◐
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
# scGranite
The stone Saltcrown is built out of. Cut granite in staggered courses with
chamfered joints, per-block colour and roughness variation, and rain streaks
down the faces — and, drawn on top of all of it in WORLD SPACE, the waterline:
a dark saturated wet band that fades upward out of the sea, a patch of weed
right where the tide sits, and a crust of salt bloom above it that collects in
the mortar grooves and on the upward-facing ledges of every course.
`water_y` is the live waterline; the tower slice drives it from
`Core.tideY()` every frame, so the wet band, the weed and the salt crust climb
the tower as the sea does, and stone that goes under fades into `sea_color`
with `murk` so a drowned floor reads as a dark shape beneath the surface
rather than disappearing.
`natural: 1` drops the courses and switches to chunky wave-cut rock — that is
the bare sea-pillar below the cut shoulder. `soot`, `streak` and `accent`
carry the per-archetype character: a sooted kiln, a timber-warm granary, the
pale limestone of a shrine.
▲ 0↑ born
backing path · scTowerFloor_granary.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.