeding up scenery placement, but I'm not really happy with the results.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

[buzz456]

You want to semi permanently assign this asset to be below grade right?

[buzz456]

Sink asset.jpg

[BoostedFridge]

That is exactly the effect I am going for, but something about the 'Asset Block' asset itself prevents the offset function from working with it. I'm guessing that there is something in the blueprint for it that does that. Just a guess though.

Asset Block Offset Woes.jpg

[mrennie]

You could try making a new asset, based on the existing one, that has its base at a y-axis value of less than zero, so that when it's placed in the scenery, it will appear to sprout from below ground even though the editor thinks it's placing it at ground level.

For my new route, I've come up with a different idea for getting around the problem of the grass sticking out of the side of hills and looking like it's floating in mid air. I've made a clump of grass that is made up of just three viewer-facing faces instead of the dozen or so in the usual grass asset, so that it has a much smaller circumference of ground footprint. I pack more of them than usual into the asset block, which doesn't adversely affect frame rates because of the grass having far fewer faces. The smaller footprint circumference allows the grass to hug the ground much more closely when it's laid over undulating ground and hills, giving a much more natural effect.

[BoostedFridge]

For my new route, I've come up with a different idea for getting around the problem of the grass sticking out of the side of hills and looking like it's floating in mid air. I've made a clump of grass that is made up of just three viewer-facing faces instead of the dozen or so in the usual grass asset, so that it has a much smaller circumference of ground footprint. I pack more of them than usual into the asset block, which doesn't adversely affect frame rates because of the grass having far fewer faces. The smaller footprint circumference allows the grass to hug the ground much more closely when it's laid over undulating ground and hills, giving a much more natural effect.

That is exactly what I'm going for. Tomcat does this on his Powder River Basin route using a single grass clump asset, and the effect works out quite well. The RWA Lakeside assets which are a dependency for my route have a similar base asset, but the grass is a little tall for my liking. If I could lower the asset block though, I could use not only these assets, but the Donner Pass scrub bush assets as well, which are prominently featured in large areas of my route.

You could try making a new asset, based on the existing one, that has its base at a y-axis value of less than zero, so that when it's placed in the scenery, it will appear to sprout from below ground even though the editor thinks it's placing it at ground level.

Interesting. I'll give this a try. Is it as simple as copying the existing asset, then renaming it in its bin file, and associated files? Are the X,Y values for an asset in the bin file to be modified, or do I have to create a 'new' asset in the blueprint editor?

[mrennie]

Interesting. I'll give this a try. Is it as simple as copying the existing asset, then renaming it in its bin file, and associated files? Are the X,Y values for an asset in the bin file to be modified, or do I have to create a 'new' asset in the blueprint editor?

I did it simply by adjusting the y-axis of the group centre in the source model before exporting it to the igs file. I can't see anything in the scenery blueprint for adjusting the height above ground (track blueprints have such a thing, but not scenery assets). There's nothing for adjusting it in the asset block either.

I think the only solution is to use smaller clumps of grass. Even if you could make the editor put the (larger) clumps a short distance below ground level, for those clumps placed on a steep hillside, by the time you got it so that none of the individual parts were floating most of the other parts of the clump would be buried inside the hill, defeating the purpose.

On the Cheyenne 1869 route, I spent a lot of time placing individual medium-sized clumps on the hillsides and individually tilting each of them to more closely hug the terrain. It's very painstaking work.

[mrennie]

Another possibility is to edit the texture of the tall grass to make it shorter.

[buzz456]

That is exactly the effect I am going for, but something about the 'Asset Block' asset itself prevents the offset function from working with it. I'm guessing that there is something in the blueprint for it that does that. Just a guess though.

Asset Block Offset Woes.jpg

With what you pictured there did you place both these guys after you changed the asset value? I've done this a lot and never had it refuse to do it.

[BoostedFridge]

With what you pictured there did you place both these guys after you changed the asset value? I've done this a lot and never had it refuse to do it.

Yes. Any assets placed after changing the offset value adhered to that setting. The exception being the asset block. I feel this has something to do with its 'terrain following' programming.

On the Cheyenne 1869 route, I spent a lot of time placing individual medium-sized clumps on the hillsides and individually tilting each of them to more closely hug the terrain. It's very painstaking work.

I hear you there. That's how I've been placing all of my ground cover scenery assets, which is why its been taking forever to get my route done. Its not so bad in mostly level terrain (I still adjust all the large assets), but its a real drag on hillsides.