Flat planets are absolutely horrible. An idea on how to make them round. changed

[grimzod]

Flat is fine, its simple and it works. Nothign more need be said. Also, Discworld is cool and anyhting that reminds me of discworld is great.



Larger planets I don\'t want, theyre already MILLIONS of blocks each. Smaller ones or thinner ones are cool with me also.

 

[bobucles]

The end.

 

[Malloon]

I do think Oreo planets are our best bet, but in my opinion they should be larger, and maybe move around the central star. I don\'t know if this would take too much memory, though. If this isn\'t possible, they should just rotate, to make day and night based on the star.

But to make cube planets possible, all the planets need is one central block, with \"pyramids\" on all six sides, with the points facing inward. In which pyramid you are determines what your gravity is. If you are in two, the one with the largest amount of you in it counts. If it is even, both count.

 

[shbunie]

semi-spheres please, so more like floating islands other then smooth bottemed disks

 

[Atavism]

There is another sandbox game in development called Patterns that handles gravity on cube and octohedron shapes planets in basically the same way that Malloon just described. It works well, but it\'s as confusing as hell when you go through a gravity shift, especially if you\'re underground when it happens. Also, the physics in that game use up huge amount of the computers resources, and I\'m not sure how much of that it takes to handle the complex gravity.

All up, I think the flat worlds are a better choice in this sort of environment.

 

[Hierarch]

I am creating presentations for the developers, and would like to make one for your idea. Please message me full details and i will make a presention.

Thanks, ADI

 

[Shadefang]

Personally, I\'m a fan of the cubic worlds. Discworlds, or oreos, always seem to have the issue of walking off the edge, and while I\'m interested in suggestions, I\'ve yet to see any elegant way of dealing with that. If you use a cube based world, with gravity transitions at the \"corners,\" as mentioned before, it seems to give a lot more flexibility. If you really have issues with the transitions, you build near the center of the faces and avoid the edges, something you essentially already have to do with a discworld for fear of falling off. It just doesn\'t make sense to me to have a hard set up and down in a game based around space.

Secondly, I\'m curious why it seems to be assumed that the center of gravity has to be a set point. What if it were to be made dynamic, so major changes to a planet actually had an effect? Make it so the center actually lies where the center of mass for the planet is (possibly requiring something like 1% of the planet\'s blocks to be edited to trigger recalculation, to save on cpu), so that mining away a large portion of a planet would actually cause changes.

 

[WatcherCCG]

Schema, the easiest thing to do here is just make a HALF-planet. A hemisphere with its atmosphere making the other half of the orb. This would solve most of the asthetic issues without needing to suffer headaches with sphere physics. You have a planet-like structure with a rounded bottom, and that will be enough.

Another thing that should be done is removing a planet\'s atmosphere aura once the planet is roughly 75%-90 destroyed. The planet\'s no longer there in any meaningful sense, at this point it\'s just another asteroid and should be reclassified as such in the Nav menu.

 

[D-Car]

Knowing that people are going to be building on planets, and allowing for a dual-gravity field, I think the planets would need to be thicker than two back-to-back planets are currently so people can have an option of digging into a planet and building something subterranean that\'s really nice before they hit the opposing gravity well.

 

[Zxaber]

Summarizing my post from http://star-made.org/comment/14288#comment-14288

2D mockup of my point: http://i.imgur.com/scgc5lQ.png?1

My opinion is to have cube worlds, split up into 6 five-sided pyramids. Each pyramid has its own gravity field, pushing towards the center. If you tunnel into another pyramid, the gravity would shift. In addition, the gravity pull would lessen as you get closer to the center of the planet, preferably to a point where gravity doesn\'t exist at all.

One of the things I don\'t like about disc worlds is that the thinness of them restricts hidden bases. Ships start getting pretty big quickly, and its difficult to build a hanger into a planet that could house them.

 

[D-Car]

Schema has been saying (in this very thread) that your model is not feasible because of how it\'d need to be handled around the borders between various gravities. He\'d be okay with the basic concept of round gravity, except it doesn\'t work in a cube-based world. Therefore: Oreo worlds are coming.

 

[TheBlueThunder]

Each side has gravity so if a player falls off on one side the gravity of the side they fall into will pull them
to that side.

 

[Archer6621]

I prefer the Oreo approach a lot more than anything else, I kinda like the idea of flat planets, it gives an unique touch to the game, and keeps things reasonably simple at the same time.

 

[Bannta]

i would suggest a pure cube, just from space view. Once you hit the atmosphere it would have to transition into a flat world like as if you entered a separate sector so to speak. It would be its own mini game and great for a expansion pack in the future if time does not permit.

 

[Man_Pidgeon]

I suggest a way to make the planet look more sphireical through gameplay almost like Galaxy55 did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5hpxst-MMk (this game is no longer up). This will be more fluid and we can keep flat worlds.

 

[ne3zy]

I support bigger and double sided planets, easiest to do ans still looks good !

 

[zepticon]

you know on minecraft we have a endless world

so on starmade why not when we enter a planet we get to a loading screen that wil take uss to a minecraft like world that is endless

 

[Fiestaguy]

so on starmade why not when we enter a planet we get to a loading screen that wil take uss to a minecraft like world that is endless


That WAS part of my idea i wanted to post here, you\'re too quick for me. Tough a loading screen isn\'t very user-friendly is it? what if when you go int a planets orbit the sky turns a bit more blue-ish (or whatever color you want) and you can then land on it. And not make it so that its endless but it still repeats itself. literally. Tough if i was Schema i\'d like to avoid loading screens at all costs.

 

[Moonyman213]

-------------

On-topic:

What about a system like Spore? As you aproach the planet, the scale changes? A decent computer would support that pretty good. Mine did and it ain\'t new at all. 2.00 ghz with a 8600 gt.

On the other side, having a loading screen for each planet would be extremely heavy. What if you don\'t want to go into that planet, and you accidently got the loading screen? That will become an issue. I get massive FPS drops because of the draw distance. It literally loads the whole planet. Only once, my game crashed because of this.



I say we keep shapeing till it starts sounding sexy. After all, this is the universe, so brace yourself for the biggest of the biggest.



Ps: I like the Oreo Idea.

 

[CorneliousCrowe]

@schema
I am a fan of the Oreo. Not only because I know you already have most of the system in place, but because I love the idea of multiple universes and a universe with cube physics would form planets completely differently. I think you have handled this complex problem very well already, and I encourage you to mix science and fun even more. I think the best ideas come along when someone asks \"what if\" What would a universe look like where all atoms wanted to bond together in a cube shape? Keep up this awesome work, I can\'t wait to see where you take this game next!

Also, I posted in a discussion on the increase in \"speed\" problem somewhere in the forum. My post called \"A Different Approach to Speed\" you should check it out if you havn\'t already!