Rhombicuboctahedron Planets?

[Lone_Puppy]

Hi Guys,

Could Rhombicuboctahedron shaped planets be a possibility in the future?
It would give 18 square platforms, for people who like square building surfaces. Not sure what you'd do with the 8 triangle plates, but I'm sure people would work it out.

Rhombicuboctahedron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhombicuboctahedron

I see moontheman has already looked at something similar and used it in a ship design.
https://starmadedock.net/threads/rhombicuboctahedron.11018/

 

[Malacodor]

I see moontheman has already looked at something similar and used it in a ship design.
https://starmadedock.net/threads/rhombicuboctahedron.11018/

That's a truncated cuboctahedron, not a rhombicuboctahedron.

 

[nschmidtty]

I really like this, especially the truncated cuboctahedron! Because of the high number of sides, (and the addition of smaller plates), things like polar ice caps become not only viable, but easy. This could lead to better planet geography.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

That's a truncated cuboctahedron, not a rhombicuboctahedron.

True. Why I put in there "something similar".

I prefer the rhombicuboctahedron with 18 squares myself, but the truncated cuboctahedron would also be ok.

 

[Valiant70]

I think Schema has something up his sleeve about planets. Let's wait and see if he reveals any more. Maybe we won't need these wonky multi-plate entities anymore.

 

[NeonSturm]

I like "rhombicuboctahedron with 18 squares" too. I would use the triangles as waste-disposal areas.

But I prefer cube-planets. It's a cube-game and anything but cube-planets is immersion-breaking :p
I don't mind if travelling in orbit involves perfect 90° rotations between planet and sector edges as long as you don't accelerate away/toward a planet. A point where schema may not agree upon. One reason why I may keep wanting another game.

 

[HolyCookie]

I don't know for sure but the "rhombicuboctahedron with 18 squares" isn't a good option as it would create too many entities. I believe I can remember the devs saying something about not wanting too many entities (really unsure tho) I personally wouldn't like the idea because either the planets would need to be bigger or the sections are smaller. On the other side, it would look cooler when on the planet. NeonSturm that cube world would actually be great for making a ship orbit :D I like the thinking style, If you can't go realistic, go crazy

 

[NeonSturm]

I don't know for sure but the "rhombicuboctahedron with 18 squares" isn't a good option as it would create too many entities.

I think the real problem of planets with 5-corner plates is that collision boundaries overlap with every player, ship and rail-entity.
With squared plates, it would mostly overlap underground where few build.

Another option which still remains is a planet that uses 1 3D sphere as core and 3 3D shells as water+land/atmosphere/gravity.
Then you can place building-sites on it's surface from which you can build into the water+land shell to connect building sites via tunnels.​

 

[HolyCookie]

Another option which still remains is a planet that uses 1 3D sphere as core and 3 3D shells as water+land/atmosphere/gravity.
Then you can place building-sites on it's surface from which you can build into the water+land shell to connect building sites via tunnels.​

I get what you mean, kinda like space engineers right? 1 base block to start and build on.
But are you then suggesting that planet surface shouldn't be cube based, or how would that work? I like the sound of it, I'd love to have round worlds, mostly because of RPG reasons. And if you suggest a special surface, what do you think of mining, not possible at all, only possible in astronaut mode, totally possible? how would that work, also like space engineers?

Just general interest in something I haven't thought of.

 

[NeonSturm]

I get what you mean, kinda like space engineers right? 1 base block to start and build on.

Yes. I even thought of that before they published it - it is not just a concept I cloned from them.

But are you then suggesting that planet surface shouldn't be cube based, or how would that work? I like the sound of it, I'd love to have round worlds, mostly because of RPG reasons.

You have building sites, pre-filled with planet-plate blocks.
IRL you cannot build skyscrapers in swamps - you need to find a good spot.

Spaces inbetween could have 4x4x4 meter blocks to save memory and generation and rendering time.
Collisions are handled as currently with 4x4x4 1m blocks

This allows a 13m wide, 9m tall little ship to easily fit through 5x3 * 4m holes.
Or increase the size even further to 8x8x8 - this makes nice canyons with a low demand on rendering, RAM and damage-calculations on the CPU.

I think a single human should never rule over a planet capable of supporting life for a many thousand humans.
Salvaging planets for personal interests make them look much less awesome.
Flying over them in 3 seconds too, but with 4/8m blocks it would take 15 or 30 seconds.
​

And if you suggest a special surface, what do you think of mining, not possible at all, only possible in astronaut mode, totally possible? how would that work, also like space engineers?

Neither can you mine everywhere for gold. Building sites could represent these mineral-deposits.​

 

[HolyCookie]

but with 4/8m blocks it would take 15 or 30 seconds.
​

Neither can you mine everywhere for gold. Building sites could represent these mineral-deposits.​

don't know about the current size of planets, but 4/8m sounds like premium computers only.

 

[NeonSturm]

don't know about the current size of planets, but 4/8m sounds like premium computers only.

Um, what?
I meant 4m or 8m. If I would have meant 1/2, I would have wrote 1/2.

Ships need to be smaller OR planets bigger. I think it would be good to have differently sized blocks depending on how close you look at them or how big the entity is. Space-engineers does it right, but does not use the advantage of the power-of-2 for calculations with a size of 5.

 

[lupoCani]

Firstly, I'm not too sold on all the extra, smaller faces that come with Archimedean solids. You'll never have a proper reason to build on them, which seems to me like a waste of planet size.

Secondly, I would argue more sides is a bad thing overall. We all want larger planets, but it's not like total planet space has ever been an issue. What we're really after is the size of any individual plate, and chopping them up into yet smaller pieces isn't going to help.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Firstly, I'm not too sold on all the extra, smaller faces that come with Archimedean solids. You'll never have a proper reason to build on them, which seems to me like a waste of planet size.

Secondly, I would argue more sides is a bad thing overall. We all want larger planets, but it's not like total planet space has ever been an issue. What we're really after is the size of any individual plate, and chopping them up into yet smaller pieces isn't going to help.

True!

For me the more sides is purely for the aesthetic of looking like a planet, but the dodecahedrons are ok for that now with 12 sides.

I think a giant cube planet would be a simpler option, but the original flat disc planets were the simplest. For a cube the gravity alignment would then be the issue. Would you have 6 pyramids with their own gravity or a single gravity for a giant block, and would you have a core or no core like the old disc planets?

 

[NeonSturm]

I think a giant cube planet would be a simpler option, but the original flat disc planets were the simplest. For a cube the gravity alignment would then be the issue. Would you have 6 pyramids with their own gravity or a single gravity for a giant block, and would you have a core or no core like the old disc planets?

Disks have problems - you can mine from bottom and have nothing to see when approaching from the wrong side.

I like how "Cube-World 3D" has done planets, especially transitions.

Plate-plate transitions need to work for players and ships flying within gravity. I want giant canyons, 5x the height of my ship and 2 the width. But now we have dungeons which even a core has trouble flying through without ramming the ceiling or floor or either wall.

 

[PizzaPress]

Disks have problems - you can mine from bottom and have nothing to see when approaching from the wrong side.

Personally I'd like to see double-disk planets with a big ocean(+islands?) on the sides...

 

[nightrune]

I think more sides is fine. Sure it's more entities but its a better opportunity to not load more or use the level of detail everyone is hung up about.

The technical solution to bigger planets is divide and conquer. Want it to work on most computers with 4k ram then find ways to sim and only show what you need.

 

[HolyCookie]

Um, what?
I meant 4m or 8m. If I would have meant 1/2, I would have wrote 1/2.

Ships need to be smaller OR planets bigger. I think it would be good to have differently sized blocks depending on how close you look at them or how big the entity is. Space-engineers does it right, but does not use the advantage of the power-of-2 for calculations with a size of 5.

lol I forgot the m, what I mean is 4m/8m in a way that you meant 4m or 8m. Do you know the block count of the planets we have right now?

I think everyone would agree a bigger planet would be great, those who disagree probably have the processor problem I rather have a small planet where we can do stuff instead of a bigger planet where you can't do much more than flying around (1 player, small ship) but I have no idea how to fix it.

Personally I'd like to see double-disk planets with a big ocean(+islands?) on the sides...

that sounds sick, reminds me of Mario galaxy! This wouldn't be bad, though water is blocks right now xD


Neon I want to make a combined suggestion with your 3 spheres idea, cube world and building sights:
first have a building sight cube cube, extent all sides for some then add the earth sphere around, it will smoothly connect the extended sides, but not cover them
then make a gravity field in shape of cube, extend those sides like with the building sights. now get a gravity sphere that smoothly connects up to the extended gravity cube sides, the extended gravity cube sides overwrite the gravity of the gravity sphere. there you go, 6 surfaces with 100% smooth transition. boom!

but then ya know, good xD

 

[NeonSturm]

Like

Good idea,

I just think the transition between box and cube will not be as smooth, especially when somebody tries a continental bridge.
You need a lower radius cylinder for side-side transitions and a lower radius sphere at the intersection of 3 cylinders.

The big advantage of this sphere, if impassible, is, that you don't have overlapping collision volumes, assuming no continental bridges or eternal digging.
​

Just wanting to help you removing possible flaws before posting your idea. Mind sharing a link to it? (I think I have subscribed suggestions, you didn't start it or did you?)

 

[HolyCookie]

Good idea,

I just think the transition between box and cube will not be as smooth, especially when somebody tries a continental bridge.
You need a lower radius cylinder for side-side transitions and a lower radius sphere at the intersection of 3 cylinders.

The big advantage of this sphere, if impassible, is, that you don't have overlapping collision volumes, assuming no continental bridges or eternal digging.
​

Just wanting to help you removing possible flaws before posting your idea. Mind sharing a link to it? (I think I have subscribed suggestions, you didn't start it or did you?)

xD put the phrase wrong again, I meant there and then make a suggestion in my post xD If you want you can do it, but I guess having it in this thread is good enough, besides the story of schema already having his plans for planets. I do agree with what you said, that would make a way better transition