Is the terrain tool really inferior to part terrain?

There are two types of people in this world, terrain toolers and part terrain toolers.

Hey! I aim for this thread to answer the age long question, refer to title.
For future reference; TT: Terrain Tool, PT: Part Terrain

TT Pros:
Super easy to learn.
Fast to apply.
Fairly Customizable [e.g: colours, brush size]
Looks great when properly used.

TT Cons:
Limited to provided textures.
Can look uncanny next to certain building styles.
Ground texture + Sphere brush = Poo
Hard to make highly detailed pieces due to limited sizes.
Can create anomalies like spikes in certain terrain types. [E.g water]

PT Pros:
Completely customizable.
Can match any building style.
Great choice for high+low detail builds.
More precise construction.

PT Cons:
Time consuming compared to tool.
Harder to learn/master.
Open to human error.

Let us apply this debate to a picture where the TT is applied.

This picture used the glacial texture to create a sense of depth, but could this be improved by the replaced use of the PT?, for example; to create finer details, add small nooks and crannies that don’t look like donut holes - perfectly round to the point where it looks abnormal. I use TT often due to the time it saves me - and so do large scale map creators (with many, many exceptions). However, the majority of high-level showcases display the use of PT in order to create a higher pinnacle of detail.

If I’ve made any mistakes, please point it out in the comments below and add your opinion!


Eh I think there are a lot more cons to the Terrain Tools than Part Terrain. It does need a lot of updating, especially to the water. When the water is applied near grass or any other material it defies gravity and moves up an inch.

This is what I mean by that



I believe this is all down to personal preference and what you believe will fit your map well.

Terrain tool gets the job done and reduces lag compared to a huge map made out of part terrain.

However, I also believe part terrain is superior to the regular tool as, like you said, it has an unlimited amount of customizability and has it’s own unique look instead of the regular terrain but is far more time consuming that using the terrain tool. But then again, I have seen absolutely amazing looking maps made with the terrain tool, such as Vesteria.

As for your design I believe you should stick with the terrain tool for that segment of your build as I think it suites it nicely.

Yes, that is a very annoying thing to work with. I personally like Part Terrain more because my builds turn out looking better.

1 Like

Yeah I think roblox should fix some of these issues. Would be cool to see a water part so we can maybe make puddles better.

1 Like

I think this is entirely down to build-style. I don’t build often, but I’m negatively biased when it comes to using Smooth Terrain. This is mostly the fault of how difficult it is to blend within builds. Some people make it work, but I certainly cannot for the life of me. In practice, I mainly only use Smooth Terrain to create water and distant unaccessible silhouetted terrain; everything else I prioritize building brick by brick as it’s simply more aesthetically pleasing. In addition, Smooth Terrain is not as malleable, which more often than not makes working with it a chore.

1 Like

From my experience Voxel terrain is pretty horrible for performance and part terrain usually can’t handle realistic smooth surfaces that Voxel can. What I do is make a single plane meshpart and use my textures or open source ones to match the environment I want, because they’re single plane and normally fairly basic the tri counts are lower than Voxel by a great deal and I can get the smooth look of it anyhow.
Usually best used in conjunction with part terrain though, and if you’re using default collision fidelity it can increase memory by a not insignificant sum.