You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Feature description
If possible, I'm requesting if it is possible to support stacking portals on top of each other.
How the feature is useful
One example how this could be useful is:
In location A, you have two portals stacked (A.1 and A.2). Location B and C only have one each. Using permissions, you could configure where a player goes when walking through the portal frame at A (they would end up at either B or C--depending on permissions).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am available nearly anytime if any troubleshooting or spinning up a server as needed for testing/troubleshooting.
This was discovered after stacking portals only recognizes one of the stacked portals.
For additional context, if two portals are placed in an identical location and size (in one frame) but groups of users have permissions to only one of the portals, only one is recognized (seemingly the first one ranked alphabetically).
In my case, I have a frame, stacked portal "p1-2" and "p2-2". Users in the regular permission group should arrive back at "p1-2" destination (which happens successfully). Users in a higher ranked group have negative permissions (no perms) to "p1-2" but have permissions to "p2-2" destination. When they step into the frame, nothing happens.
Please let me know if any additional information is required and I will be happy to provide it.
Feature request
Feature description
If possible, I'm requesting if it is possible to support stacking portals on top of each other.
How the feature is useful
One example how this could be useful is:
In location A, you have two portals stacked (A.1 and A.2). Location B and C only have one each. Using permissions, you could configure where a player goes when walking through the portal frame at A (they would end up at either B or C--depending on permissions).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: