Its a real shame that huge buildings are so poorly optimized. Just imagine the possibilities of big generated structures. I really hope that is the one thing they will work on for the last biom! There need to be HUGE fortresses to really make use of all the new siege weapons and it would make sense for the progression!
It's not just building. Currently the game is horrible in multiplayer for everyone except the chunk host at any given time. Desync and lag make precision-intensity combat system feel horrible and extremely difficult to engage with. When there were 3 or more of us, the only way it was playable was spamming blood magic simply because the AI does not suffer from these issues the way the players do. The lack of optimization ruins the experience.
Thank you so much, you took the words RIGHT out of my mouth and I guess a lot of other people's. And I have to add: Your Castle project looks absolutely MARVELOUS! I showed some footage to my hubby and he's in love ^^ Please never stop making these bautiful buildings and projects :) Let's hope Iron Gate sees this video and takes it to heart. Valheim deserves it! ✊
I noticed this weird random floor pieces breaking in one of my builds. I thought I had made supports equal on all sides, yet there were still some blocks that always broke, but only on one side. Great vid showcasing what happens at the max height!
here are my thoughts on this as a game developer i assume that the stability system's primary goal isnt to be a hinderance to what you can build but instead to instill very, very early on that there will be build limitations. and i think these build limitations exist because of how poorly optimised the game is. making huge structures really pushing what you can do in valheim without "cheating" in some way will result in your game dropping to an unplayable frame rate. the idea that the stability system exists because of the poor optimisation surrounding high instance builds would explain why it as a system is "broken" of all the games i can think of that impose a stability system, they all have optimisation issues if you bypass the stability system in some way, i wont go out and claim that stability systems only exist because of poor optimisation, but it definitely tracks in valheims case
Considering how hard it is to get flametal (traveling to Ashlands, endure the relentless creature attacks then survive the sinking mechanics) I was totally devastated to find that the stability was only on par with Iron - higher areas leading to better materials should lead to stronger construction and stability. I wanna build a skyscraper but all I can manage is a mediocre mansion :( Needs a rework for sure!
The easiest way I found a create a skyscraper is in the plains where you have those giant stone fingers that stand up around the place. Those are considered a grounded elements so you could build a spiral staircase all the way to the top, and then start building a platform, and then vertical from there. It’s the only way I can think of to get a massive, grounded core inside of a building. You just have to remember that that gigantic rock pillar is destructible so if it takes too much damage, it will crumble. But if you built structure 360° around it and it shielded, then you should never have an issue with getting attacked and falling down.
This is a fantasy Viking game, and I don't think Iron Gate expected people to build skyscrapers. not saying you shouldn't, but it's going over the games limit.
I am a software developer (not games but code is code) and I will say this: Making simple rules is usually preferrable. However your solution has one practical flaw and that is when players use mixed parts. A developer has to then make a decision on how those rules are treated. Do we say if the parts are grounded and we are using material that is structurally more stable and then we are trying to add a piece from less stable material, then for those pieces it follows their own stability thresholds or do we follow the stronger piece? If so, do we then treat the base of the highest inserted stronger piece as ground zero status for the less stable pieces or do we do some kind of arithmetic calculation? Your videos testing and commentary is on point. The math beind the stability algorithm is definitely broken, there are no questions about it. There needs to be clear predictable rules, especially those who don't use cheats, a broken system is simply bad.
Thank you for your comment and like I said in the video I’m not a game dev and I don’t know how to make games. But I just want this to change and made a bit easier to understand. But thank you for your comment and you are probably right.
As far as I can tell, the oddity around some pieces falling and others staying up at the limit of integrity has something to do with the order of instance update as the integrity calculations are made. Basically, it has to check each piece in a string in order, but whenever you have more than one support with an equal number of previous parts in the chain then it has to prioritise one over the other/s and this leads to uneven outcomes at the very limits. I've been pushing the integrity to it's limits with various materials for quite some time now, and I've found the system works perfectly until you get to the last 5% or thereabouts, so the problems you're talking about are only really an issue at all when you are working at the very extremes of what is possible. I'm not saying there aren't any problems, but I AM saying the problems which are there only really affect those few people who like to push to the absolute maximum. The idea of making basic rules for 'x material goes this high' are flawed the moment you look at mixed materials, what if I want to use stone, marble AND grausten in my build? Which limit do I adhere to and how do I decide what happens if I put grausten on top of stone? The second trouble is in changing the system as it currently works, because if any changes cause existing structures to collapse due to new rules then the devs will get SO MUCH negative feedback it'll totally counteract any positivity they might get from the small number of people who will appreciate a slightly more robust rule system for extreme builds. Again, I'm not saying Iron Gate shouldn't rework integrity, I'm merely pointing out how careful they need to be in order to avoid a whole heap of backlash. Ultimately, I find the system we currently have to be a bit quirky at times, but I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as to say it's broken, for the vast majority of builds it is entirely fine and very predictable, we just need the physics tightened up a bit at the extremities. I do agree that flametal beams should have greater stability than woodiron, I also think that whenever you have a metal part holding position you should be able to place a stone/marble/grausten part on it at the same integrity rating (this would mean if you can get the frame up in one piece you don't have to worry about whether or not the stone cladding will hold). Regardless of the above, this is a great video highlighting some of the integrity issues some of us have been battling for a long, long time now. I do dream of the day I can stop hiding pine trees and earthen pillars inside my builds just to create the things in my head, but honestly those tricks are still gonna get used if the integrity system gets tightened up, those of us who cannot help but build as big as possible will keep doing so, the only thing which will change is the height we eventually have to stop at. EDIT: Typos, my fingers hate me today
From my understanding (and i could be wrong), there are 2 types of calculations happening for the stability system. Vertical and horizontal calculations. They each start off from a specific point expanding outward, idk for sure how that point is selected tho. Which explains the random breaking to an extent. There are some conflicts to the system where the walls break but floors stay (in previous game patches, you were able to trick stone floors into staying up by disrupting the calculation system by placing an iron cage inside them even if they weren't grounded - this cage trick was fixed) there seem to be some new conflicts similar to the cage one with the new build pieces. I looked into doing a deep dive on the stability system but decided not to until 1.0, because of there being tons of tweaks being done/yet to be done. Imo, I wouldn't change the stability system because it is what makes Valheim build system unique. The inconsistencies can be ironed out tho, which i fully agree with. I'd also wait for Irongate to finish the game first, as when ever the unity engine is updated and they port the game to the new update there are various new code issues; take the turnip on item stands for instance. You can't place the turnip on item stands post Ashlands because of a code issue and its not an intentional thing. There is also the mobs running away (like proper running away and not the circle dance thing) issue, which is another one due to unity engine updates. etc there are tons more issues like that. Altho i do get the frustration for awesome builders like you (:
This. Also, if the system would calculate immediately there probably would not be any weird conflicts because those individual pieces would break before laying down the next one.
I think you headed the right direction here, but I don't think there are two separate calculations. Two separate *stability checks* yes, but not two separate calculations. I tried to explain what I think is happening in a comment above before I saw your post. I'd be interested in your thoughts on my theory.
@@Mad5cout I guess you could say 2 stability checks, and I read through your theory it could be whats happening, the equation could be messed up indeed. Altho there is another oddity with the system not explored in this video but i've personally experienced it. When you place a vertical beam and start placing beams horizontally from it they break at a certain distance (i can't remember the exact number it breaks at), then when you extend that vertical beam 1 higher you can go further horizontally before the beams break; as you keep extending the vertical beam higher you can go longer with horizontal beams i believe 4th high vertical beam is the longest before it then starts to break again similar to the previous ones. It goes 5, 6, 7, 8, 7, 6, 5 (not actual number of beams but just a visual of what happens to the horizontal beams); even if you remove the first 5 & 6 horizontal ones the 3rd one still goes to 7 the one above still goes to 8 they don't change. its why i figured there were 2 calculations. The support system has odd things happening cause the game was never intended to have such a system, it was a result of something else they were trying to achieve so only way to accurately check things would be to look at the unity code and see whats happening. 😅
Also, if they are going through the trouble to have calculations, then why not make it so that the foundation matters. More mass and wider foundation comes at a large material cost, but then that adds substantially to stability/height with a gradient of effect that is strongest at center of mass.
I only care about performance, and it has gotten worse. Constant stuttering and terrible fps around even a modest base size is nuts considering how low poly and low texture everything is.
Some of these outcomes can be explained by the same mathematical system. How far you can build upward and horizontally are part of a combined total maximum level of support. So right at 3:57, the reason that the one side has a broken floor piece and the other doesn't is likely the same reason as why the wall piece breaks on one side and the other doesn't = the side that has the broken floor piece is the side that is not supported from the ground up by combined grausten and iron fencing. This same calculus also explains the last bit around 8:10. Because you added a 16th floor, it subtracted that 1 block from your overall support capacity, which shortened how far out you can build the floor from the support source. The rules change a bit for unsupported stone because it will never go past 1 block from the support source without some type of beam support. Based on a cursory test, it seems like if each material has a support cost value for vertical placement (e.g., wood might be 1), there is a modifier for horizontal pieces (e.g., horizontal wood might be 1 x 1.6) and then each piece also requires a support value to be placed and not break (e.g., if we use the example numbers, say wood requires a support value of less than 9 to not break). I checked this math, BTW, and these values work for how wood-only structures behave in the game. Feasibly, the calculation might be done in a way where you have to meet a minimum support threshold and you are subtracting support value depending on how high you were.... So it might be something like the following for a wood structure: Where X = level count, Y = Support value for material type, X*Y - X*(Y*(X*0.6)) = support value. Something like that? I think? In this way, your check would be for a minimum level of support and the numbers would be quite large. So imagine something like that that also required adding a part of the equation that includes a modifier for horizontal vs vertical structures and then jam in iterations for every material as well as modifier for combined materials... The equation could get quite long. All that said, the relationship of the horizontal and vertical capacity within the overall support equation I think must be a little nonsensical right now, there are some rules that should be there that aren't, or there are some bugs in how it is being calculated. So, let's take the stone stuff at 7:18 for example. I am guessing that the game does a calculation to check if there is enough support for another vertical level and it returns a value that says "no" and something breaks. Then it does a check if it can support a horizontal stone piece with iron gate and one of two things happens: 1) the value they require is stupidly lower than required for a vertical level for that material combo and it says "yes" and doesn't break, OR 2) The game sorta has a universal rule of as long as there is X support value, you can support 1 block over for iron supported stone/marble/grausten structures as long as it is at height 15 or below or some crap like that, which is consistent with what is going on in your video right now. OR these functions could also be behaving badly if the calculations use some type of roundup/rounddown on the values that are not consistent or certain support calculations or support checks are placed in an odd spot in the overall equation. I saw odd things like that happen when I made a damage calculator for Warframe before they reported their real damage values in the tooltips. Some values would round up and others would round down with no real rhyme or reason as to why. Each damage type would be placed in a particular order of the overall damage equation. The result was sort of like a particular damage type would result in a different outcome depending on what other damage types you combined it with because of which direction the rounding went in which part of the equation... Hope that makes sense.... If that is the case here, my GUESS is that the place that, say, iron support is placed in the overall support calculation results in wild outcomes when the game checks for vertical vs horizontal support... Subbed by the way. Thank you for taking the time to test these mechanics.
We should at least be able to build 30% to 50% higher with the new pillars. The new stone walls should also provide more struture support than the older stone blocks. Once we get the north biome, if we get another pillar, it should be 80% to 100% more structure support than the iron pillar.
Hope they see this, it's been broken for years now... I have a dream that 1.0 will not only bring new content with deep north, but also a complete system overhaul. Plus all the missing pieces. I'm playing with blackmarble in a test world and, spawned dvergr guardtowers, they look so clean and perfectly built. Yes, they do, but you can't replicate these by yourself. They're made with key non-buildable pieces that you can't have. - Of course we would wanna have blackmarble corner stairs, left and right. Why don't we ?! - The 2x2 enforced block looks so good paired with regular marble, but can't have it vanilla. - Dvergr bronze head for decoration , can't have it. - Mist repeller, isn't the whole point of the Mistland to... actually push the mist away ? (this sh*tty blue bulb ain't it) I think (hope) they'll rework the UI when they deal with inventory size, and then bring all the missing pieces. _(if I was viking, and I killed a dear, and refined its leather, I would surely craft myself a purse / bag)_ 🤣
Done good points, but I think you're dead wrong on the mistlands - the point ISN'T to just push it away permanently or anything like that - it's to overcome the challenge while still having moments where you have to venture into the mist, or plan a base with proper layout OR find an area with naturally less mist (there are places that don't have areas of mist naturally)
@@ScarryHarry93 I'm not saying repel the mist anywhere you go. You're not gonna put down a workbench to build a mist repeller down, every time you walk 10m do you ? There are two Mistlands demister objects that you can't craft. They exist, they're in the game, and Dvergrs use them. It pushes the mist on a larger zone than the blue bulb thingy. Rather than putting HUNDREDS of blue bulb things where you need them, gimme access to it for my outpost, or for my sap veins, or whatever your needs are. Doesn't mean you'd put them every 10m. And even if you do, what's the harm ? We can already push the mist permanently if we want to, we just don't do it.
Although i gave up on stability a while ago with infinity hammer i totally agree! If it would be more logical and if there could be a way to theoretically build up infinitely with enough support i would maybe go back to vanilla building.
Stability system is not broken. You're just working at its limits. Iron Gate probably didn't expect people to build such massive structures that would explain the stability limit and how poorly the game runs. They could increase the stability limit, sure, but I rather they fix the poor framerate first.
Thanks for this information and your testing. They really do need to work on this some. If noticed odd things with the stability, but this really shows what is going on. Hopefully the devs will work on it.
It seems like the iron cages actually have a front and a back side, this could have an effect on your results. I believe that for any given material it has x strength which is calculated by (how many "links" until it is grounded) and how many links until it reaches a material that can actually support it, I.e. wood cant support stone.
My guess is that stability is a number and each step from the calculating piece down, modifies the stability number from the total on it's way to seek the ground. If it goes negative before reaching the ground, it deletes the piece and causes a recheck of the connected pieces, provided that it hasn't already verified the stability is valid, despite the affected piece. If the ground is not found, it automatically causes rechecks of adjacent pieces upon deletion. Also, diagonal checks count as two, since it only calculates stability from edge to edge, not corner to corner. Except in the case of roof pieces where the piece sits directly on top of another piece where the contact would be counted as a stack. That's my limited understanding of how the logic works.
I love this game. And I love your videos and your builds. I think the stability system is closer to real life than just a perfectly predictable mathematical formula. You learn in all engineering disciplines to account for uncertainties by building in some margin in your design, or risk your building, bridge, etc collapsing. Just like you suggest, stay at 14 high max, or your beautiful castle might crumble to pieces.
In my experience with huge structures (I've built a dome that I thing can't get any bigger), everything is pretty much the same everywhere, but it could take literal in game days for it to fully stabilize. Afk a few hours and come back and see if it is the same. I could build a lot higher and it would brake at the end of a long building session.
first, if you really want to be confused, try wood beams on top of the highest stone/metal structure you have made here. Secondly, each building piece after the blue foundation piece subtracts a certain percentage of stability. Different materials subtract different percentages of stability. Harder materials don't subtract as much stability percent as weaker materials. When you get to zero percent, the piece breaks.
I was already wondering. A friend and I wanted to build a castle with a high tower. I wanted to build a lot of Gothic columns and realized that there were already stability problems. (especially the Grausten-Pillars seem to have problems due to their shape?) Even with the snapping poinst. As a result, we had to pause our construction.
Try modding. It's pretty simple to ad mods once you get into it. Wear and Tear patches by Azumatt is great for building. It can turn off rain damage, but the best part is the stability rewamp. In the config file you can manually set a discount multiplier for each material. Can turn off stability mechanic as a whole. But I found it more fun and balanced just to double the build height and fine-tune around those parameters. Height Map Unlimited is also pretty good to extend how much you can terraform.
8:05 I am curious if the results are the same if you swap the heights. Or from other direction, if the supporting pillar already contains the difference. You could check this by adding extra height to the lower pillar, and taking a bit off the taller one.
This romantic view of the old days... is crazy.. we have never had more whealth (averages) and higher education and satisfaction.. And remember USA is not the WORLD... My society does not shit.. and have been in constant progressesion since the last centeruis.. the same with many other countries all over the world..
I really hate it that there is no logic in it. You have to Finagle, to use a word, to get somt things done. Or just completely comprimise your build. Nice vid and I completely agree, something aint right. Needs more logic!!
I mostly listened instead of watching.. and you kept measuring stuff in iron cages, but there are 1x1 and 2x2 iron cages! Which one are you measuring with?
There is clearly something broken with the stability system, but your suggestions seem to be a bit useless. I'm pretty sure the stability calculations are supposed to do exactly what you say should be done. And the ground always has to be taken into account to determine that that initial piece is blue. Still a good video though. It really illustrates that the system as it is is broken.
1) It is a survival game - the building is incidental to that. 2) the game is still in early access, give some lee-way. 3) Is there any difference if you embed your initial foundation into the terrain as opposed to having it sitting on top? 4) None of the preceding is a criticism, a devoted fan to your channel.
I disagree. The stability works for the intended gameplay loop. While the iron grate under concrete look makes sense from a modern building standing point. I believe it in fact should be removed since it's makes no sense in a viking game for build like that over the intended pillars. (I know it's a beloved feature to build like that so no hating the feature but aesthetic of it). Also there is the issue that bases being that tall server no in game function so wasting dev time on it is probably not the best option for their team.
You do know Valheim is a fantasy game with dwarfs, trolls, giant skeleton monsters and magic and you are talking about modern building stand points....
11:02 that one does't break because of the iron cage pillar it has at 4m in straight distance. Te stone on the pilars gives no support in none of your examples, it's always the iron cage. I guess most of the weirdness you pointed out are structures so at the limit that some rounding in the calculations ends deciding what happens. I personally always build a little under the limit because when you start constructions as tall as those you never know if later at the peak you would want some little extra detail that will then crumble if you aimed the limit sin e the beginning. Not to mention that any mistake with the hoe or cultivator when landscaping the terrain at the base when finishing details coul end in a catastrophe if the building is at the limit.😮
JJ the builder: make it so that: material (x) = max hight (x) + 2 if grounded = true Iron Gate: naaah... lets mess with some gravity- and Hochschild, Konstant Rosenberg constant!!!11: ℙ AΣTAQ(A)≃THH(A) G = 6,672 59 ⋅ 10 − 11 m 3 kg ⋅ s 2
Sure, so that way we can crash the game every time we put grausten on top of stone because the engine shits a brick trying to figure out wtf to do now.
Have you ever actually read the math behind building stability on the Wiki? I don't really understand what you're complaining about here - the system is sometimes counter-intuitive, but I think you would find real-life physics just as counter-intuitive if you learned it.
@@Amsterdamned88 You don't need to read a wiki to enjoy the game, but maybe do so before making a youtube video on that particular game system? He's not really providing any comprehensive alternatives in the video, I'm 100% convinced he would make a much worse system if left on his own.
@@Mortyst So you clearly didnt watch the video. He says he is not a game dev he says this is just a suggestion and he is just saying it is not FUN to make it so complex that most people dont understand it. It is not a attack on Iron Gate it is just him saying ''hey maby making it a bit simpler and easyer to understand''. Plus you yourself sayed twice now ''look up the wiki''. Since when do you need to look up a wiki to understand a videogame? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heared. If I play a videogame I jsut want to play it, learn it in the game not go on other random websites learn some math and then it still doesnt work.
Valheim's whole game mechanics system is stupid. - Have to be in a certain radius of work bench to build. - Can't use/create/repair items without work bench having a roof. - Can't mark bed as save point without a roof. - Placing items to level up work benches uses a completely different placing system than using it with it having a beam that blocks you from placing items. It should use the same radius system. Having tons of different conflicting systems based off whatever the mechanic is. As the saying goes "Keep it simple, stupid!" - The inventory system is trash using both weight and size limitations. Pick one or the other. It can't be both with how limited the slots players are given. - Inventory pick up is bad, because it doesn't place same items together putting them into multipke slots. I'll pick up my items from my tombstone and it'll waste multiple slots for the same item. I could name more, but that's off the top of my head.
Inventory pickup is a valid issue, sure. The inventory limits are a little frustrating at times but really the issue is a lack of slot expansions in the mid-late game, if I could get another row in my inventory by around about the plains then I'd be fine, the weight restriction is not an issue, it's a mechanic which makes sense and stops you from just loading up on 10 full stacks of ore and running it home. The rest of this is really just survival mechanics and a build system which deliberately limits your freedom to just spam whatever, wherever (which isn't stupid, it just requires you NOT be stupid to figure it out). I wouldn't mind having an extra 5-10% range on the bench upgrade placement since we've seen a bit of bloat on those, especially with the forge, but that's more of a 'that would be nice' thing rather than a 'this game sucks until I can do this' thing. If you really want to turn 'kid mode' on then there are a wealth of mods out there to circumvent core mechanics and make the game easier to digest, but these mechanics aren't bad just because you don't like them.
For me its the lack of optimization for the instances. Getting 60+ fps around a base even if it has 20k+ instances would be an absolute dream
Its a real shame that huge buildings are so poorly optimized. Just imagine the possibilities of big generated structures. I really hope that is the one thing they will work on for the last biom! There need to be HUGE fortresses to really make use of all the new siege weapons and it would make sense for the progression!
It's not just building. Currently the game is horrible in multiplayer for everyone except the chunk host at any given time. Desync and lag make precision-intensity combat system feel horrible and extremely difficult to engage with. When there were 3 or more of us, the only way it was playable was spamming blood magic simply because the AI does not suffer from these issues the way the players do. The lack of optimization ruins the experience.
This would be an absolute dreeeeam!
Thank you so much, you took the words RIGHT out of my mouth and I guess a lot of other people's.
And I have to add: Your Castle project looks absolutely MARVELOUS!
I showed some footage to my hubby and he's in love ^^
Please never stop making these bautiful buildings and projects :)
Let's hope Iron Gate sees this video and takes it to heart.
Valheim deserves it!
✊
I noticed this weird random floor pieces breaking in one of my builds. I thought I had made supports equal on all sides, yet there were still some blocks that always broke, but only on one side.
Great vid showcasing what happens at the max height!
here are my thoughts on this as a game developer
i assume that the stability system's primary goal isnt to be a hinderance to what you can build but instead to instill very, very early on that there will be build limitations. and i think these build limitations exist because of how poorly optimised the game is. making huge structures really pushing what you can do in valheim without "cheating" in some way will result in your game dropping to an unplayable frame rate.
the idea that the stability system exists because of the poor optimisation surrounding high instance builds would explain why it as a system is "broken"
of all the games i can think of that impose a stability system, they all have optimisation issues if you bypass the stability system in some way, i wont go out and claim that stability systems only exist because of poor optimisation, but it definitely tracks in valheims case
Considering how hard it is to get flametal (traveling to Ashlands, endure the relentless creature attacks then survive the sinking mechanics) I was totally devastated to find that the stability was only on par with Iron - higher areas leading to better materials should lead to stronger construction and stability. I wanna build a skyscraper but all I can manage is a mediocre mansion :( Needs a rework for sure!
The easiest way I found a create a skyscraper is in the plains where you have those giant stone fingers that stand up around the place. Those are considered a grounded elements so you could build a spiral staircase all the way to the top, and then start building a platform, and then vertical from there. It’s the only way I can think of to get a massive, grounded core inside of a building. You just have to remember that that gigantic rock pillar is destructible so if it takes too much damage, it will crumble.
But if you built structure 360° around it and it shielded, then you should never have an issue with getting attacked and falling down.
This is a fantasy Viking game, and I don't think Iron Gate expected people to build skyscrapers. not saying you shouldn't, but it's going over the games limit.
They should add a flametal supported ashwood beam that is the equivalent to the iron supported beam but has better support values.
I am a software developer (not games but code is code) and I will say this: Making simple rules is usually preferrable. However your solution has one practical flaw and that is when players use mixed parts. A developer has to then make a decision on how those rules are treated. Do we say if the parts are grounded and we are using material that is structurally more stable and then we are trying to add a piece from less stable material, then for those pieces it follows their own stability thresholds or do we follow the stronger piece? If so, do we then treat the base of the highest inserted stronger piece as ground zero status for the less stable pieces or do we do some kind of arithmetic calculation?
Your videos testing and commentary is on point. The math beind the stability algorithm is definitely broken, there are no questions about it. There needs to be clear predictable rules, especially those who don't use cheats, a broken system is simply bad.
Thank you for your comment and like I said in the video I’m not a game dev and I don’t know how to make games. But I just want this to change and made a bit easier to understand. But thank you for your comment and you are probably right.
As far as I can tell, the oddity around some pieces falling and others staying up at the limit of integrity has something to do with the order of instance update as the integrity calculations are made. Basically, it has to check each piece in a string in order, but whenever you have more than one support with an equal number of previous parts in the chain then it has to prioritise one over the other/s and this leads to uneven outcomes at the very limits.
I've been pushing the integrity to it's limits with various materials for quite some time now, and I've found the system works perfectly until you get to the last 5% or thereabouts, so the problems you're talking about are only really an issue at all when you are working at the very extremes of what is possible. I'm not saying there aren't any problems, but I AM saying the problems which are there only really affect those few people who like to push to the absolute maximum.
The idea of making basic rules for 'x material goes this high' are flawed the moment you look at mixed materials, what if I want to use stone, marble AND grausten in my build? Which limit do I adhere to and how do I decide what happens if I put grausten on top of stone? The second trouble is in changing the system as it currently works, because if any changes cause existing structures to collapse due to new rules then the devs will get SO MUCH negative feedback it'll totally counteract any positivity they might get from the small number of people who will appreciate a slightly more robust rule system for extreme builds. Again, I'm not saying Iron Gate shouldn't rework integrity, I'm merely pointing out how careful they need to be in order to avoid a whole heap of backlash.
Ultimately, I find the system we currently have to be a bit quirky at times, but I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as to say it's broken, for the vast majority of builds it is entirely fine and very predictable, we just need the physics tightened up a bit at the extremities. I do agree that flametal beams should have greater stability than woodiron, I also think that whenever you have a metal part holding position you should be able to place a stone/marble/grausten part on it at the same integrity rating (this would mean if you can get the frame up in one piece you don't have to worry about whether or not the stone cladding will hold).
Regardless of the above, this is a great video highlighting some of the integrity issues some of us have been battling for a long, long time now. I do dream of the day I can stop hiding pine trees and earthen pillars inside my builds just to create the things in my head, but honestly those tricks are still gonna get used if the integrity system gets tightened up, those of us who cannot help but build as big as possible will keep doing so, the only thing which will change is the height we eventually have to stop at.
EDIT: Typos, my fingers hate me today
From my understanding (and i could be wrong), there are 2 types of calculations happening for the stability system. Vertical and horizontal calculations. They each start off from a specific point expanding outward, idk for sure how that point is selected tho. Which explains the random breaking to an extent. There are some conflicts to the system where the walls break but floors stay (in previous game patches, you were able to trick stone floors into staying up by disrupting the calculation system by placing an iron cage inside them even if they weren't grounded - this cage trick was fixed) there seem to be some new conflicts similar to the cage one with the new build pieces.
I looked into doing a deep dive on the stability system but decided not to until 1.0, because of there being tons of tweaks being done/yet to be done.
Imo, I wouldn't change the stability system because it is what makes Valheim build system unique. The inconsistencies can be ironed out tho, which i fully agree with.
I'd also wait for Irongate to finish the game first, as when ever the unity engine is updated and they port the game to the new update there are various new code issues; take the turnip on item stands for instance. You can't place the turnip on item stands post Ashlands because of a code issue and its not an intentional thing. There is also the mobs running away (like proper running away and not the circle dance thing) issue, which is another one due to unity engine updates. etc there are tons more issues like that. Altho i do get the frustration for awesome builders like you (:
This. Also, if the system would calculate immediately there probably would not be any weird conflicts because those individual pieces would break before laying down the next one.
I think you headed the right direction here, but I don't think there are two separate calculations. Two separate *stability checks* yes, but not two separate calculations. I tried to explain what I think is happening in a comment above before I saw your post. I'd be interested in your thoughts on my theory.
@@Mad5cout I guess you could say 2 stability checks, and I read through your theory it could be whats happening, the equation could be messed up indeed.
Altho there is another oddity with the system not explored in this video but i've personally experienced it.
When you place a vertical beam and start placing beams horizontally from it they break at a certain distance (i can't remember the exact number it breaks at), then when you extend that vertical beam 1 higher you can go further horizontally before the beams break; as you keep extending the vertical beam higher you can go longer with horizontal beams i believe 4th high vertical beam is the longest before it then starts to break again similar to the previous ones.
It goes 5, 6, 7, 8, 7, 6, 5 (not actual number of beams but just a visual of what happens to the horizontal beams); even if you remove the first 5 & 6 horizontal ones the 3rd one still goes to 7 the one above still goes to 8 they don't change. its why i figured there were 2 calculations.
The support system has odd things happening cause the game was never intended to have such a system, it was a result of something else they were trying to achieve so only way to accurately check things would be to look at the unity code and see whats happening. 😅
Also, if they are going through the trouble to have calculations, then why not make it so that the foundation matters. More mass and wider foundation comes at a large material cost, but then that adds substantially to stability/height with a gradient of effect that is strongest at center of mass.
I only care about performance, and it has gotten worse. Constant stuttering and terrible fps around even a modest base size is nuts considering how low poly and low texture everything is.
Some of these outcomes can be explained by the same mathematical system. How far you can build upward and horizontally are part of a combined total maximum level of support. So right at 3:57, the reason that the one side has a broken floor piece and the other doesn't is likely the same reason as why the wall piece breaks on one side and the other doesn't = the side that has the broken floor piece is the side that is not supported from the ground up by combined grausten and iron fencing. This same calculus also explains the last bit around 8:10. Because you added a 16th floor, it subtracted that 1 block from your overall support capacity, which shortened how far out you can build the floor from the support source. The rules change a bit for unsupported stone because it will never go past 1 block from the support source without some type of beam support. Based on a cursory test, it seems like if each material has a support cost value for vertical placement (e.g., wood might be 1), there is a modifier for horizontal pieces (e.g., horizontal wood might be 1 x 1.6) and then each piece also requires a support value to be placed and not break (e.g., if we use the example numbers, say wood requires a support value of less than 9 to not break). I checked this math, BTW, and these values work for how wood-only structures behave in the game.
Feasibly, the calculation might be done in a way where you have to meet a minimum support threshold and you are subtracting support value depending on how high you were.... So it might be something like the following for a wood structure: Where X = level count, Y = Support value for material type, X*Y - X*(Y*(X*0.6)) = support value. Something like that? I think? In this way, your check would be for a minimum level of support and the numbers would be quite large. So imagine something like that that also required adding a part of the equation that includes a modifier for horizontal vs vertical structures and then jam in iterations for every material as well as modifier for combined materials... The equation could get quite long.
All that said, the relationship of the horizontal and vertical capacity within the overall support equation I think must be a little nonsensical right now, there are some rules that should be there that aren't, or there are some bugs in how it is being calculated. So, let's take the stone stuff at 7:18 for example. I am guessing that the game does a calculation to check if there is enough support for another vertical level and it returns a value that says "no" and something breaks. Then it does a check if it can support a horizontal stone piece with iron gate and one of two things happens: 1) the value they require is stupidly lower than required for a vertical level for that material combo and it says "yes" and doesn't break, OR 2) The game sorta has a universal rule of as long as there is X support value, you can support 1 block over for iron supported stone/marble/grausten structures as long as it is at height 15 or below or some crap like that, which is consistent with what is going on in your video right now.
OR these functions could also be behaving badly if the calculations use some type of roundup/rounddown on the values that are not consistent or certain support calculations or support checks are placed in an odd spot in the overall equation. I saw odd things like that happen when I made a damage calculator for Warframe before they reported their real damage values in the tooltips. Some values would round up and others would round down with no real rhyme or reason as to why. Each damage type would be placed in a particular order of the overall damage equation. The result was sort of like a particular damage type would result in a different outcome depending on what other damage types you combined it with because of which direction the rounding went in which part of the equation... Hope that makes sense.... If that is the case here, my GUESS is that the place that, say, iron support is placed in the overall support calculation results in wild outcomes when the game checks for vertical vs horizontal support...
Subbed by the way. Thank you for taking the time to test these mechanics.
We should at least be able to build 30% to 50% higher with the new pillars. The new stone walls should also provide more struture support than the older stone blocks. Once we get the north biome, if we get another pillar, it should be 80% to 100% more structure support than the iron pillar.
Hope they see this, it's been broken for years now...
I have a dream that 1.0 will not only bring new content with deep north, but also a complete system overhaul.
Plus all the missing pieces.
I'm playing with blackmarble in a test world and, spawned dvergr guardtowers, they look so clean and perfectly built.
Yes, they do, but you can't replicate these by yourself. They're made with key non-buildable pieces that you can't have.
- Of course we would wanna have blackmarble corner stairs, left and right. Why don't we ?!
- The 2x2 enforced block looks so good paired with regular marble, but can't have it vanilla.
- Dvergr bronze head for decoration , can't have it.
- Mist repeller, isn't the whole point of the Mistland to... actually push the mist away ? (this sh*tty blue bulb ain't it)
I think (hope) they'll rework the UI when they deal with inventory size, and then bring all the missing pieces.
_(if I was viking, and I killed a dear, and refined its leather, I would surely craft myself a purse / bag)_ 🤣
Done good points, but I think you're dead wrong on the mistlands - the point ISN'T to just push it away permanently or anything like that - it's to overcome the challenge while still having moments where you have to venture into the mist, or plan a base with proper layout OR find an area with naturally less mist (there are places that don't have areas of mist naturally)
@@ScarryHarry93 I'm not saying repel the mist anywhere you go. You're not gonna put down a workbench to build a mist repeller down, every time you walk 10m do you ?
There are two Mistlands demister objects that you can't craft. They exist, they're in the game, and Dvergrs use them. It pushes the mist on a larger zone than the blue bulb thingy.
Rather than putting HUNDREDS of blue bulb things where you need them, gimme access to it for my outpost, or for my sap veins, or whatever your needs are. Doesn't mean you'd put them every 10m.
And even if you do, what's the harm ? We can already push the mist permanently if we want to, we just don't do it.
Although i gave up on stability a while ago with infinity hammer i totally agree! If it would be more logical and if there could be a way to theoretically build up infinitely with enough support i would maybe go back to vanilla building.
Stability system is not broken. You're just working at its limits. Iron Gate probably didn't expect people to build such massive structures that would explain the stability limit and how poorly the game runs. They could increase the stability limit, sure, but I rather they fix the poor framerate first.
Thanks for this information and your testing. They really do need to work on this some. If noticed odd things with the stability, but this really shows what is going on. Hopefully the devs will work on it.
It seems like the iron cages actually have a front and a back side, this could have an effect on your results. I believe that for any given material it has x strength which is calculated by (how many "links" until it is grounded) and how many links until it reaches a material that can actually support it, I.e. wood cant support stone.
Hey there JJ, thx so much for showing this, also hope the Dev's sees this.
My guess is that stability is a number and each step from the calculating piece down, modifies the stability number from the total on it's way to seek the ground. If it goes negative before reaching the ground, it deletes the piece and causes a recheck of the connected pieces, provided that it hasn't already verified the stability is valid, despite the affected piece. If the ground is not found, it automatically causes rechecks of adjacent pieces upon deletion. Also, diagonal checks count as two, since it only calculates stability from edge to edge, not corner to corner. Except in the case of roof pieces where the piece sits directly on top of another piece where the contact would be counted as a stack. That's my limited understanding of how the logic works.
Maybe Irongate should just give as a regular thingy to spawn magic rocks in. They usually get inspired by the things people doing anyway.
I love this game. And I love your videos and your builds. I think the stability system is closer to real life than just a perfectly predictable mathematical formula. You learn in all engineering disciplines to account for uncertainties by building in some margin in your design, or risk your building, bridge, etc collapsing. Just like you suggest, stay at 14 high max, or your beautiful castle might crumble to pieces.
In my experience with huge structures (I've built a dome that I thing can't get any bigger), everything is pretty much the same everywhere, but it could take literal in game days for it to fully stabilize. Afk a few hours and come back and see if it is the same. I could build a lot higher and it would brake at the end of a long building session.
I went afk for 4 hours and used the console command timescale 20, this speeds up time 20 times. Same random results.
@@jjthebuilder Sad. I hope it gets fixed!
first, if you really want to be confused, try wood beams on top of the highest stone/metal structure you have made here. Secondly, each building piece after the blue foundation piece subtracts a certain percentage of stability. Different materials subtract different percentages of stability. Harder materials don't subtract as much stability percent as weaker materials. When you get to zero percent, the piece breaks.
I was already wondering. A friend and I wanted to build a castle with a high tower. I wanted to build a lot of Gothic columns and realized that there were already stability problems. (especially the Grausten-Pillars seem to have problems due to their shape?) Even with the snapping poinst. As a result, we had to pause our construction.
Try modding. It's pretty simple to ad mods once you get into it.
Wear and Tear patches by Azumatt is great for building. It can turn off rain damage, but the best part is the stability rewamp. In the config file you can manually set a discount multiplier for each material. Can turn off stability mechanic as a whole. But I found it more fun and balanced just to double the build height and fine-tune around those parameters.
Height Map Unlimited is also pretty good to extend how much you can terraform.
It is the wind
8:05 I am curious if the results are the same if you swap the heights.
Or from other direction, if the supporting pillar already contains the difference.
You could check this by adding extra height to the lower pillar, and taking a bit off the taller one.
it sounds like how the stability in 7d2d.
This romantic view of the old days... is crazy.. we have never had more whealth (averages) and higher education and satisfaction.. And remember USA is not the WORLD... My society does not shit.. and have been in constant progressesion since the last centeruis.. the same with many other countries all over the world..
I really hate it that there is no logic in it. You have to Finagle, to use a word, to get somt things done. Or just completely comprimise your build. Nice vid and I completely agree, something aint right. Needs more logic!!
Nice breakdown. I really wish it was easier to build higher. You CAN build high, but my god its tedious, and extremely inconsistent.
Not sure if this had been said before, but Gravity is a bitch :P
Thanks for the video though, a lot of QOL things are need in Valheim
I mostly listened instead of watching.. and you kept measuring stuff in iron cages, but there are 1x1 and 2x2 iron cages! Which one are you measuring with?
I tested with both. First only with the 2x2 later I tryed the 1x1.
There is clearly something broken with the stability system, but your suggestions seem to be a bit useless. I'm pretty sure the stability calculations are supposed to do exactly what you say should be done. And the ground always has to be taken into account to determine that that initial piece is blue.
Still a good video though. It really illustrates that the system as it is is broken.
wait wait! how to use that devground command?
i don't like the suggested change. i like the simulation aspect
1) It is a survival game - the building is incidental to that. 2) the game is still in early access, give some lee-way. 3) Is there any difference if you embed your initial foundation into the terrain as opposed to having it sitting on top? 4) None of the preceding is a criticism, a devoted fan to your channel.
BECAUSE
the rule is... stay under 15 😅
Pretty sure that's how you get arrested in most countries....
I disagree. The stability works for the intended gameplay loop. While the iron grate under concrete look makes sense from a modern building standing point. I believe it in fact should be removed since it's makes no sense in a viking game for build like that over the intended pillars. (I know it's a beloved feature to build like that so no hating the feature but aesthetic of it).
Also there is the issue that bases being that tall server no in game function so wasting dev time on it is probably not the best option for their team.
You do know Valheim is a fantasy game with dwarfs, trolls, giant skeleton monsters and magic and you are talking about modern building stand points....
11:02 that one does't break because of the iron cage pillar it has at 4m in straight distance. Te stone on the pilars gives no support in none of your examples, it's always the iron cage. I guess most of the weirdness you pointed out are structures so at the limit that some rounding in the calculations ends deciding what happens. I personally always build a little under the limit because when you start constructions as tall as those you never know if later at the peak you would want some little extra detail that will then crumble if you aimed the limit sin e the beginning. Not to mention that any mistake with the hoe or cultivator when landscaping the terrain at the base when finishing details coul end in a catastrophe if the building is at the limit.😮
JJ the builder: make it so that: material (x) = max hight (x) + 2 if grounded = true
Iron Gate: naaah... lets mess with some gravity- and Hochschild, Konstant Rosenberg constant!!!11:
ℙ AΣTAQ(A)≃THH(A) G = 6,672 59 ⋅ 10 − 11 m 3 kg ⋅ s 2
Sure, so that way we can crash the game every time we put grausten on top of stone because the engine shits a brick trying to figure out wtf to do now.
Have you ever actually read the math behind building stability on the Wiki? I don't really understand what you're complaining about here - the system is sometimes counter-intuitive, but I think you would find real-life physics just as counter-intuitive if you learned it.
So for a person to understand building in this game they must read a wiki instead of it just making sense in game? Sounds like fun.
@@Amsterdamned88 You don't need to read a wiki to enjoy the game, but maybe do so before making a youtube video on that particular game system? He's not really providing any comprehensive alternatives in the video, I'm 100% convinced he would make a much worse system if left on his own.
@@Mortyst So you clearly didnt watch the video. He says he is not a game dev he says this is just a suggestion and he is just saying it is not FUN to make it so complex that most people dont understand it. It is not a attack on Iron Gate it is just him saying ''hey maby making it a bit simpler and easyer to understand''.
Plus you yourself sayed twice now ''look up the wiki''. Since when do you need to look up a wiki to understand a videogame? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heared. If I play a videogame I jsut want to play it, learn it in the game not go on other random websites learn some math and then it still doesnt work.
@@Amsterdamned88 You're clearly not interested in a good faith argument with those random accusations
Valheim's whole game mechanics system is stupid.
- Have to be in a certain radius of work bench to build.
- Can't use/create/repair items without work bench having a roof.
- Can't mark bed as save point without a roof.
- Placing items to level up work benches uses a completely different placing system than using it with it having a beam that blocks you from placing items. It should use the same radius system. Having tons of different conflicting systems based off whatever the mechanic is. As the saying goes "Keep it simple, stupid!"
- The inventory system is trash using both weight and size limitations. Pick one or the other. It can't be both with how limited the slots players are given.
- Inventory pick up is bad, because it doesn't place same items together putting them into multipke slots. I'll pick up my items from my tombstone and it'll waste multiple slots for the same item.
I could name more, but that's off the top of my head.
Inventory pickup is a valid issue, sure. The inventory limits are a little frustrating at times but really the issue is a lack of slot expansions in the mid-late game, if I could get another row in my inventory by around about the plains then I'd be fine, the weight restriction is not an issue, it's a mechanic which makes sense and stops you from just loading up on 10 full stacks of ore and running it home. The rest of this is really just survival mechanics and a build system which deliberately limits your freedom to just spam whatever, wherever (which isn't stupid, it just requires you NOT be stupid to figure it out). I wouldn't mind having an extra 5-10% range on the bench upgrade placement since we've seen a bit of bloat on those, especially with the forge, but that's more of a 'that would be nice' thing rather than a 'this game sucks until I can do this' thing.
If you really want to turn 'kid mode' on then there are a wealth of mods out there to circumvent core mechanics and make the game easier to digest, but these mechanics aren't bad just because you don't like them.