You can always flatten surface...
Like I do when building in MC or Blockscape (MC gameplay+Skyrim\'s gfx) near mountains or on them.
Like I do when building in MC or Blockscape (MC gameplay+Skyrim\'s gfx) near mountains or on them.
Spherical Planets made out of unbend blocks
- Thread starter Cool3303
- Start date
...that you can flatten area by mining some blocks that were unfortunate enough to get in the way?
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 0
I\'d like to see larger planets...and possibly \"oreo\" planets - but spherical planets are just not going to work.
I think you are thinking wrong way. You think about actual sphere, I\'d like to propose something like this:
Spherical gravity is easy. Just pull player into direction of planet\'s \"center\". Even so old game like Psychonauts does it (brain in main menu and Sascha\'s brain - dunno if any others, because I never went past that brain tank thing).
With planets like above, you also won\'t get any \"bending space\" issues nor you\'ll need to do something like that Py(something) does.
If you want to build something and there\'s not enough space on ground, JUST FLAT IT OUT! What you do in Minecraft when terrain doesn\'t allow you to build your big castle and you don\'t want to play on flatland? You don\'t whine and remove blocks which are in your way. Same here.
Also no \"corner cases\". Sure that you may end up walking on wall if you build house near edge of planet, but that\'s all.
And to anyone that want to say it won\'t work as it would lag as hell with dynamic terrain, guess what? There is already game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all. To add insult to injury, it doesn\'t even use blocks/voxels/whatever you want to call it, but something more complicated. What it is called? It\'s called Patterns from Linden Labs.
So I doubt it would be hard to properly implement this (both planets themselves and generation). And yes, I\'m programmer.
//edit: Here I\'ve explained ON PICTURES how gravity would work for such world. Because some people have troubles with understanding normal worlds.
From sideview, I\'ve rotated planet instead of character, because it was easier that way and you won\'t need to bend your head in strange directions.
Green arrows represent gravity force. It pulls ALWAYS, no matter of direction, towards center of planet.
Spherical gravity is easy. Just pull player into direction of planet\'s \"center\". Even so old game like Psychonauts does it (brain in main menu and Sascha\'s brain - dunno if any others, because I never went past that brain tank thing).
With planets like above, you also won\'t get any \"bending space\" issues nor you\'ll need to do something like that Py(something) does.
If you want to build something and there\'s not enough space on ground, JUST FLAT IT OUT! What you do in Minecraft when terrain doesn\'t allow you to build your big castle and you don\'t want to play on flatland? You don\'t whine and remove blocks which are in your way. Same here.
Also no \"corner cases\". Sure that you may end up walking on wall if you build house near edge of planet, but that\'s all.
And to anyone that want to say it won\'t work as it would lag as hell with dynamic terrain, guess what? There is already game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all. To add insult to injury, it doesn\'t even use blocks/voxels/whatever you want to call it, but something more complicated. What it is called? It\'s called Patterns from Linden Labs.
So I doubt it would be hard to properly implement this (both planets themselves and generation). And yes, I\'m programmer.
//edit: Here I\'ve explained ON PICTURES how gravity would work for such world. Because some people have troubles with understanding normal worlds.
From sideview, I\'ve rotated planet instead of character, because it was easier that way and you won\'t need to bend your head in strange directions.
Green arrows represent gravity force. It pulls ALWAYS, no matter of direction, towards center of planet.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
You\'ve just glossed over all the complications that have already been pointed out to refute exactly the idea you\'re outlining here. What\'s more, your CAPITALIZED SOLUTION actually makes the problem worse: If you flatten part of the planet, the floor space you create crosses a wider angular range, causing even more distorted gravity near its edges.
Also, that \"game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all\" that you mention, by your admission, doesn\'t even use the same mesh system that StarMade does, putting the point well past moot and nearer to dishonesty.
I\'m too exhausted with batting down poorly-conceived rehashes of a disproven concept to go into this further, so suffice it to say that this won\'t work, and isn\'t going to happen.
Reply to edit: How on Square Earth do you not see the problem with that?
Also, that \"game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all\" that you mention, by your admission, doesn\'t even use the same mesh system that StarMade does, putting the point well past moot and nearer to dishonesty.
I\'m too exhausted with batting down poorly-conceived rehashes of a disproven concept to go into this further, so suffice it to say that this won\'t work, and isn\'t going to happen.
Reply to edit: How on Square Earth do you not see the problem with that?
You\'ve just glossed over all the complications that have already been pointed out to refute exactly the idea you\'re outlining here. What\'s more, your CAPITALIZED SOLUTION actually makes the problem worse: If you flatten part of the planet, the floor space you create crosses a wider angular range, causing even more distorted gravity near its edges.
Look at second image, kid.
Also, that \"game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all\" that you mention, by your admission, doesn\'t even use the same mesh system that StarMade does
You\'re right. It used more complicated one. So it should lag more than SB implementation would.
(edit)Not to mention Patterns has to do also structural strength physics and other heavy on cpu things(/end edit)
Reply to edit: How on Square Earth do you not see the problem with that?
Because there isn\'t any?
Look at second image, kid.
Also, that \"game with spherical gravity, dynamic terrain and doesn\'t lag at all\" that you mention, by your admission, doesn\'t even use the same mesh system that StarMade does
You\'re right. It used more complicated one. So it should lag more than SB implementation would.
(edit)Not to mention Patterns has to do also structural strength physics and other heavy on cpu things(/end edit)
Reply to edit: How on Square Earth do you not see the problem with that?
Because there isn\'t any?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
The second image utterly fails to address a single issue that anybody\'s noted with this method. Asserting it again doesn\'t solve anything. Also, don\'t get in the habit of calling someone \"kid\" in order to demean them; some of the smartest people I\'ve ever met were half my age.
Collision detection using a finite polygon soup is seldom more complicated than checking against an arbitrary number of axis-aligned cubes. If you know anything at all about the meshes used in this game you\'re referring to, feel free to enlgihten us. Perhaps StarMade could benefit from a faster algorithm.
There\'s no problem with standing at an angle to the grid by which the structure you\'re trying to navigate is described? Then what\'s the point of having gravity at all?
Collision detection using a finite polygon soup is seldom more complicated than checking against an arbitrary number of axis-aligned cubes. If you know anything at all about the meshes used in this game you\'re referring to, feel free to enlgihten us. Perhaps StarMade could benefit from a faster algorithm.
There\'s no problem with standing at an angle to the grid by which the structure you\'re trying to navigate is described? Then what\'s the point of having gravity at all?
As I said in original post:
Sure that you may end up walking on wall if you build house near edge of planet, but that\'s all.
Funny fact: Notch for long time thought that it would be \"impossible\" to implement smooth shadows in Minecraft, then someone modded it and proven him wrong.
There are no impossible things, there is only lack of skills.
I however lack those in Java department (I\'m C# guy), but I\'m sure that here is someone who has enough skill to actually show that this is not only possible but also fun.
Sure that you may end up walking on wall if you build house near edge of planet, but that\'s all.
Funny fact: Notch for long time thought that it would be \"impossible\" to implement smooth shadows in Minecraft, then someone modded it and proven him wrong.
There are no impossible things, there is only lack of skills.
I however lack those in Java department (I\'m C# guy), but I\'m sure that here is someone who has enough skill to actually show that this is not only possible but also fun.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
sphere-like planet out of cubes like you want is impossible. It is clearly, demonstrably possible, and also a complete waste of effort. The extra complication serves to bring no benefit, and no amount of wanting it really hard is going to make it a useful feature, especially when it precludes other, game-appropriate methods.
I remembered just now that I actually built a spherical planetoid the other day.
Try to flatten that out.
I remembered just now that I actually built a spherical planetoid the other day.
Try to flatten that out.
Okay, your eyes need checking because Patterns uses cube planets.
Also, read post #67 where I point out that working radial gravity causes a lot of problems. The issue was never that radial gravity was hard to code but that it flat out made life difficult even when working as intended. Additionally, neither Schema nor anybody else for that matter, is saying that anything is impossible. Just that it might be more work than it\'s worth.
Also, since you missed all of that you clearly didn\'t read through all of the previous posts. Which was a poor decision on your part, because now you are arguing from a place that this discussion has already moved past. Read through the whole topic before you make your next post and for the love of sanity please think things through.
Also, read post #67 where I point out that working radial gravity causes a lot of problems. The issue was never that radial gravity was hard to code but that it flat out made life difficult even when working as intended. Additionally, neither Schema nor anybody else for that matter, is saying that anything is impossible. Just that it might be more work than it\'s worth.
Also, since you missed all of that you clearly didn\'t read through all of the previous posts. Which was a poor decision on your part, because now you are arguing from a place that this discussion has already moved past. Read through the whole topic before you make your next post and for the love of sanity please think things through.
Okay, your eyes need checking because Patterns uses cube planets.
Cube is only one world type and Patterns has several of them. And gravity works in all of them same way (maybe apart \"floating islands\" type where gravity is always downwards): pushing players toward planet\'s \"core\". As one of people who bought it second it was announced, I know.
Cube is only one world type and Patterns has several of them. And gravity works in all of them same way (maybe apart \"floating islands\" type where gravity is always downwards): pushing players toward planet\'s \"core\". As one of people who bought it second it was announced, I know.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
But yeah, I think am also done with this joker. This is starting distract form the actual conversation going on and he\'s just not getting it.
What do you mean by 45 degree mountain? With cube planet there are exactly 6 possible directions that gravity can go, and 6 directions of terrain planes at 90 degree angles aside eachother. And there are no physical terrain planes, it\'s just 1 solid mass of blocks.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 790
- Reaction score
- 1
Okay that really makes sense =P You sir should win a olimpyc gold medal for trolling
But planets would be several hundred blocks wide so the idea to completely flatten it to build some buildings makes actually no sense.
So with an diameter of 500 blocks (250 blocks radius), which seems quite reasonable since it would be bigger than (most!) capital ships,There would be an completely flat circle of 30 block on the \"edges\".
So it would only makes sense to flatten the are if you want to build a large city Inheriting the buildings of a lot of your friends.
Also if you want a big build space you could hollow out the planet which would give you an incredible amount of space.
Let me Picture it for you.(give me a moment to draw)
But planets would be several hundred blocks wide so the idea to completely flatten it to build some buildings makes actually no sense.
So with an diameter of 500 blocks (250 blocks radius), which seems quite reasonable since it would be bigger than (most!) capital ships,There would be an completely flat circle of 30 block on the \"edges\".
So it would only makes sense to flatten the are if you want to build a large city Inheriting the buildings of a lot of your friends.
Also if you want a big build space you could hollow out the planet which would give you an incredible amount of space.
Let me Picture it for you.(give me a moment to draw)
hollow floating island has round building surface on the inside. We can\'t build on round.
(Unless you are suggesting the city inside it is upside down, makes it essentially a cookie design.)
Again cube has much more possibilities. I could propably make some simple demo game about it some point, if people have so much difficulties grasping the concept.
(Unless you are suggesting the city inside it is upside down, makes it essentially a cookie design.)
Again cube has much more possibilities. I could propably make some simple demo game about it some point, if people have so much difficulties grasping the concept.