Cubical planets are better and I can explain why

thereaverofdarkness · Apr 18, 2017

The idea to make planets into dodecahedrons was brilliant, and they certainly catch your eye. But they don't really seem to work very well. They look rounder than a cube, but they still don't look round. Instead, they're just adding pentagons to a game about squares and cubes. It might be nice if the shallower angle made it easier to cross from one plate to another on foot, but it really doesn't do that. The dodecahedron's angle between plates is ~63º compared to a cube's 90º, so it's still very steep, but with the dodecahedron you have a big scar between plates large enough for the player to fall into. So it's arguably even more difficult to cross over to the next plate, and it isn't significantly less disorienting.

I think the reason people like the dodecahedrons is because they are a functional way to make planets more round. But why do we need that? The blocks are cubes, the sectors are cubes, and the systems are cubes. Why not have the planets be cubes? You wouldn't need 12 plates to make a planet, it could be a solid piece and that would probably improve performance. And planet performance could really use some improvements.

Criss · Apr 18, 2017

thereaverofdarkness said:
But why do we need that?

Because planets are round. We have a game that relies on grids and cubes, but a majority of the things we build with our blocks are not bigger cubes. That is in fact frowned upon among the playerbase.

We already have plans for planets that do not involve turning them into cubes. You'll see that work eventually!

Valiant70 · Apr 19, 2017

Criss said:
We already have plans for planets that do not involve turning them into cubes. You'll see that work eventually!

TBH, I would have done cubic planets from the start. I'm curious to see what y'all have come up with though.

Ithirahad · May 3, 2017

Criss said:
Because planets are round.

Space combat doesn't occur over short distances
Solar systems can't be flown through in a few minutes at 300 m/s
Spacecraft aren't made of cubes
Matter in general isn't made of cubes
People don't look like box-headed flexible robots
Lasers and most types of beam aren't visible as lines (at least not in empty space)
Space projectile weapons don't fire things that move slowly enough to be seen (they're guns and railguns)
Faster-than-light travel, if it is possible, almost certainly does not involve flying through purple space tunnels
Computers are not made of 1m^3 units that can do one operation each

KaRe · May 3, 2017

Ithirahad said:
Space combat doesn't occur over short distances

Solar systems can't be flown through in a few minutes at 300 m/s

Spacecraft aren't made of cubes

Matter in general isn't made of cubes

People don't look like box-headed flexible robots

Lasers and most types of beam aren't visible as lines (at least not in empty space)

Space projectile weapons don't fire things that move slowly enough to be seen (they're guns and railguns)

Faster-than-light travel, if it is possible, almost certainly does not involve flying through purple space tunnels

Computers are not made of 1m^3 units that can do one operation each

I think I remember this saying here:

DukeofRealms said:
Nicer edges / seamless map

Something we want.

Also, we don't need them. We want them, and so do the devs.

Criss · May 3, 2017

Ithirahad said:
Space combat doesn't occur over short distances

Solar systems can't be flown through in a few minutes at 300 m/s

Spacecraft aren't made of cubes

Matter in general isn't made of cubes

People don't look like box-headed flexible robots

Lasers and most types of beam aren't visible as lines (at least not in empty space)

Space projectile weapons don't fire things that move slowly enough to be seen (they're guns and railguns)

Faster-than-light travel, if it is possible, almost certainly does not involve flying through purple space tunnels

Computers are not made of 1m^3 units that can do one operation each

Not sure what the point is that you're trying to make, but let me put it another way. If we are bothering to have planets in StarMade, we sure aren't going to let them stay as cubes or cookie shapes.

Valiant70 · May 3, 2017

Criss said:
Not sure what the point is that you're trying to make, but let me put it another way. If we are bothering to have planets in StarMade, we sure aren't going to let them stay as cubes or cookie shapes.

The reason I would like or at the very least not mind cubic planets is that it's a natural shape for the universe you've created, like a sphere is a natural shape for real world planets. Despite the edges being stark dividing lines, they can be made to look good. On the other hand, I don't know what you've come up with or how you plan to approach the goals you have for planets, so perhaps what you've come up with is better. I hope it is, and I hope it's not just a revamp of the dodecahedron planets.

Criss · May 3, 2017

Valiant70 said:
The reason I would like or at the very least not mind cubic planets is that it's a natural shape for the universe you've created, like a sphere is a natural shape for real world planets. Despite the edges being stark dividing lines, they can be made to look good. On the other hand, I don't know what you've come up with or how you plan to approach the goals you have for planets, so perhaps what you've come up with is better. I hope it is, and I hope it's not just a revamp of the dodecahedron planets.

I don't see how a cube shape is any "better" than a dodecahedron, or any other shape that isn't a perfect sphere. We chose dodecahedron planets because they still have plenty of building area and are more planet-looking.

Valiant70 · May 3, 2017

Criss said:
I don't see how a cube shape is any "better" than a dodecahedron, or any other shape that isn't a perfect sphere. We chose dodecahedron planets because they still have plenty of building area and are more planet-looking.

Dodecahedrons were an absolutely brilliant choice in theory. The trouble is those edges. They're jagged and they always must be unless you do some weird stuff with partially rendered blocks or dozens of new block shapes the engine shouldn't have to deal with. There's no voxel-clean way to reconcile the edges of twelve pentagons.

The reason that I would prefer cubes is that the edges are "voxel-clean," meaning the voxels don't need to overlap or form any shapes that aren't already in the game. Walking over the edges would be strange, but could be solved at least mostly by beveling them, so the player walks over two 45 degree angles instead of one 90 degree angle when changing faces.

A beveled shape could use the cubes, wedges, tetras, and pentas we already have. That also means clever builders could place things over those edges, although it would take some work and creativity to make it look good. There is simply no way to do that with dodecahedron planets. You can't build over the edges at all. The best you can do is build a flat road up to the edge and continue it at roughly the same point on the other plate, with a huge crack in the middle that looks like the aftermath of an earthquake in a city.

With large enough planets we could avoid the edges, but in a way that's just running away from the problem. It would be playable, but not elegant, and would still drive neat freaks absolutely nuts in many cases. (I would know. I'm a total neat freak with voxels.)

Ithirahad · May 3, 2017

Criss said:
I don't see how a cube shape is any "better" than a dodecahedron, or any other shape that isn't a perfect sphere.

Less entities to calculate collisions with, more contiguous build area (trying to build over the edge of a dodecahedron is a joke, and dodecahedrons have so many damn edges... Even if your dodeca has more than enough surface area for a nice big city it doesn't matter because it's a dodecahedron made of blocks), no ugly jagged edges, ability to connect terrain features like rivers with comparative ease later on, thematic harmony with a block game, less different sides that you have to check to find where you left your factories ( :P ))...

That being said, I prefer a spherical solution, or even an instanced solution, over either dodecahedrons OR cubes. But I'm just saying... Cubes do have some merit.

Valiant70 · May 3, 2017

Ithirahad said:
But I'm just saying... Cubes do have some merit.

Precisely my point.

KiraSerra · May 5, 2017

I loved the old cake like planets. They made the game unique. I used to have hangars under them other structures on top and a defense turret ring around them. Also it was less demanding on my system. Please can I get them back? :cry:

Eltarani · May 5, 2017

Ithirahad said:
Space combat doesn't occur over short distances*

Solar systems can't be flown through in a few minutes at 300 m/s*

Spacecraft aren't made of cubes

Matter in general isn't made of cubes

People don't look like box-headed flexible robots

Lasers and most types of beam aren't visible as lines (at least not in empty space)*

Space projectile weapons don't fire things that move slowly enough to be seen (they're guns and railguns)*

Faster-than-light travel, if it is possible, almost certainly does not involve flying through purple space tunnels*

Computers are not made of 1m^3 units that can do one operation each*

*depending on which fiction you refer to, as none of these are applicable in real life, where planets are indeed, round.

Ithirahad · May 5, 2017

Solar systems are very large things, Eltarani. Perhaps with FTL you can fly through them in the span of a few minutes, but no matter what continuity you're in, they are not that small. 300 m/s is only 600-something miles per hour.

Regardless, my point is that "planets are round" is not a reason to do anything in a game that's this unrealistic, unless you can actually make the planets round. A dodecahedron isn't much superior to any other geometric shape, and actually has a lot of drawbacks that less 'round' shapes do not have. If making planets cubical makes them more functional, that's fine. I personally draw the line at cookie planets because the idea of building a hangar into the side of a planet is a little too wacky for me, but any closed shape with only outside surfaces exposed (no edge-'sides', no reverse side) is tolerable if it works.

Amadeus · May 5, 2017

Criss said:
Because planets are round. We have a game that relies on grids and cubes, but a majority of the things we build with our blocks are not bigger cubes. That is in fact frowned upon among the playerbase.

We already have plans for planets that do not involve turning them into cubes. You'll see that work eventually!

Perhaps if we had a bit more information about what work is being done with planets, other than a tiny teaser gif, we could get less planet threads per day

Dr. Whammy · May 5, 2017

Food for thought...

In an attempt to create a more realistic planet than the discs while not generating the amount of lag typical of dodecahedrons, I once began working on a concept for an artificial 6-plate octogonal polyhedron planet.

The structure would be visually similar to a dodecahedron yet functionally identical to a cube. Each of the 6 plates would be square at the bottom and connect to a central structure; creating a seemless 26-sided polyhedron consisting of 6 flat serfaces, 12 wedged surfaces and 8 hepta/tetra surfaces. At the at the half way point of each angled surface, gravity would shift you 90 degrees upon entering the next planet plate.

I was forced to abandon the project because there is no way to add an 'always-on' gravity system to a ship or station.

Skylordluke had similar projects if I remember correctly.

Your thoughts gentlemen?

Dr. Whammy · May 7, 2017

Here's an ultra-simplified version of what I'm talking about; albeit smaller than my original prototype and built as a single entity instead of a cluster. For this experiment, I'll have 6 populated areas arranged in a cubic fashion; each with their own manually activated gravity. Most of the diagonal areas will end up being oceans and decorative landscapes, although I'll have roads and bridges that lead to the neighboring sides.

So as not to crowd the thread, I'll add images to this post as the build progresses.

jstenholt · May 7, 2017

Can't we all just wait until the new planets are released and then we can A. demand that they be reverted to cookies/dodecahedrons, B. demand they be made into cubes, or C. they work great and everybody is satisfied (lol)?

Dr. Whammy · May 7, 2017

jstenholt said:
Can't we all just wait until the new planets are released and then we can A. demand that they be reverted to cookies/dodecahedrons, B. demand they be made into cubes, or C. they work great and everybody is satisfied (lol)?

I'm hoping for option C. but I'm ALWAYS ready to deploy "Plan X"...

jstenholt · May 7, 2017

Please, no. Why are you doing this?

Cubical planets are better and I can explain why

What's your response?

I agree, we should have cubic planets.

The dodecahedron planets are fine, why change them?

Dodecahedrons are actually the best shape for planets.

Planets should have even more faces, or should be even rounder.

Planets should just be a single solid spherical piece.

Planets should be pyramids or some other wacky shape.

We should go back to the old dome planets.

other idea/disagree

Social Media Director

That crazy cyborg

Arana'Aethi

Social Media Director

That crazy cyborg

Social Media Director

That crazy cyborg

Arana'Aethi

That crazy cyborg

Arana'Aethi

Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis

Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis

Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis