Round Planets!

[aceface]

that is how i am trying to improve the current ones....i like dodecahedrons, just not flat ones

 

[Valiant70]

you read my thread?

No, I don't think he did. LOL I hate when people do that. We need a rating for "Re-read the OP" or "Bad reading comprehension."[DOUBLEPOST=1412456530,1412456180][/DOUBLEPOST]

My final opinion: make planets larger, reduce loaded area slightly, and use a truncated icosahedron instead of what we're using now.

NOOOOOOOOO! Not more edges! It'll divide up the surface area of the planets more than it already is. You can't build a building that occupies two segments. It's difficult and annoying to build a building complex that does. If we change the shape of planets, it should be a change that makes it easier to build across plate boundaries, not one that makes chopped suet of the available surface area.[DOUBLEPOST=1412457016][/DOUBLEPOST]On the other hand, I think a non-truncated icosahedron might be a good choice. If the triangles are oriented correctly, the block edges will line up more than the current planets. This is difficult to describe in an understandable way.

The triangles around the equator could do something like this: The flat "base" of each triangle could be facing either toward or away from the equator, allowing a mostly-coherent "ring" to be made clear around one latitude of the planet.

One issue that makes the dodecahedron edges worse than they need to be is the fact that edges are not normally homogenous. Frequently, one side of a crack has a smooth edge, while the other is an oddly angled one. Two smooth edges touching each other would be a lot more tolerable. The jagged edges just annoy the living daylights out of me.

 

[jath]

Ok, so your edges line up, but you're still going to have cliff faces between plates. The truncated icosahedron has much more gradual angle changes allowing for something that feels more planet like, and less like the funhouse level on sonic the hedgehog. If you round out the plates a bit in the middle, I think it would satisfy both sides of the debate pretty thoroughly.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Just a general statement:
@aceface is not, I repeat NOT proposing to bend blocks. Simply to make the edges look but more curved.

Which brings my to this: I don't think it should be completely rounded. There should be a slight edge to every segment, kr else we might not see where one begins and where one ends, which could cause some problems with gravity.

 

[WaffulMann]

I'm just going to every single recently updated post with the word planet in it and spreading the word of the magic of 3d mapping, it seems.

The original dodecahedron suggestion that schema saw said there could be graphical blocks- simply a graphical layer stretching from the edge of one block to another.

 

[RedDragonflyxx]

So a trunicated isohedron means more height in the middle and less at the edges?
A=Plate 1 B=Plate 2...
A
AAAA
BAAAAAAAAC
BB CC
BBB CCC

Kind of like this (bad ASCI art sorry)

 

[jath]

Truncated icosahedron is basically a soccer ball. Someone please post a picture. My phone isn't letting me.

 

[Byamarro]

It would work only if planets would be really big.

 

[NeonSturm]

Medieval opinion:
> Planets are a flat circle.
> If you sail too far into the sea, you see a big water-fall into nowhere.

Actual opinion:
> NO - The planet is a sphere and bottom is actually the middle.

StarMade opinion:
> Planets are cubes.
> You will see the truth if you are able to see the real world in it's binary form.

When you are below the clouds, it is a (visually) flat plane.
Above, it's a (visually) cube.
Projectiles which go through the wall have position (+|- segment width) but relative to the new plane's coordinate system.

How a plane determinates which segments are shown adjacent.
Diagonal adjacent are in the middle half half both orthogonal adjacent planes.

How to translate the vertices of visible blocks into orbital position or orbital objects into segment position once they cross the skyline.
If the sky-line is high enough, it shouldn't be a big problem.


Clouds hide how segments snapping to their horizontal view.
The "snapping" could be a smooth transition too, similar of how islands appear on the horizon for ships sailing toward an island.

 

[aceface]

truncated isocahedrons have too small surfaces and since you can't build very well accross planet plates right now it would result in having to have very tiny structures

 

[Valiant70]

Ok, so your edges line up, but you're still going to have cliff faces between plates. The truncated icosahedron has much more gradual angle changes allowing for something that feels more planet like, and less like the funhouse level on sonic the hedgehog. If you round out the plates a bit in the middle, I think it would satisfy both sides of the debate pretty thoroughly.

Edges need some MAJOR work either way to try to shape them up a little. They no longer have huge cliffs (check a newly generated planet) but they still have cracks that you can fall into sometimes, and trying to build anything, even a road which should be feasible, across two plates is at best weird and at worst impossible since blocks will not overlap when placed by a player. I'd honestly be a lot happier with the dodecahedrons if I could at least build a decent road over the edge, but that really isn't possible.

truncated isocahedrons have too small surfaces and since you can't build very well accross planet plates right now it would result in having to have very tiny structures

That was exactly my point.

 

[jath]

Truncated icosahedrons go along with increasing planet size considerably. The plates would remain roughly the same size as they are now.

Increasing the sector size will become necessary too though, but that would have other added benefits besides allowing larger planets, so it's something that should be done anyway.

 

[Valiant70]

Larger and less numerous planets are something I've wanted for a long time. They have their own issues, however, mainly frame rate and database size. Both of these are curable flaws, although the cures will take some time and would be highly unlikely to come around until after the universe update. To be honest, we don't know what the universe update is doing exactly, so planets could be getting some good reworking along with it.

I'd honestly like to see several different forms of planets implemented as config options so that individuals and servers can choose which one they want to use.
- The old "cookie planets"
- Two-sided discs
- Dodecahedrons
- Cubes
- Truncated icosahedrons

Unfortunately, with the amount of work required to develop all of the different shapes sufficiently, this is unlikely to happen.

 

[NeonSturm]

+ maybe a planet with just a textured core, clouds and floating islands?
+ maybe the same with clouds being water surface?

* That only would require a texture for the core, clouds and position+orientation for planet segments
* That would additionally require huge amounts of space drag when ships are underwater.

 

[jath]

+ maybe a planet with just a textured core, clouds and floating islands?
+ maybe the same with clouds being water surface?

* That only would require a texture for the core, clouds and position+orientation for planet segments
* That would additionally require huge amounts of space drag when ships are underwater.

I actually like this idea. Most planets aren't mostly water, but for the planets that are, you could really just make a huge water ball with islands oriented in the middle of the so the gravity wouldn't suck. smoothing the edges over would be cake. Make most ships buoyant, and they could double as boats. Want a submarine? Throw a few heavier blocks on there like rocks etc.

 

[aceface]

yeah that's nice