- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 20
Dodecahedron Planets, easy implimentation.
- Thread starter spoonikle
- Start date
Larger planets would solve the appearence problem. As the planets became larger the appearence of being sphyrical would be easier and easier to achieve.Maybe the plants and trees growing on the blocks only grow on four of the sides so what.
To the problem of the gravity.
Ive heard mention of an autopilot system being implimented. Now suppose the gravity was just that. a sub autopilot leading the player to the center of the planet and maybe it lessens or pauses when in contact with the planet itself. Perhaps a near 0 friction system should be implemented into the actual \"zero Gravity\" space so that an object in motion should stay in motion until acted upon. Now with that said when a player jumps when on said planet the distance the player moves away from the planet and how fast he moves back should be dependent on how large the planet is and how much mass it posseses. If a planet is destroyed then the gravity should disapear or the pull of the autopilot should become 0.
In the system being used now any object in space slows down considerably when the propulsion ceases. when in reality it should free float at that very speed until stopped the reason you cant have gravity with this system because all objects have an inherent notion to stay still instead of reacting to all the forces around it. if they reacted to these forces equally, than for gravity all you would need was to have the nose of the players (autopilot) to be pointed at the center of a planet and its throtal be totaly dependent on the mass of the planet.
Now for the problem of the center of the planets and perpetual weightlessness. As mentioned above yes lava is salvegable however maybe a ruling so that it always flows and refills if their is still a considerable amount of planet left. And maybe in the middle their could be an archenstone or a valuable ore of somesort.
To the problem of the gravity.
Ive heard mention of an autopilot system being implimented. Now suppose the gravity was just that. a sub autopilot leading the player to the center of the planet and maybe it lessens or pauses when in contact with the planet itself. Perhaps a near 0 friction system should be implemented into the actual \"zero Gravity\" space so that an object in motion should stay in motion until acted upon. Now with that said when a player jumps when on said planet the distance the player moves away from the planet and how fast he moves back should be dependent on how large the planet is and how much mass it posseses. If a planet is destroyed then the gravity should disapear or the pull of the autopilot should become 0.
In the system being used now any object in space slows down considerably when the propulsion ceases. when in reality it should free float at that very speed until stopped the reason you cant have gravity with this system because all objects have an inherent notion to stay still instead of reacting to all the forces around it. if they reacted to these forces equally, than for gravity all you would need was to have the nose of the players (autopilot) to be pointed at the center of a planet and its throtal be totaly dependent on the mass of the planet.
Now for the problem of the center of the planets and perpetual weightlessness. As mentioned above yes lava is salvegable however maybe a ruling so that it always flows and refills if their is still a considerable amount of planet left. And maybe in the middle their could be an archenstone or a valuable ore of somesort.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
\"Oh my gawd let\'s make a planet with faces completely different shapes to that of the voxels!\"
Does... that sound problematic to you? It does to me. Well, let\'s treat the cubes as squares making up the net of the planet.
Now, that doesn\'t sound very graceful. Why? Because cubes cannot perfectly fit inside of a dodecahedron\'s net without overlapping one another or removing the idea of a constant grid enabling you to remove/place blocks in a convenient way.
Even if they did, it would still be problematic because the cubes would have to be at a different angle to the rest of the actual face to have a legitimate edge there, right?
This means there is no constant grid to place blocks/remove them, that doesn\'t sound very convenient.
Just saying. If anything, it should be a cube.
To get the gravity right on the cube, we need to make a multi-dimensional array of cubes around the planet in which they\'ll all have different effects (I think some of them may need to be wedge/corner shaped, I haven\'t thought this through yet). Some of the shapes (let\'s say) will originate from an actual face of the cube. They have the same gravitational effect as planets do now. Then, from the verteces, the gravity should favour either one of the neighbouring faces depending on distance between them, or randomly choosing one.
It sure would make planet harvesting harder!
Who harvests planets? :P
Does... that sound problematic to you? It does to me. Well, let\'s treat the cubes as squares making up the net of the planet.
Now, that doesn\'t sound very graceful. Why? Because cubes cannot perfectly fit inside of a dodecahedron\'s net without overlapping one another or removing the idea of a constant grid enabling you to remove/place blocks in a convenient way.
Even if they did, it would still be problematic because the cubes would have to be at a different angle to the rest of the actual face to have a legitimate edge there, right?
This means there is no constant grid to place blocks/remove them, that doesn\'t sound very convenient.
Just saying. If anything, it should be a cube.
To get the gravity right on the cube, we need to make a multi-dimensional array of cubes around the planet in which they\'ll all have different effects (I think some of them may need to be wedge/corner shaped, I haven\'t thought this through yet). Some of the shapes (let\'s say) will originate from an actual face of the cube. They have the same gravitational effect as planets do now. Then, from the verteces, the gravity should favour either one of the neighbouring faces depending on distance between them, or randomly choosing one.
It sure would make planet harvesting harder!
Who harvests planets? :P
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 43
What about making them icosahedron? It has 20 triangles, which you can have in cubes and connecting side-to side to each-other. So you\'d need to make a much bigger planet (which make more sense, than having tens of planets being flat like now), occupying almost entire sector by itself, and depending on which side you\'re approaching/landing/walking it will pre-load four of those triangles (one target and three adjacent).
The most difficulty here is to make a visual effect, that bends the surface outwards as you go higher into athmosphere, so that the world would appear round, while not being such. So it would literally push 4 triandles outwards from the center and they would appear as perfectly fitting sphere fraction, but when you get close, it will become completely flat, have a one-direction gravity and full size underground. Where there\'s no rendered surface triangles, you\'d see just a rough textured circle, merging with planet\'s loaded surface to some extent. Basically a visual interpolation.
I\'m an artist, not a programmer, so I can\'t really tell how hard it is to implement, I just base myself on a Minecraft Open GL engine, which allowed entire world bending randomly in the distance with little to no effect to the performance.
The most difficulty here is to make a visual effect, that bends the surface outwards as you go higher into athmosphere, so that the world would appear round, while not being such. So it would literally push 4 triandles outwards from the center and they would appear as perfectly fitting sphere fraction, but when you get close, it will become completely flat, have a one-direction gravity and full size underground. Where there\'s no rendered surface triangles, you\'d see just a rough textured circle, merging with planet\'s loaded surface to some extent. Basically a visual interpolation.
I\'m an artist, not a programmer, so I can\'t really tell how hard it is to implement, I just base myself on a Minecraft Open GL engine, which allowed entire world bending randomly in the distance with little to no effect to the performance.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
What about just working more on the way the current \"planets\" look.
Because the flat sides and underside look really bad.
I would imagine them to look more like floating islands, Imagine what an Iceberg looks like.
http://effji.deviantart.com/art/Minecraft-Skylands-Floating-Islands-329642250
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1334/09/1334093756620.jpg
I personally think there is no real way of getting cubes to work in a spherical shape without a whole load of issues that will need to be fixed.
Why not just work on a different idea. Perhaps leave the planet ideas alone all together and call them Islands or something.
Because the flat sides and underside look really bad.
I would imagine them to look more like floating islands, Imagine what an Iceberg looks like.
http://effji.deviantart.com/art/Minecraft-Skylands-Floating-Islands-329642250
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1334/09/1334093756620.jpg
I personally think there is no real way of getting cubes to work in a spherical shape without a whole load of issues that will need to be fixed.
Why not just work on a different idea. Perhaps leave the planet ideas alone all together and call them Islands or something.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
like this? : http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/polyhedron-models.html?m=Snub Dodecahedron (Laevo)
(if it doesnt take you directly to the \"snub Dodecahedron then just click the next button untill you find it)
It looks roughly sphearical and if made large enough would look pretty cool in space.
EDIT: link Correction
(if it doesnt take you directly to the \"snub Dodecahedron then just click the next button untill you find it)
It looks roughly sphearical and if made large enough would look pretty cool in space.
EDIT: link Correction
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 20
Like it has been posted above, we must consider the fact that the chosen model will still be composed of \"cubes\" and thus we must avoid models that makes them overlap each other... because, the planet won\'t be void/empty, it\'ll be filled with cubes. So we must think of something made of cube but that can be made close to round.
I would actually be completely cool with DeadlyApples\' idea if it proves too hard to code a cube planet. Also quit suggesting things with more than 6 sides, it\'s not going to happen without changing the building mechanics of starmade completely.
I have no problem with flat planets. They\'re funny, as mentioned in #7, and you can build docking arrays on the bottom where you don\'t have to bother with gravity. (as much) They also make the game more unique.
I don\'t think I am the only one who thinks this.
I don\'t think I am the only one who thinks this.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 20
I can live with flat planets also. But then, why couldn\'t we make it fully two-sided? Instead of a flat rock bottom, it can be another face like it\'s top. Like a two-faced coin! You\'d have the dark side of the planet and the bright side with the planet turning around the sun.
With this in mind, if the engine can \"detect\" the sun exposure of the faces, that could lead to some interesting planets designs... one covered with ice and the other side a desert, simply because one side is always hidden from the sun and the other is burnt from the sun\'s radiations!
But again, I\'ll live with what the engine can do. I only wondered if something else could\'ve been done with what it can do.
With this in mind, if the engine can \"detect\" the sun exposure of the faces, that could lead to some interesting planets designs... one covered with ice and the other side a desert, simply because one side is always hidden from the sun and the other is burnt from the sun\'s radiations!
But again, I\'ll live with what the engine can do. I only wondered if something else could\'ve been done with what it can do.
I don\'t mind flat planets, and actually prefer them for docking (since you can make a trench where ships can simply fly in and be less exposed on top). Double sided planets would be an awesome idea, combine it with the floating island sides and you would have a semi oval thing. planets wouldn\'t be round but hey it is the simplest idea, assuming the game is built for something like that.
See this thread http://star-made.org/comment/30136#comment-30136
about Simulated Roundness Solution. Everything will still be cubes, but you will experience it as if you were playing Minecraft, with 1 exception. Lets say world cube is 100x100x100. If you go coord -1,0,0, it will wrap around to 99,0,0, being visually seamless experience. Shader can curve the landscape more spherical, but transition from normal space to planet space is only challenge.
about Simulated Roundness Solution. Everything will still be cubes, but you will experience it as if you were playing Minecraft, with 1 exception. Lets say world cube is 100x100x100. If you go coord -1,0,0, it will wrap around to 99,0,0, being visually seamless experience. Shader can curve the landscape more spherical, but transition from normal space to planet space is only challenge.
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,176
- Reaction score
- 938
That planets should be larger version of what they are. At the moment they are 400 long and wide. Up that to 4000m, and increase sector size to 26,000m^3
As you enter the planets atmosphere, GLSL shaders take over and give the planet \'curvature\', get to the edge of a planet while in the atmosphere and you wrap back around. From space you see the planet as a map of its landscape wrapped around a spherical shape. With some form of transistion as you enter the atmosphere.
As you enter the planets atmosphere, GLSL shaders take over and give the planet \'curvature\', get to the edge of a planet while in the atmosphere and you wrap back around. From space you see the planet as a map of its landscape wrapped around a spherical shape. With some form of transistion as you enter the atmosphere.
Not all of the ideas here ask for any weird gravity. If you use the looping cube world, gravity is always downwards, and grass surface is on the top. But you see the top grass surface from all 360 degrees in space axis\'s, just spherical mapping.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2013
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 52
Solution to gravity craziness in the middle of planet: Press escape, then click the big red button that says \"Suicide\"
There wouldn\'t be any craziness in the middle of planet, as the core is always thousands of degrees hot. You would burn to crisp well before coming anywhere near the core.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
I think a lot of people don\'t realise how gravity currently works. It works by aligning your character with the vehicle or planets \'local space\'. No matter what shape the object takes, gravity will still only work in one direction currently so having rounded planets would be moot since you could still \'fall off\'.
Another major issue with having this sort of planet is that it makes the interesting terrain generation much more difficult when you consider that the entire planet is comprised of cubes. Currently it\'s easy to make hills and valleys look like hills and valleys because of the disc shape. Try making a hill or a valley actually look right when you\'re applying it to a ball made of cubes. The maths involved would probably give even Stephen Hawkings a headache.
What about trees? They need to be straight, so would that mean that trees can only be placed on four sides of the \'sphere\' or would it mean disconnected diagonal blocks which would look hideous?
Personally I\'m fine with the flat planets because it means I can actually walk and build on them as if they ARE actually planets rather than Mario Galaxy style orbs. Trying to overcomplicate things with elaborate shapes and sizes doesn\'t get around the fact that ultimately they\'re still comprised of cubes, meaning that assuming you could work the gravity, a cube shape would be the ONLY form it could take while still being able to have flat land underfoot.
Another major issue with having this sort of planet is that it makes the interesting terrain generation much more difficult when you consider that the entire planet is comprised of cubes. Currently it\'s easy to make hills and valleys look like hills and valleys because of the disc shape. Try making a hill or a valley actually look right when you\'re applying it to a ball made of cubes. The maths involved would probably give even Stephen Hawkings a headache.
What about trees? They need to be straight, so would that mean that trees can only be placed on four sides of the \'sphere\' or would it mean disconnected diagonal blocks which would look hideous?
Personally I\'m fine with the flat planets because it means I can actually walk and build on them as if they ARE actually planets rather than Mario Galaxy style orbs. Trying to overcomplicate things with elaborate shapes and sizes doesn\'t get around the fact that ultimately they\'re still comprised of cubes, meaning that assuming you could work the gravity, a cube shape would be the ONLY form it could take while still being able to have flat land underfoot.