More "Spherical" Planets

[OdraNoel]

theres already multiple topics on this very subject with basically the exact same suggestions. the problem isnt what kind of polygonal shape a planet has, its the gravity changes, intersections of the plates, and construction from one plate to another. regardless of what shape a planet is these issues will be present until schema comes up with some kind of solution for it.

the size of a planet is irrelevant because you can change it your self in the config. (they will eventually be further optimized so lag wont be an issue with larger planets anymore) just keep in mind the larger you make planets, the more rapidly your world size will grow as you explore your universe.

current planet shape is fine, as they are the best mix of being unique (no other game has such shaped planets) while not being prefect cubes, and presenting you with the largest amount of flat building space for its size. adding more sides to a planet will just make you increases their spawn size in order to gain more flat space per segment, which will lead to massive world sizes.

eventually some solution will come for segment borders and abrupt gravity changes. (along with performance optimizations and hopefully, save file size) but as things currently are, these issues will continue to be present regardless of planet shape or size.

 

[TheOmega]

Half of the point is asthetics, the other side is to make them bigger, and yes i know about the config. I agree the gravity changes are wierd, but that is currently a priority for the devs, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Mr.Steam]

I like to think of the planets, not as an entire world to explore, but a level on a FPS game like Battlefield. They are plenty large compared to most FPS levels. If they were too big you would have a hard time finding the enemy. When we have missions where we have to find and destroy a xenomorph hive they would be perfect, without spending a ton of time just looking for the hive.


Totally destructible levels with control points! Yeah!

 

[TheOmega]

I like thinking of them as a massive resource hole currently. Some planets, some just have some really cool terrain, and those are the ones worth building on.

 

[Mr.Steam]

I like thinking of them as a massive resource hole currently. Some planets, some just have some really cool terrain, and those are the ones worth building on.

That's the great thing about Starmade, they can be BOTH!

Maybe some planets will be really resource rich and rare and worth protecting and fighting over.

 

[Reilly Reese]

Maybe if they replenished ores over time

 

[NeonSturm]

How to reduce a big planet's LAG:

Make big deserts and oceans which are rendered like a core. If salvage it, the level falls - not single blocks.


There is a game which plays not on the surface of planets but with mid-air floating islands.
I think this is a good concept - islands floating in oceans until you explore the lower levels connecting them to the continental plate.

You don't need all planet faces. Some could be ocean (not buildable on, but you can put boats in an orbital position around the core).
Others could be desert with changing surface.

Or geographically instable position where you don't wanna build on as your stuff turns into dirt, scrap and gets 1-block thick.


What will happen if you build on earth in a river-delta next to an ocean? it moves. One side falls apart, the other replenishes with new dirt delivered by the river.
YES, ITS REAL - I have seen a documentary about it.

 

[starhaiden]

How to reduce a big planet's LAG:

Make big deserts and oceans which are rendered like a core. If salvage it, the level falls - not single blocks.


There is a game which plays not on the surface of planets but with mid-air floating islands.
I think this is a good concept - islands floating in oceans until you explore the lower levels connecting them to the continental plate.

You don't need all planet faces. Some could be ocean (not buildable on, but you can put boats in an orbital position around the core).
Others could be desert with changing surface.

Or geographically instable position where you don't wanna build on as your stuff turns into dirt, scrap and gets 1-block thick.


What will happen if you build on earth in a river-delta next to an ocean? it moves. One side falls apart, the other replenishes with new dirt delivered by the river.
YES, ITS REAL - I have seen a documentary about it.

maybe rivers and other things do damage to blocks near them depending on some variables like type of block

 

[Criss]

maybe rivers and other things do damage to blocks near them depending on some variables like type of block

There are other games that can simulate that type of effect. Personally I do not find a place for that in a game where I am mostly concerned about spaceships.

 

[Ithirahad]

Environmental damage to player structures feels... ehhh in this game, seeing as this is primarily a space game and I'd rather not have to worry about my ground (or space)-based structures wearing out and breaking... but the rest of your suggestion sounds great, Neon.

 

[TheOmega]

The planets could have oceans, but I think they would need to be more spherical-ish to have that work, and they would also need to be bigger. I mean, if you cant have something of a reasonable size, what is the point?

 

[NeonSturm]

Environmental damage to player structures feels... ehhh in this game, seeing as this is primarily a space game and I'd rather not have to worry about my ground (or space)-based structures wearing out and breaking... but the rest of your suggestion sounds great, Neon.

Stick to the stable parts of a planet (no cracks in the surface like on segment borders and not shown as unstable by scanners) and you will not have to worry.

I just suggested making some part of the planet not saved fully (and let you know where these|saved parts are) to make a planet both appear bigger and give you bigger continuous segments to build on in stable areas.

 

[Ithirahad]

Stick to the stable parts of a planet (no cracks in the surface like on segment borders and not shown as unstable by scanners) and you will not have to worry.

Sounds pointlessly complicated... I'm sure a lot of people will build things on unstable regions without realizing it, fly off to mine, and come back to find that their huge crystal core is now reduced to ruins.

 

[aceface]

i think that the dodecahedrons are enough sides

BUT

each side should be smoothened with blocks to resemble a perfect sphere

http://starmadedock.net/threads/round-planets.3432/page-3

 

[FunnyBunny14]

But I think the current shapes are unique. The edges are the biggest problem, they need some kind of physical filler in the gaps.

 

[jpf190279]

*Prepares for flames*

XD

Legend! LOL! That gif just made my day...

Ok onto the serious part, the current shape works well as opposed to the cookie planets of old, which I have to admit I was NEVER a fan of.

To me and especially others I play with the limiting factor of planetary exploration is the disjointed nature and size of the plates. While surface travel is "okish", the plates feel disconnected meaning you can't easily move from one plate to another via any other method than surface travel and in particularly jumping from one plate to another. You certainly can't tunnel your way from one plate into another without falling through the plate cracks. The times have I ended up at the core of a planet because I decided to dig a tunnel the wrong way!

That being said it is still a MASSIVE improvement over the previous design of the planets. Planets are really starting to feel like something worth exploring and occupy.

I am still having rendering issues with the sizes of the planets especially anything above the normal defaults of 175 + 100, which is a real shame. I'd much prefer planets where a single plate was 500+ across. ON that note does anyone have any tips for improve planet rendering. I have assigned 8GBs to the game and the game is running off a SSD.

 

[Crusade]

I am still having rendering issues with the sizes of the planets especially anything above the normal defaults of 175 + 100, which is a real shame. I'd much prefer planets where a single plate was 500+ across. ON that note does anyone have any tips for improve planet rendering. I have assigned 8GBs to the game and the game is running off a SSD.

You'll be pleased to know that in the devbuilds planets generate faster, and render much faster when you are on the surface.

Take this for example:

This had 500+ sized plates. After it was generated, looking at it from space was a terrible 20-ish fps. However, walking on the surface resulted in 100+fps.

This is running with 6144mb ram allocated to Starmade
GPU: nVidia GTX560 (non-ti)

I am running Starmade off a standard 3tb HDD.

 

[jpf190279]

@Crusade - I have a very similar setup to you then, I am running a ASUS GTX660ti with 3GB on board but I am not experience the same levels of rendering that you are describing. And yes I am running the latest Dev builds as they are uploaded.

I will have to look into this, perhaps one of the settings is slowing it down. I tend to get the middle sections of the planet render then the process seems to slow to a claw right up to the point that I crash into the invisible surface. :D

 

[Ithirahad]

Yeah; as I think I've said before in MP it seems to be vastly improved. However, in singleplayer the generation's slowed to a crawl... hopefully not, but possibly, a threading issue.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Yeah; as I think I've said before in MP it seems to be vastly improved. However, in singleplayer the generation's slowed to a crawl... hopefully not, but possibly, a threading issue.

The latest dev build loads them fine for me.