◐
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
The one material every course of the tower, the plinth and every offcut wears; the tincture comes per instance.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
# stonecut
The lozengy masonry of the tower: a surface shader that cuts coursed rubble
into a parallelogram prism. It lays bed and perpend joints from the face-local
uv the mesh carries, bites the stone with a chisel fbm, leaches the tincture
off the weathered lower part of every stone, breaks the arris at the corners,
and reads the chamfered arris band as a lit upper edge over a shadowed lower
one. A cap face carries the lozengy field itself: the two tinctures on diamonds
laid along the town's own arms.
The tincture, the per-course variation and the gilt line a perfect seat earns
all arrive per-instance in `shader_data`, so one material dresses the whole
tower. Consumed by `masonry.material`, which `game.blocks.Blocks` puts on every
course, on the plinth and on every offcut.
▲ 0↑ born
backing path · game/blocks/masonry.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.