Read by Council New planet type suggestion to supplement dodecahedrons

[ltmauve]

On a planet with a radius of several hundred you couldn't visibly see the difference with out going out a good deal more since the two blocks would not be then close to one another you ability to tell would be impaired.

Upon further thought, I've noticed a slight problem with your idea - there are six intersection where only three squares meet. What are you going to do there?

And that still doesn't change the fact that the blocks will change size, and people will notice that when they dock ships to a planet, because ship blocks don't change size.

 

[jayman38]

So what about if someone builds an orbital elevator? Should the blocks get wider as they go up? How do you handle structures that extend the planet into orbit?

Yeah, apparently you can handle the surface just fine. But what about orbit? What about digging down?

Sorry, but you missed how this suggestion works. There was no suggestion about blocks getting bigger, farther out from the planet core. (Or getting smaller as they approach the core.) The blocks would remain 1 m square. All blocks remain the same, just like with the dodecahedrons. Building up or digging down will remain the same, except that there will be giant meshes if you dig to the bottom of the continent or out the sides. The meshes isolating the block continents are a big part of why this would work better than dodecahedrons.

And why they wouldn't work as well, for those who have gotten used to building all the way around the dodecahedrons. However, I think that most players would prefer to build on a single continent, so I think this negative of being able to build anything anywhere is less important than the positives that this suggestion brings. Especially when you consider you can do the exact same thing on a larger scale by digging/destroying the meshes.

 

[GRHayes]

Upon further thought, I've noticed a slight problem with your idea - there are six intersection where only three squares meet. What are you going to do there?

And that still doesn't change the fact that the blocks will change size, and people will notice that when they dock ships to a planet, because ship blocks don't change size.

I only did out to 6 iterations so the files would be to large. Going out to 10 iterations and a circumference of 2048. Makes them nearly impossible to see.

You do realize this isn't real life it is a 3d game and adjusting a ships size to the block to dock is nothing more than scaling right? Also building something like the space elevator would be done with the flag blocks using perpendicular edges to the build surface which I mentioned in the last comment to you.

There are two primary options when building the planet. Use each of the zones a map area for a standard square build plate. Then it would be simply a matter of setting a flag on each block to either use a perpendicular of the plate or use the vertex normal of he surface to decide the shape of the block. One would give you perfectly square blocks all the same size you would have no issue docking to at all no need to scale.
The other would allow for the blocks placed on the surface to wrap around the planet and fully close in.

The other option is you use Predetermined LOD maps for various altitude ranges. Then use the radial distance or altitude to determine the height of location on the height map. Things like caves, changes and such would need to get stored in a secondary set.

 

[ltmauve]

Sorry, but you missed how this suggestion works

I was referring to GRHayes's suggestion about the cube-to-sphere conversion thing. Not the continental model in the OP.

You do realize this isn't real life it is a 3d game and adjusting a ships size to the block to dock is nothing more than scaling right? Also building something like the space elevator would be done with the flag blocks using perpendicular edges to the build surface which I mentioned in the last comment to you.

Okay, even leaving that around how are you going to handle the 6 points where three squares meet? You only have about 270 degrees and you have to make it into 360 while still keeping it looking like a grid from all perspectives.

And it still doesn't change the fact that you will get block distortion.You can try adjusting the size of the ship's blocks but that will be graphics-heavy and will probably look weird from certain angles.

 

[Valiant70]

Sorry, but you missed how this suggestion works. There was no suggestion about blocks getting bigger, farther out from the planet core. (Or getting smaller as they approach the core.) The blocks would remain 1 m square. All blocks remain the same, just like with the dodecahedrons. Building up or digging down will remain the same, except that there will be giant meshes if you dig to the bottom of the continent or out the sides. The meshes isolating the block continents are a big part of why this would work better than dodecahedrons.

And why they wouldn't work as well, for those who have gotten used to building all the way around the dodecahedrons. However, I think that most players would prefer to build on a single continent, so I think this negative of being able to build anything anywhere is less important than the positives that this suggestion brings. Especially when you consider you can do the exact same thing on a larger scale by digging/destroying the meshes.

You may have a point. I wouldn't necessarily be against this type of implementation. I just don't like oceans being mandatory.

I was referring to GRHayes's suggestion about the cube-to-sphere conversion thing. Not the continental model in the OP.


Okay, even leaving that around how are you going to handle the 6 points where three squares meet? You only have about 270 degrees and you have to make it into 360 while still keeping it looking like a grid from all perspectives.

And it still doesn't change the fact that you will get block distortion.You can try adjusting the size of the ship's blocks but that will be graphics-heavy and will probably look weird from certain angles.

There's a game that did it, but their planets are real-life sized. A bent cube is not a good solution for Starmade. Schema tried it once and had all kinds of goofy problems.

 

[Ithirahad]

You may have a point. I wouldn't necessarily be against this type of implementation. I just don't like oceans being mandatory.

Me neither, but I'd much rather mandatory non-voxel oceans, to mandatory shitty jagged corners or awkward gravity transitions... etc.

 

[Valiant70]

It sounded from the stream like Schema didn't care for the idea of non-polyhedron planets. Maybe he'll find a way to smooth out the edges a bit more. I know there are some rendering tricks he might be able to use to make overlapping blocks look like a smooth seam instead of something jagged.

 

[dwwojcik]

It sounded from the stream like Schema didn't care for the idea of non-polyhedron planets.

In that case... why not just cubes? The plates would mesh together perfectly, and a 90 degree angle is no less jarring than the shallower but still extremely disruptive angle we have now. Imagine how cool it would look too, a game made entirely of blocks, where the planets are giant blocks themselves.

It's obvious Schema has been trying to distance his game from Minecraft by not consistently using cubes, but I say, if the fundamental concept of the game is blocks, embrace it. Cubes are love, cubes are life.

 

[Valiant70]

In that case... why not just cubes? The plates would mesh together perfectly, and a 90 degree angle is no less jarring than the shallower but still extremely disruptive angle we have now. Imagine how cool it would look too, a game made entirely of blocks, where the planets are giant blocks themselves.

It's obvious Schema has been trying to distance his game from Minecraft by not consistently using cubes, but I say, if the fundamental concept of the game is blocks, embrace it. Cubes are love, cubes are life.

I like that idea too, but I wouldn't mind the polygon planets if they were sufficiently large that the edges aren't always in my face.

 

[dwwojcik]

The problem with making the planets larger is that under the hood they're basically just ships attached to the planet core entity... bigger planets = more blocks = lower fps.

 

[Valiant70]

The problem with making the planets larger is that under the hood they're basically just ships attached to the planet core entity... bigger planets = more blocks = lower fps.

Schema mentioned LOD (level of detail) and planet optimizations in the Q&A tonight. Level of detail means you'll see groups of blocks bunched into larger, easier-to-render blocks farther away. It reduced the number of vertices (and thus GPU load (fps lag)) at the expense of not seeing a lot of detail further away. He has already done some work on it.

Since he's working on client-side optimizations, I think we can safely assume he's working on some sort of server-side optimizations as well so we can have big planets without melting servers. If not, he should be.

 

[dwwojcik]

Oh, neat, I missed that part. Larger plates would be nice.

 

[PizzaPress]

Regarding the oreos, there is, to me at least, one advantage: a large terrain surface to land, move, and build on.(with fps, not spf.) I would like the oreos to be a config option.

I do think the current planets are much better, but I'd like to have both for different reasons. I have a toaster, so the horizon is just way too close on playable-sized planets. They are certainly better overall, however.

I think a double-sided oreo with mantle filling, slightly thiner block area, and ocean sides, might be nice. You could make it much wider, with nice big oceans, and it'd be easier than sphering a cube. Maybe not for everyone, but I'd like having it.

Even normal oreos with something to cover its bottom and prevent falling off the edge of the world would be nice.

I just want a large surface of terrain to play on.

 

[Valiant70]

Regarding the oreos, there is, to me at least, one advantage: a large terrain surface to land, move, and build on.(with fps, not spf.) I would like the oreos to be a config option.

I do think the current planets are much better, but I'd like to have both for different reasons. I have a toaster, so the horizon is just way too close on playable-sized planets. They are certainly better overall, however.

I think a double-sided oreo with mantle filling, slightly thiner block area, and ocean sides, might be nice. You could make it much wider, with nice big oceans, and it'd be easier than sphering a cube. Maybe not for everyone, but I'd like having it.

Even normal oreos with something to cover its bottom and prevent falling off the edge of the world would be nice.

I just want a large surface of terrain to play on.

Yeah, some people's computers would handle them better. My own machine is barely above the "toaster" rank as today's computers go. It's entirely possible Schema's optimizations will make a large dodecahedron work even on a toaster, however. If that's the case, who needs oreos?! Let's wait and see.

On the other hand, some people would prefer oreos for gameplay reasons. Perhaps Schema will add the option in the future if he gets some spare time. Maybe he'll add in the weird "bent cube" thing he tried to make one time too, just for fun. It looked cool from orbit but acted stupid in the game engine. Having extra planet options might be something random and fun to put in sometime.

 

[GRHayes]

I was referring to GRHayes's suggestion about the cube-to-sphere conversion thing. Not the continental model in the OP.


Okay, even leaving that around how are you going to handle the 6 points where three squares meet? You only have about 270 degrees and you have to make it into 360 while still keeping it looking like a grid from all perspectives.

And it still doesn't change the fact that you will get block distortion.You can try adjusting the size of the ship's blocks but that will be graphics-heavy and will probably look weird from certain angles.

There are technically 8 points where each of the original 6 corners where. There are 3 4 sided blocks there. However after the surface is generated to a sufficient level they become a super minority of the landscape. The blocks are still built with the spheres radius to their points. Thus they match exactly to fit that space.

Right now do you build on the edge of planet plates? Most don't. This would be like taking those planet plates and reducing them to 8 small points. It would effect a total of 24 blocks any of the spheres I presented.
2 iterations = 96 squares so 24/96
3 iterations = 384 squares so 24/384
4 iterations = 1536 squares so 24/1536
5 iterations = 6144 squares so 24/6144
6 iterations = 24576 squares so 24/24576
7 iterations = 98304 squares so 24/98304
8 iterations = 393216 squares so 24/393216
9 iterations = 1,572,864 squares so 24/1572864 <- this is only a radius of 325 a circumference of 2048 blocks
10 iterations = 6,291,456 squares so 24/6291456 <- this is only a radius of 651 a circumference of 4096 blocks

I think you can see how small a portion of the terrain that is.

I was going to upload a CubeSphere 7 iteration for you to try on your own it has full UV mapping and normals. Compressed it is still 3Meg.
To large to upload.

I'll try and get it up on my server soon.

Also the small amount of flocks being different are not going to very visible from space especially when surface is voxelized and not just a pure sphere. It is impossible to see with the lines with a texture map just dropped on it. The distortion of lines from uneven surfaces of voxels will only make it worse. Given the amount of added room it would take you a long time on the ground to find those points without help if you don't just stumble on it by luck.