Improved Universe

[ltmauve]

Yeah. Those days sucked. I don't know how the system worked back then, but I am at least trying to consider what happens at the sector boundaries, this should turn out better.

 

[Viridis00]

Going between orbits will result in some offset in position being necessary

By orientation, I also meant being offset but I didn't really articulate what I meant too well. That's what I was referencing in being close to a planet only to warp away from it on approach to the new sector.

As for planets moving inside sectors, that would be a nightmare. My system has the advantage that planets are moving at zero velocity.

Even for a "fast" orbit, we would not see speeds like that. This could also be fixed by extending a planet's gravity, so when your ship is close, you move with the planet and draw closer. This is how actual gravity would act (a gravity well) as well. I find it strange how I can hover right above a planet unaided one moment, but the second I draw the shallow pool of gravity I can finally come down. Again, the question of implementation is if this will be too calculation intensive, but it would open up some interesting things like gravity slingshots.

Additionally, a planet's orbital cycle being too fast can also be remedied by decreasing the length of a StarMade day, which is 20 minutes and can be changed via config right now. Frankly, it is a little too fast in my mind at default even for our play time in the current universe.

 

[ltmauve]

By orientation, I also meant being offset but I didn't really articulate what I meant too well. That's what I was referencing in being close to a planet only to warp away from it on approach to the new sector.


Even for a "fast" orbit, we would not see speeds like that. This could also be fixed by extending a planet's gravity, so when your ship is close, you move with the planet and draw closer. This is how actual gravity would act (a gravity well) as well. I find it strange how I can hover right above a planet unaided one moment, but the second I draw the shallow pool of gravity I can finally come down. Again, the question of implementation is if this will be too calculation intensive, but it would open up some interesting things like gravity slingshots.

Additionally, a planet's orbital cycle being too fast can also be remedied by decreasing the length of a StarMade day, which is 20 minutes and can be changed via config right now. Frankly, it is a little too fast in my mind at default even for our play time in the current universe.

Well, the max you get is a half sector perpendicular to your travel direction, if you travel between orbits with different numbers of angular positions. It could be set up so that the sectors look compressed so that way directions are accurate, but then objects will look like they clip. If you're targeting something in that sector, there could be a provision to orient yourself at it once you enter.

And again, you have the problem of not being able to use a jump drive to get to your planets or stations. You also have to worry about things moving a lot. What happens once the planet is unloaded? Planets crossing sector boundaries might also add lag. Also asteroid belts would be a pain to do if all their velocities had to be kept track of. Having the sectors "move" is easier because there is no actual motion.

In case you're wonder about the half-displacement, look at this:

The sectors slide past each other at different speeds. When going from one orbit to another with the same number of angular positions, you wind up having your angular position in that sector be different than it was, but there isn't any distortion, and since the sectors see themselves as square, your direction is preserved.
When the number of angular postions change is where you get difficulties, because the sectors are displayed like squares. When you consider the circle again, your angular position stays the same, but because that relies on distorting the sectors, you get a jump.


Welp I did a dumb. There is no reason to keep angular position constant during sector transistions, 'cause it's more important to conserve the apparent travel direction. Derp. In fact, it should be just like the transistion between sectors offset in one dimension. That picture is still relevant though.

 

[Viridis00]

And again, you have the problem of not being able to use a jump drive to get to your planets or stations.

All that would mean is you can't get right to your planet right away. Stations would remain sector bound and immovable, so there's nothing stopping using jump drives. You would have to set your gates somewhere close to the orbit and traverse for planets however, or know what sector they are currently in to jump over. This universe update either way will need to provide more ways to navigate the universe besides the shitty map we have now, so I see that as a non-issue.

You also have to worry about things moving a lot. What happens once the planet is unloaded?

On unload, note current time in a variable. When loaded, take current time - last recorded time before unload, recalculate. This will give the illusion of movement when away, without actually moving while away.

However, I think you bring up a great point about moving objects. Something that came to mind in between posts was what if someone built a station in the orbital path of a planet? Or even worse, what if a planet's elliptical orbit actually intersected with another planet's orbit? Even with mathematically slim chances it would happen eventually somewhere. That would be a humongous problem. This game can barely handle ships crashing, let alone two full planets.

Also asteroid belts would be a pain to do if all their velocities had to be kept track of. Having the sectors "move" is easier because there is no actual motion.

It all depends on how the solar system generation will work. If so many features are going to be included into them, stepping into a system's boundaries would mean that procedural generation would have to account for some of the structure long before you ever come close to parts of it. Marking sectors as an asteroid field in generation would have to be done first, but not necessarily "kept track of" as long as planets only have circular orbits, and not elliptical ones. Otherwise we run into the problem in my last quote block of a massive planet entity crashing into something.

 

[TheOmega]

The orbits would not be elliptical, they would be perfectly circular., and there would be a minimum distance between planets. The orbits would be like KSP does them, not accounting for mass to figure out the orbital speed. All orbits the same distance away from the same object travel at the same speed.

 

[ltmauve]

The really weird part about this is that you'd have to wind up drawing two planets in the if you were in the same orbit.
I was concerned about the center of the system, but if you do glide symmetry it works fine. Except you wind up having to draw 4 planets. The system would look strange from inside, but like an actual system from outside.

Stations would remain sector bound and immovable

No geostationary stations? Also not being able to jump to a planet makes it harder to use as a base, so fewer people will choose it.

 

[TheOmega]

I really wanted this to be a thing to where I could have like, all the stations in orbit around a more aesthetic and functional solar system, like a supergiganto-overpowered-as-crap-until-server-crashes-from-awesomeness defense grid.

 

[ltmauve]

The result of my attempt to get something workable is "well it works but you don't get the effect you were looking for."

I wonder if having the arc-shaped sectors as I drew in the diagram would actually work. Probably not.

 

[Viridis00]

No geostationary stations?

If gravity worked close to actual gravity and had varying pull and at long distances, it could be possible if stations were movable entities like asteroids. You'd need to find a point where the pull of gravity would pull just as much as the planet is moving itself. Though, I also think that it might fall out of orbit or get dragged down to the planet eventually. I'd be all for it, I just wasn't really focusing on stations a whole lot in my past posts.

If gravity really got close to the way it works in real life, Lagrange Points can also be a way to have geostationary stations. I couldn't imagine something like that ever being a possibility in starmade though.

 

[ltmauve]

What if you had normal rectangular geometry inside the sectors, but the boundaries were arc-shaped?

I think that would work.

Let me get back to you on this.

If gravity worked close to actual gravity and had varying pull and at long distances, it could be possible if stations were movable entities like asteroids. You'd need to find a point where the pull of gravity would pull just as much as the planet is moving itself. Though, I also think that it might fall out of orbit or get dragged down to the planet eventually. I'd be all for it, I just wasn't really focusing on stations a whole lot in my past posts.

If gravity really got close to the way it works in real life, Lagrange Points can also be a way to have geostationary stations. I couldn't imagine something like that ever being a possibility in starmade though.

Even KSP doesn't have Lagrange points. I don't think that anywhere close to feasible. The math for a three body system is either unsolved or requires a supercomputer, I'm not sure which.

I do agree with you that planetary gravity needs improvement.

 

[NeonSturm]

The issue is 2,1 -> 1,0 -> 2,2 as orbit 2 moved 1 to left

Or 2,3 -> 1,1 -> 2,2 without moved orbit.
You have to check where you exit a sector (left or right half) and double that position for entry into the other. Or not?

 

[ltmauve]

No, I ditched that idea entirely, as you wind up with it not looking like a solar system inside the system, since everything is in a grid and there are multiple instances of each planet and it'll not be the cool effect we were all looking for.
It's workable, but you also have the weird effect that if you travel in the angular direction you will never escape the system.

 

[TheOmega]

Ksp doesn't have Lagrange Points because it doesn't have third body physics. Third body physics are stupid sometimes, until you get three equal masses orbiting in a figure eight.

 

[ltmauve]

So came with another idea. It requires some weird sector transitions. The current rectangular sectors are cut into the arc shapes so that they can be made into concentric circles.