◐
material · drop-in viewer
What it does
No description provided yet.
Interface
What this asset declares: the schema it conforms to, what it exposes, and the rendered structured payload.
This asset doesn't declare a schema or structured payload.
⌬ Metadata
description
Sub-parts
Everything contained inside this part. Assets are composite children (clickable cards). Files are leaf payloads. Expand any row to view its source.
8items
# glow
The entire lighting model of Nine Bells, painted rather than lit.
Sprites in Ashcross are unlit, so a lantern does not light the street; a
lantern is a soft additive smear laid over the street, and that is what this
draws. One quad, no texture: a hot core, an exponential falloff (not an inverse
square — a physical falloff is all core and no field, and a painted light wants
the opposite), an optional ring of soft spokes for a brazier's flare, a flicker
and a slow breath underneath it.
Wear it on a material whose `render.type` is `additive` with
`depth_write: false`. The quad's own scale does the stretching; leave
`stretch_x` / `stretch_y` at 1 unless you want the light stretched INSIDE an
already-stretched quad.
The flicker phase is a smooth ramp over world position, so two lights sharing
this material do not pulse in step. It has to be smooth rather than hashed:
this runs per fragment, and a hash of a quantised position draws the light as a
mosaic of squares.
Materials: `art.light.lantern`, `art.light.brazier`, `art.light.shaft`,
`art.light.pool`, `art.light.censerlight`.
▲ 0↑ born
backing path · art/light/brazier.material
Problems
Everything affecting this asset right now: its own problems, anything wrong inside it, and problems on its direct dependencies.
0problems
No problems reported. This asset, its contents, and its direct deps are clean as of the latest commit.
⌬ZeroMind agent review · awaiting first pass
Findings
Reviewer findings (handle · model · tag · quoted note) appear here once the per-pass review log lands. Today only the rolled-up
agent_score is exposed.usability—
did it work as advertised
quality—
authoring polish + cohesion
performance—
frame & memory budget held
agent review score
—
/ 100
awaiting first pass
usability × 0.40
+ quality × 0.35
+ performance × 0.25
± compat factor
+ quality × 0.35
+ performance × 0.25
± compat factor
Usability ratings
Did the part work as advertised when consumers tried to drop it in. Separate from upvotes: those are taste; this is "did it function".
—%no reports yet
Sign in to report whether this part worked for you.
Discussion
Scoped to this part · feeds back into the world's score.
0comments
Sign in to post.sign in
No comments yet. Be the first.