new basic block: 2x1 wedge block

[Fade]

I will try keep this suggestion simple by appealing to your childhood memories
I'm sure a lot of you used to (or still) play with Lego blocks.
But one of my favorite basic blocks from Lego is missing in the game.
I think such a simple (I hope) addition would go a long way in making more sleek designs.

Basicly we already have this:

(wedge)

And I want this:


(wedge with 2 blocks length)

This makes building sleek ships a lot easier, also spikey stuff (which I like personally)
Sorry if this has been suggested before, couldn't find it on the first pages...

I would be really gratefull if this makes it into a future version of the game.
Thanks for reading!

 

[oninoni]

Ahhh Schema wont do that (Block Ids...)

 

[Lecic]

I'm not sure if the game supports double type blocks like this.

 

[TrainDodger]

Indeed, I love those long Lego wedges, too, but blocks that occupy more than one block's worth of space would probably mess with the format and optimization, causing blueprint sizes and the memory footprint of ships to balloon out of control.

 

[PizzaPress]

Double-blocks won't happen, multiple blocks could use up too many IDs.
Sad, because this could be very helpful for ship design.

 

[testkil]

bwoah im not really for it

 

[Fade]

thanks for the response!

I figured it would be a bit clunky to use in the build editor (but worth it imo)
but I didnt think about block IDs...
guess it's a lot harder then I thought

glad to see some of you remember though
I'm happy with the basic blocks (and the latest additions)
but I think a 45 degree slope just isn't sleek enough for some designs
there is a reason there is a lego block for it ..hehe

Oh well thanks for hearing me out! back to my lego's..ehrrr.. Starmade

 

[Planr]

I really think that block IDs are too valuable to waste on aesthetic blocks like this.
After all, if we add 2x ramps, why not add several other angles of blocks? No. I'm not liking that.
Also consider that different-angled ramps like what you're suggesting necessitate multiple block IDs for each 1-block segment of the complete ramp for a specific angle. That adds up to tons of unwanted wasted block ID space, and a tremendous increase in memory requirements to simply play the game.

Personally I think that we should stick to the blocky feel Starmade already has. It's supposed to be voxels in outer space, not legos in outer space. If you're expecting ships to look like the kind of "sleek" you're talking about here, i'm afraid you are playing the wrong game.
Our ships are sleek in their own way, but in a way that speaks more in terms of numerical math (1 block, 2 blocks, 2 blocks, 3 blocks, 4 blocks, that's the slope) rather than circles and other types of curvy-groovy geometry.

 

[NeonSturm]

The only thing I really miss somewhat is, that you can subdivide a block into 8 smaller blocks and these again into 8 smaller blocks.

Loaded on demand (if a player is close to them) to save memory.

Nothing against blocky look, but sometimes I miss the details like on a Space-Engineer's Cockpit.
Though I don't need block construction phases and are more interested on a detail-rich interior, so SE is not exactly the game I am looking for either.

I somehow like Blender as it gives you freedom. But I don't like the editing methods and thus I stick to SM

 

[Ithirahad]

Actually, it only takes up either the same amount of IDs as any other set of blocks, or just one more that acts as a placeholder and collision box for the protruding front end's model. So yeah, it -could- be done.

 

[Blodge]

I like this idea.

If you can't have a 2x1x1 block, then how about this for a solution?

 

[NeonSturm]

2 new block IDs.
For each color and hardeness level
=> about 40 new blocks.

and don't forget the issues if somebody want fitting wedges, tetras, pentas for it.

 

[kiddan]

I really think that block IDs are too valuable to waste on aesthetic blocks like this.
After all, if we add 2x ramps, why not add several other angles of blocks? No. I'm not liking that.
Also consider that different-angled ramps like what you're suggesting necessitate multiple block IDs for each 1-block segment of the complete ramp for a specific angle. That adds up to tons of unwanted wasted block ID space, and a tremendous increase in memory requirements to simply play the game.

Personally I think that we should stick to the blocky feel Starmade already has. It's supposed to be voxels in outer space, not legos in outer space. If you're expecting ships to look like the kind of "sleek" you're talking about here, i'm afraid you are playing the wrong game.
Our ships are sleek in their own way, but in a way that speaks more in terms of numerical math (1 block, 2 blocks, 2 blocks, 3 blocks, 4 blocks, that's the slope) rather than circles and other types of curvy-groovy geometry.

Yea, this would mean and ID for every rotation of the first half, and then for the second half. (That is 24 IDs just for one half.) Minecraft might have the double bed but that is because it isn't rotatable in all directions.

 

[Blodge]

I have no idea how big the block ID catalogue can be and I'm sure the devs want to prioritise putting functional blocks into the game over aesthetic ones. However, there's no harm in discussing what we'd like any left-over block IDs to be used for, just so long as people don't get their hopes up

 

[NeonSturm]

A lot of people want wedges for lights and crystals. This has been vetoed because of concerns about block IDs. The TL;DR of this is combine all the different shapes into one block. Block damage would change slightly, but that would be it for controversial changes. We would get better inventory management, better terrain, and better-looking ships. We would also get half-slabs.

However, this is based off of a few bits of information on the engine that Schema provided, so it might not be accurate. This is going to be a post

http://starmadedock.net/threads/smedit-situation.746/page-2#post-9929
Schema made this post for the purposes of SMEdit. The bits that describe a single block are distributed like this:

Blue is block ID bits: 11 bits, 2048 possible values.
Red is HP bits: 8 bits, 256 possible values.
Green is Activation bits: 1 bit, 2 possible values.
Yellow is orientation bits: 4 bits, 16 possible values.

Now, how many orientations does each type of block have? Cubes can have 6 different orientations. Wedges can have 12 different orientations. Corners can have 24 different orientations. Pentas and Tetras can each have 8 orientations. So there are 6 + 12 + 24 + 8 + 8 = 58 different orientations. You'll notice the corner has more possibilities than the orientation bits would allow; I'm pretty sure that it uses the activation bit as well.

Here's my proposed changing of the bit allocations.

Blue is block ID bits: 11 bits, 2048 possible values.
Red is HP bits: 6 bits, 64 possible values.
Green is Activation bits: 1 bit, 2 possible values.
Yellow is orientation bits: 6 bits, 64 possible values.
Now, we condense solid block, wedge, corner, penta, and tetra into a single block. There are 58 possible combinations from that. We have another 6 orientation values we can use, so we can slip slabs in there as well.
This actually removes block IDs from use: 84 pentas, tetras, corners and wedges from glass and 10 pairs of hull colors. Also, there are 5 lone wedge types. (metal grill, metal mesh, green stripe, yellow stripe, and ice crystal) Thats 89 IDs removed from use.
Also, that's a heck of an inventory improvement.



Now of course, this comes at the cost of block HP. I propose this is mitigated through a change to the armor system. Currently armor goes from 0 to 99 and is calculated through( damage * (100 - armor) / 100).

Armor should go from 1 to whatever and be calculated through (damage / armor). Then add a global armor value that block armor is multiplied by. So really the calculation would be (damage / (block armor * ship armor * global armor)). However, if we set global armor to 4 in order to compensate for the loss in HP, we wind up with 1-damage cannons being worthless.
So, ships need a way of making the small stuff count. A new property called surplus will be added to entities. It tracks surplus damage that was lost due to armor. block damage =((damage + surplus)/(block armor * ship armor * global armor)) and surplus =((damage + surplus)%(block armor * ship armor * global armor)) where % is the modulus operator. This way small cannons aren't useless, and armor actually does something.

2048 as in the first pic.

 

[Blodge]

That's a very informative post, thank you.

From what I can tell, there are already around 500 block IDs in use in the game. That means we've only used just under one-quarter of the available IDs. Using a few dozen more for 2 new Hull blocks doesn't sound like too much of a problem.

If I understand ltmauve's post correctly, implementing this idea would limit the number of different block shapes considerably, but would free-up more block ID which allows a much larger number of different block functions. Is that correct?

 

[ltmauve]

That's a very informative post, thank you.

From what I can tell, there are already around 500 block IDs in use in the game. That means we've only used just under one-quarter of the available IDs. Using a few dozen more for 2 new Hull blocks doesn't sound like too much of a problem.

If I understand ltmauve's post correctly, implementing this idea would limit the number of different block shapes considerably, but would free-up more block ID which allows a much larger number of different block functions. Is that correct?

Sort of. It would mean that we are limited in further expansions of the shapes we can get, but we can get the current shapes on blocks which are currently cube-only without any extra IDs. And yes, that will give us more room for functions.

The requirements for half-slope blocks: (Note: "Tall" and "short" refer to the two different halves of the two-block slope)

Wedge: The half-wedge can be defined by the "2x1 face" and which direction the slope is in. 24 orientations x 2 blocks = 48 orientations.

Now, there are three different ways two different slopes can intersect:
1: They can have the "2x1 face" pointing in the same direction. The "1x1 faces" are perpendicular
The corners will need a "tall" and a "short." Each of these can be defined the same way as a normal corner. 24 orientations x 2 blocks = 48 orientations.
The pentas and tetras will need 3 blocks (a flattened tetra, a short penta (with a diamond angled face instead of a triangle) and a tall penta) to make a series. Each one will need 24 orientations, because each of the 8 positions could be stretched in 3 ways. 8 * 3 * 3 = 72 orientations.

2: The "2x1 faces" are perpendicular to each other, but the "1x1 faces" point in the same direction
The corners again need a "tall" and "short." 48 orientations.
The pentas and tetras now need a set of 4 to make a repeating series. (short tetra, long "tetra", short penta, long penta.) Again, 24 orientations each, so in total 96 total orientations.

3: One slope's "2x1 face" points the same way as the other's "1x1 face." Their other faces are perpendicular.
The corners require 4 pieces now, and each can now be oriented in 48 different ways. 192 orientations.
The pentas and tetras require 4 pieces again, except now they can also be oriented in 48 different ways each. 192 orientations.



Adding that all up we get 696 possible orientations. That would take 11 blockIDs worth of data with my own system, and 22 with the existing system. So yeah, half blocks are cool and all, but we really can't support them. The tail section of my cruiser would look really great with this, but adding this just for blocks that already have shapes would add 418 blockIDs currently. Not that worth it.

 

[NeonSturm]

It would also either be a pain for UI / placement or inventory.