Recognized A Concept for Space Engineers-like planets

[Ithirahad]

I also agree. I'm not sure how the rounder planets will look or function, but if they make them rounder it would be better. I'm not against them making them Much larger also to make this task easier.

If they could find a way to make a D100 like in d&d (it's I believe the largest dice), I think it would look Very close to round. Then All they need to do is find a way to distort gravity around the corners better. They could make each side of the D100 half the size of the current size of the planet plates. Then they wouldn't have to distort the blocks of the planet. Just keep the same planet mechanics, but add a custom mechanism to traverse the corners with building. Like a corner Rail docking bridge that will allow for passage over corners. Just another thought I had to throw in.

Of course, this would need a ton of things to work better to be possible. For one performance would need to be good enough to handle massive planets like the D100. I think that would be AWESOME though.

D100:

I don't exactly have experience with them, but isn't a D100 just a ball with golf-ball-like divots? You can technically make something similar with sufficient size, but unless it's immense and spans multiple sectors (which would cause a lot of bugs and/or programming challenges...) there would be terribly small plates, and tons of them, and if something were large enough to go into the collision boundaries of more than one plate at a time, someone had better start making arrangements for a funeral for whatever server has the misfortune of such a scenario occuring.

 

[jgames666]

I don't exactly have experience with them, but isn't a D100 just a ball with golf-ball-like divots? You can technically make something similar with sufficient size, but unless it's immense and spans multiple sectors (which would cause a lot of bugs and/or programming challenges...) there would be terribly small plates, and tons of them, and if something were large enough to go into the collision boundaries of more than one plate at a time, someone had better start making arrangements for a funeral for whatever server has the misfortune of such a scenario occuring.

I tend to agree. The game would have to have ways around these issues for it to be worth-wild.

 

[serge1944]

I think more we have plates and more they are larger there will be less fps drop because only one plate would have to be generated while the others are drawings.

 

[Andem]

I like the current planets a lot, But they desperately need some optimization and reworking.
[DOUBLEPOST=1455388437,1455387841][/DOUBLEPOST]

Planets definitely need work. Firstly, the gravity on current planets is terrible. That is the first step to be corrected to make planets better. I'm not sure the best way to do it, but I think the planet needs a center of gravity that pulls objects towards the core instead of this weird wonky thing that happens as you pass over corners of worlds on a ship. In some way they need to be round. And loaded as one objects that may load blocks at a time as you get closer, but here is my suggestion.

2. Spend the time to write tons of planet templates. One for every size, and shape variation of planet possible for the game to work properly. This could be continuously added to even after release to constantly make better planets. Spawn in worlds more like the way stations and ships are spawned in block by block. However, the game will spawn a template world first then all the generation effects could be added to behind the scenes threads to make every planet unique. Start generating the planets as soon as the universe is created and continue until it is completely generated starting from the center of the galaxy or the starting sector. This may cause starting servers and new games to take a while to generate the universe, but the quality of play will be well worth it.

3. Set in the config the range of size that is possible. Allow it to be configurable like it is now, but based on the best performance sizes. Also allow for shapes of planets to be configurable, but definitely have Round, Cube, and Dice-like shapes. (d-12, d-14, d-16, d-20, ect)

4. Add randomized generation effects that occur on every planet differently based on the universe seed. For example things like Mountains, Valleys, Craters, Resources, Caves, Civilization Ruins, Temples, Pyramids, Alien Tendrils, Fauna, Flora, Trees, Aliens, NPCs, Empires, Anything that will make a planet unique, ect.

Let me know what you all think.

In response to this, I have to say that The current Gravity System Works, but is so jarring that people recoil from it. We need some srt of Neytral zone imbetween plates to allow a smooth transition. Not sure how, but spherical just wouldn't work for starmade.

This is a good plan, but it could lead to a world of hurt if done poorly. In Kerbal Space Program, Kopernicus allows for custom planet creation through using other bodies as templates. Now if the templates were community drivez, this could work great, have some people sift through all of them and pick out the ones that "fit".

The first half of this is already in the server config, and the second half doesn't work for the same reason as above.

Yes. Completely Yes.

 

[Achriel]

I'm going to go out on a limb and hope someone doesn't saw it off.

Wraparound Pancake with an FOV effect

What we have here is a perception problem disguised as voxel problem. If we could expand an SM world to it's real size it would be hundred of sectors across and we could bend things slow enough it would work. However that's not going to happen so what we need to do is make it perceived larger. We also have a problem (again) of how it's perceived from orbit, we want round but need flat. So lets fix our perception and leave the code alone.

• Create a flat grid with wrap around edges. Hexagonal Grids (this link explains how the loading works)
• More grids based on size of the world and you vision distance is limited so you don't see around behind yourself (forget adding in some weird visual curve)
• From outside the planets atmosphere the grid is mapped onto a sphere, so you really can see details and it's still chunks for loading.
• As you get closer to the surface the visual display is 'unwrapped' until you are ON the surface (think of this a s messing with FOV in respect to a single entity)

So let me play this out as if you are coming to a planet. It's round and details appear as chunks normally do. The grid mapped onto the surface is exact so you can hit things without some random transition effect. Closer still the planet takes up more of your view and flattens out. As you enter the atmosphere you get the usual haze but now as the planet surface flattens as space begins to curve behind you (so on a smooth world you get the 180 view based on your surface position). You can see at LEAST adjoining chunks but run in one direction and you'll return to your starting point, sky scrolling with FOV affect as you circumnavigate the planet.

• Done this way you can make a straight rail around the world (odd symmetry would be nice)
• Gravity = solved, it's all flat
• Planet depth is solved.. dig far enough you get lava.. or pop out on the other side with a single awkward transition zone.
• It's not an instance, it's an edge wrapped torus pancake with an FOV effect.

 

[Valiant70]

I'm going to go out on a limb and hope someone doesn't saw it off.

Wraparound Pancake with an FOV effect

What we have here is a perception problem disguised as voxel problem. If we could expand an SM world to it's real size it would be hundred of sectors across and we could bend things slow enough it would work. However that's not going to happen so what we need to do is make it perceived larger. We also have a problem (again) of how it's perceived from orbit, we want round but need flat. So lets fix our perception and leave the code alone.

• Create a flat grid with wrap around edges. Hexagonal Grids (this link explains how the loading works)
• More grids based on size of the world and you vision distance is limited so you don't see around behind yourself (forget adding in some weird visual curve)
• From outside the planets atmosphere the grid is mapped onto a sphere, so you really can see details and it's still chunks for loading.
• As you get closer to the surface the visual display is 'unwrapped' until you are ON the surface (think of this a s messing with FOV in respect to a single entity)

So let me play this out as if you are coming to a planet. It's round and details appear as chunks normally do. The grid mapped onto the surface is exact so you can hit things without some random transition effect. Closer still the planet takes up more of your view and flattens out. As you enter the atmosphere you get the usual haze but now as the planet surface flattens as space begins to curve behind you (so on a smooth world you get the 180 view based on your surface position). You can see at LEAST adjoining chunks but run in one direction and you'll return to your starting point, sky scrolling with FOV affect as you circumnavigate the planet.

• Done this way you can make a straight rail around the world (odd symmetry would be nice)
• Gravity = solved, it's all flat
• Planet depth is solved.. dig far enough you get lava.. or pop out on the other side with a single awkward transition zone.
• It's not an instance, it's an edge wrapped torus pancake with an FOV effect.

It would work, but it would be just as weird as the torus planet in a lot of ways. If you pick two points as north and south pole, you can't stand on one, walk in any direction and reach the other one. There would be three equidistant routes to the other pole. Miss one of those and from orbit you'll look like you're taking a long, spiraling route around the planet. I guess it's not horrible, but it's less like walking on a sphere than the d12 planets.

Its in the general discussion forums, criss added to it aswell.



Starmade Q&A: Stuff confirmed so far

Judging by this, we'll likely end up with a highly-refined version of what we have now, with 12 or more plates, smoother edges, and better optimization so the game doesn't try to put a whole freaking planet in memory at the same time. They might even appear spherical from orbit, eventually.

If we keep the multi-plate planets, a d12 will end up being the best as it minimizes the number of plates to get a nice spherical shape and even though the edges are slightly sharper than a d20, the vertices (corners) are less pointy.

 

[Achriel]

It would work, but it would be just as weird as the torus planet in a lot of ways. If you pick two points as north and south pole, you can't stand on one, walk in any direction and reach the other one. There would be three equidistant routes to the other pole. Miss one of those and from orbit you'll look like you're taking a long, spiraling route around the planet. I guess it's not horrible, but it's less like walking on a sphere than the d12 planets

Well it is a game so there is some 'willing suspension of disbelief' required and from a great distance (orbit) small movements will not be easily seen. Basically what you can't see won't hurt your immersion. Should a more complicated mapping on the sphere be used the problem could be minimized (you know those zigzag topped maps in other wraparound flat maps). That however is only required for the orbital view, on the planet it can still be a lovely 'flat map' with a chunk layout that maps as suits the programmers.

 

[Valiant70]

Well it is a game so there is some 'willing suspension of disbelief' required and from a great distance (orbit) small movements will not be easily seen. Basically what you can't see won't hurt your immersion. Should a more complicated mapping on the sphere be used the problem could be minimized (you know those zigzag topped maps in other wraparound flat maps). That however is only required for the orbital view, on the planet it can still be a lovely 'flat map' with a chunk layout that maps as suits the programmers.

The issue isn't seeing it from orbit. It's the fact that navigation on the surface is unlike real planetary navigation. At best it would be derpy. At worst, downright confusing.

 

[Achriel]

The issue isn't seeing it from orbit. It's the fact that navigation on the surface is unlike real planetary navigation. At best it would be derpy. At worst, downright confusing.

I must be dense today I'm missing the problem we acquire that we do not already have. Even with 1000 sided polygons we have angle changes that make segment joining complicated to bridge, our limitation is voxels have 6 sides and 90 degree angles. There are no poles, a flat map doesn't bunch squares at the poles if mapped on a sphere because your point of view is CHANGING as you move. It is a mind bender because you are applying physical reality rules we do not obey anyways, and in breaking them you (in game) cannot tell.

I know you are now thinking the surface area is disproportionate in the polar areas but the poles are nowhere/anywhere, it's entirely relative (simply 2 points at maximum distance from each other, aligned with axial rotation). All we want is a surface area approximate to the planet, how it's mapped is irrelevant as long as it's predictable, proportionate and not a complete bastard to render.

 

[Valiant70]

I must be dense today I'm missing the problem we acquire that we do not already have. Even with 1000 sided polygons we have angle changes that make segment joining complicated to bridge, our limitation is voxels have 6 sides and 90 degree angles. There are no poles, a flat map doesn't bunch squares at the poles if mapped on a sphere because your point of view is CHANGING as you move. It is a mind bender because you are applying physical reality rules we do not obey anyways, and in breaking them you (in game) cannot tell.

I know you are now thinking the surface area is disproportionate in the polar areas but the poles are nowhere/anywhere, it's entirely relative (simply 2 points at maximum distance from each other, aligned with axial rotation). All we want is a surface area approximate to the planet, how it's mapped is irrelevant as long as it's predictable, proportionate and not a complete bastard to render.

A seamless voxel map can be predictable and okay-ish to render, but will never be proportionate. The least screwy way to do it is with a square map that wraps around longitudinally. However, rather than wrapping to the other edge laterally, it must wrap to the same edge half the map's width away. Otherwise you only get one pole! The problem with this (and it's not confusing - it's just a suspension of disbelief issue) is that each pole is a line rather than a point.

I'll edit in some pictures later.

I tried using the hexagonal grid idea to improve the proportions in this idea and at least make the pole a shorter line, but it's not possible geometrically.

 

[banks456]

I heard that one day Starmade may open up the game to modding, from one of the guys that stream this game on twitch. Well maybe if that happens we can get our round planets because there are some talented modders out there . This guy made a realistic rounded surface mod for minecraft. Which smooths the terran of the world giving it a realistic look. So I believe it's possible. The one thing that happens with games like Starmade is, if the game opens it's self up to modding the devs find out that there are things that can be done with there game that they didn't have time to do or the man power to do or they didn't believe was possible.

 

[Benevolent27]

for ppl that dont want to click on the link.

Indeed, the HYPE is REAL!

That type of planet would be pretty awesome to have in StarMade. Though I really want to know what it looks like when digging down toward the center. How do they solve that issue? Hmm

 

[kiddan]

That type of planet would be pretty awesome to have in StarMade. Though I really want to know what it looks like when digging down toward the center. How do they solve that issue? Hmm

By slightly warping the 'bloxels" (which is what it looks like that Voxel Planet is doing) the game could have the center of the planet still look pretty legitimate. Wouldn't there be a molten core anyways?

 

[Benevolent27]

By slightly warping the 'bloxels" (which is what it looks like that Voxel Planet is doing) the game could have the center of the planet still look pretty legitimate. Wouldn't there be a molten core anyways?

You're right! Derp derp, I'm an idiot. lol

 

[GRHayes]

I know Schema has considered making planets like Space Engineers, after seeing them added into that game, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest or advocate for something like this, but... I don't think the horse has been quite beaten enough yet.
Full disclaimer: I don't know if this is the best way for these planets to be implemented. I'm not en experienced programmer, nothing on the level that would be required to actually code this, but I think I know enough about the way the game works to say it's probably possible. I do know it won't be a piece of cake to implement this, either my way or a better way, but if it does work for gameplay as well as I think it will, it will definitely be worth it.

It's been suggested before. It can be done without loading screens. The simple reason it hasn't been done is developers choice against it from what I can read so far. There are several examples of such world demos already in existence by other developers.

One of the primary issues always used has to deal with the shape of the actual blocks not being perfectly square. The easiest way to create such worlds is to tessellate a cube and turn it into a sphere. doing so the blocks closest to the 8 corners end up being distorted. As I personally have pointed out in the past this pincushion effect gets smaller and smaller and harder to find as planets get larger. That however doesn't appease those making the decision.

You can find that discussion here and a lot more. Read by Schine - Changes for planets

They could eliminate the pincushion issue entirely by only making a portion of the surface buildable. After all we live on continents in the world we have. So why not make earth like planets that have water. Other planets could simply have a general fractal terrain. Then those areas would never be seen or explored.

In short there are a lot of ways to do it. Just seems more reasons why they can't is the current goal. I am sure they have their reasons. Maybe earth like planets really don't fit into their vision of the game. Which is fine in my book it's their game after all.