This topic about level design tools in Godot is always on my mind. Even though I don't plan on using any blockout method of level design in Godot, I've always wanted to know how it's done and I've found a tutorial that explains exactly just that:

The blockout style of level design seems to be the way a whole lot of "professional" gaming companies do their level design. Still, I'd like to one day make a game that has advance mod support and I doubt the whole blockout level design is mod support friendly( in comparison to the alternatives). Also, I think that they're still going to be a whole lot of limitations if someone wanted to make a more interactive level that 's well optimized when it comes to blockouts.
GSC might only be used for a prototyping tool but, it can do this:

Attempts to create highly destructable environments without the GSC node seems incredibly rigged, limited and might be painful to use on a large scale.

A non-CSG node solution to this problem that I've been thinking about, would involve the 3d gridmap. However, the 3d gridmaps don't have the same about of interactablity and functions as it's 2d counterpart. Now I know that it's not impossible to merge the 2d tilemap with the 3d gridmap and here is a video demonstrate of that:

However, I know how to do that and the person who made that video istn'g going to put out a tutorial.

    I would love to understand IK, though. You can use that to make characters actually have their feet at different heights of stairs and other cool things.

    As few courses as there are I wonder how I could learn some of this more advanced stuff.

      Some linear algebra and you're set. With vectors, matrices, quaternions, transforms under the hood there should be no problems.

          Pixophir Not always. Most of games are, until you want to dabble in the wonderful/terribly confusing world of game physics. Not just vectors, how do you calculate how a character must plant its feet as it goes up a mountain? Or, how do you use only three animations to fully create a character that trips, falls over, jumps, and other things with inverse kinematics?

            Megalomaniak I was hoping that I didn't have to learn about procedural animations. I just assumed that it was relevant as I think that's what I think Rockstar Games uses but, I'm not sure if they use it to make characters get up after falling( though they look like they're ragdolling when they fall). I think Saints Row the Third has a system where they have characters ragdoll when they fall, yet they have animations for getting.

            I'll try to figure out if it's as easy as using blend on the animations in Godot but, I just want to know what you guys think.

              Something sort of like this character on the Asset Store in Unity, correct? I would seriously do a lot to figure something out like this.

              I guess it gets used a lot, but I think robots are a pretty good answer to a graphics problem for an individual. It's perfectly all right to clone them. You can make them very unique style wise. The animations can look robotic. They go well with simplified scenery.

              Audiobellum
              That last video makes me think of the rather cool Crocotile 3D.
              A 3D mesh editor in the style of a 2D tile editor.

                Off topic, but maybe somebody is interested.

                Artemis I launch live stream starting aboouuut .... now Edit: The swines have started a new countdown for the stream just when it was supposed to begin 😠

                I'll be as unreachable as a lost block of memory until the can is in orbit.

                  Looks like issues.

                  Yeah, rumours of issues with a bleeding hydrogen line and rumours of rumours that launch remains an option. On another life video I see no ice around the rocket, looks like it is not fuelled atm.

                  I may have dropped my pointers too early 🙄

                  Pixophir Artemis I launch live stream starting aboouuut .... now

                  In Russia, few people believe that Americans have actually been to the moon. Technically educated people know they have, but it is impossible to convince the masses. The Russians can't admit that the Americans beat them so technically — it hurts them.

                      Tomcat Quite a few Americans don't think America actually went to the moon. The trouble is they don't know the number of third party witnesses that verify it.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings.
                      It's like the youtube guy that went to trial because he thought Sandy Hook was faked. You can't do that. There are too many people that are directly involved that would have to be in on it. If it's a closed event like an alien abduction or something, but not a public event. Apparently they don't think of all the possibilities, like the ambulance drivers, the hospitals, the school administration, police, passers by. Everyone would have to be in on it. You can say well, the guy is nuts, but I know perfectly rational people that believe it.

                          fire7side I do believe that even perfectly rational people can end up believing things that are false. If "garbage ,in garbage out" is true for computers( that are supposedly smarter than us humans when it comes to somethings), then it's also true for humans as well. Things get even more hopeless, when disagreements stem from a difference in first principles. That said, it's rare for me to meet any perfectly rational people who are also wrong face to face; especially when it comes to the issues of conspiracy theories. At the same time, I'm uncomfortable with dismissing people who I disagree with as just being crazy, as even crazy people can get away with doing that( and they will if they've got more influence and power). Somethings it just feels that discourse is just broken. Heck, somethings it feels like it's more advantage to make the emotional argument than the logical one.