Spherical Planets made out of unbend blocks

[Cool3303]

Lol if you dont want to correct every single block the carved out planet would have an cubish inside.

also let go of traditional gravity if you want a building just stick some gravity blocks on it and player always faces the right direction



So here is an SCALED (circles are 500 pixles big) Image of how buildings would look.First we go with the default building

I made a city on the other side some buildings are 100 blocks or higher

Here is how multiple bases of 200 block size would look on the planet Here is how an carved out planet would look

I think it is obvious that size wouldnt be the big problem

You got space for the rest and it isn´t like you would have to build everything on planets.You got to commit that you are running out of arguments.

 

[sagethe13th]

Unfortunately, I do have to admit they have one serious problem. As I demonstrate in this topic: http://star-made.org/content/box-planets

If you have any further ideas relating to cube planets please post them in that topic. I think it will be for the best if this topic remains about spherical planets.

 

[sagethe13th]

But, you still have yet to address how the radial gravity of the planet isn\'t going to screw that all up.

Also, you seem to be going for a one directional gravity field via the gravity block. So, what was the point of having radial gravity in the first place? And as I said earlier if you do overwrite gravity like that you make more than half the planet useless for building on. While underground bases are cool, I\'m pretty sure most people want to look up at the sky from their awesome city.

 

[Cool3303]

The point of the radial gravity in first place is that you can go to every side of the planet without falling down

Also you can still build your things in a similiar angle of the planet It would be a lot effort but it would look awesome.

Oh and too point that out half of the planet would not be useless building there would just not look good.
Also stop being such a Douche you would never use so much space.A city with 250 blocks diameterwould have around 10~20 blocks height difference which is not that troubling

 

[z1967]

Guys. We have resorted to pulling out memes. Round is a cool concept but it would look incredibly out of place, even without the beveled edges. A simple set up like the double stuff Oreo would make everything simpler and not system hurting. Cube planets are the middle ground and yet they are just as flawed.

I am simply asking for all of you to SIMPLY LET THIS THREAD DIE

Thanks for listening.

 

[sagethe13th]

I maybe be coming off as mean, and I am using a forceful tone in my writing. But, my purpose isn\'t to shoot down your ideas and laugh as all your hopes and dreams crash down. I\'m pointing out problems so that they can be solved. Because if these problems can\'t be overcome Schema has no reason to add this into the game. Ignoring the issue that people take with your model is actually harmful to your end goal. Because those issues keep the feature from being added in, you are the one who loses, not us.

 

[Awec]

I don\'t understand why there\'s still so much issue with this; sphere planets should be easy to implement. Schema already showed he can warp a cube to look like a sphere so all he\'d need to do is make it so that when you get sufficiently close to this sphere you would \"enter the atmosphere\" which would transport you to a flat world comprised of 6 chunks which form the net of the cube. The only issue would be the same as the oreo planets will have, that gravity will flip if you mine through the center, which is easily fixed by having Minecraft-style bedrock (or lava) that cannot be removed.

 

[Alexander Prime]

problems with this method, as well as the newspost written by Schema himself, but let me address one more that I thon\'t think has been mentioned yet: how incredibly distorted the grid must become when wrapped onto a sphere!

You see, the example in Schema\'s post was extremely optimized for its case. Each of the six face chunks had a relatively thin area between the highest and lowest surface block, so they looked decent when bent, because roughly the same amount of distortion was applied to all the visible blocks.

However, imagine the 3D grid this planet\'s blocks exist on. If each square is about a meter long at sea level, how large are they at the top of a tree? A mountain? A StarMade-scale tower? In fact, tower-like structures would be just about impossible, since the walls even a single block apart would not be parallel.

And it gets worse: horizontal rows of blocks are not only skewed to each other, but actually curved in real space. This means that you can\'t build flat floors either, and your foundation is very unlikely to be square. If you\'re unlucky enough to build around one of the intersections between seams, the simplest flat shape you can build is actually a hexagon!

I don\'t have what I need right now to make some diagrams, so I\'ll leave that to the other skilled artists, but here\'s an XKCD that demonstrates nicely how complicated projecting a 2D surface onto a sphere can actually be.

 

[sagethe13th]

I was going to make a huge long topic going over various planet creation methods. So I have a bunch of pictures already make showing the issues with each system.

In the image below a tower is build straight up from the surface of the planet.



The tower splays out as it is built higher until it leaves the warping effect, at which point you can actually see what it is supposed to like. If the warping is just visual effect then this is merely just annoying to look at. If space is actually being warped then this is really happening and it\'s a big problem. You also get the bending effect on ships that enter the planet:



Also, here is a humorously extreme example of the problems with physically curving the space around a planet.

 

[Cool3303]

SAGETHE13TH PLEASE REMOVE THE WRONG PICS

I changed the Op to explain newbs what is going on...

Please dont waste your time talking to people who didnt read the op we are talking about something completely different.

• For everyone who didnt read the OP post or is a little bit retarded we are talking about spere-ish planets which consist out of normal unbend blocks.we are also NOT talking about Minecraft worlds in a different Dimension.If you want to post about those create your own topic.

So I showed you an scaled example of how the planet would look.What do you think about it?

Also are there any questions?Here is what has been discussed most/isnt completely wrong and illegit.

1.Gravity angled wrong: My Solution Idea:Using gravity blocks to replace default grav

2Plants/Trees angled wrong:My Solution Idea:Bend them in the right direction (works because they would still be where they seem to be so rewriting collisions or something would be unnecessary)

3.Not enough Space:My Solution :Make planets posses an good size

 

[Nootau]

No bending! Your solition is no solution at all for round plants. At best that is a cubed planet with fake rounded edges.

 

[Cool3303]

@Nootau:So when you run out of arguments you resort to posting wrong stuff.That is nice.Very productive I like that.You know that if you ruin my thread I will just create a new one?

@Everyone Else:

Please dont waste your time talking to people who didnt read the op we are talking about something completely different.

• For everyone who didnt read the OP post or is a little bit retarded we are talking about spere-ish planets which consist out of normal unbend blocks.we are also NOT talking about Minecraft worlds in a different Dimension.If you want to post about those create your own topic.

So I showed you an scaled example of how the planet would look.What do you think about it?

Also are there any questions?Here is what has been discussed most/isnt completely wrong and illegit.

1.Gravity angled wrong: My Solution Idea:Using gravity blocks to replace default grav

2Plants/Trees angled wrong:My Solution Idea:Bend them in the right direction (works because they would still be where they seem to be so rewriting collisions or something would be unnecessary)

3.Not enough Space:My Solution :Make planets posses an good size

 

[Nootau]

What is wrong information? You suggest bending block while the title of this thread is.. le gasp, \'Spherical Planets made out of unbend blocks\'. You have yet to show a concept of making use of the not cubic sides of a planet and infact flatting a spherical planet to be more cube-like than spherical. It seems you are in fact the one running out of valid arguments. I am just having fun ripping holes in your ideas.

As for making a new threads. I don\'t really care, I\'ll post there too

 

[Cool3303]

Well look at the pictures on the very top of this page.They are all fully scaled and so on.If you download them and zoom in you even can see the blocks.

Also I apologize for your personal misunderstanding which has nothing to do with my explanation.

Also I dont suggest bending any blocks lol.If you mean my suggestion to bend the plants:They will just point in a different direction in their very own block so the block itself remains unbend.

Infact plants are nothing else than a texture pointing in \"some\" direction so changing it shouldnt be troubling.

 

[Alexander Prime]

that most of this thread never happened and then insult people who won\'t. Throwing around \"illegit\" and \"noob\" isn\'t going to scare off the people who didn\'t agree with you before, and responding to criticism with ad hominem attacks and blatant spam threats is a good way to get banned.

However, since you seem so bent on funneling the \"conversation\" into terms that you think people will be forced to agree with, let me take advantage of the fact that I qualify as an Everyone Else to respond to your new, should\'ve-been-a-reply first post:

• You mention that you can solve the skewed gravity issue by placing gravity blocks, but these can only be oriented in one of six directions. The majority of the planet cannot be corrected like this, and ignoring surface gravity makes building on a planet pointless to begin with.
• The angle of plants is based, like everything else, on the grid that they\'re built on. You have three axes available, and anything which doesn\'t conform to these must, as you point out, be built out of sub-blocks. However, this adds quite a lot of complexity while only masking the core problem that structures can only be properly aligned in a finite number of different orientations. The reason that the flat, oreo, and cube layouts are being discussed more seriously is because they play to that format\'s strengths instead of trying to avoid its weaknesses.
• You say that flattening the planet would be pointless \"except on the extreme edges\" in the same thread that you\'re trying to promote a shape which has no edges. I\'m a bit too confused by this to really rebut except to say that I\'m not sure what your point is there. Right after it you mention that planets \"would have a huge surface big enoug for probably any pupose.\" The problem here is that all the surface area of the planet scales when you enlarge it, not just the usable space, and the server load increases much, much faster as more blocks are added beneath the surface to fill the planet\'s shape. The result, at the scale you\'re proposing, is six usable areas, each about the size of a space station, with approximately linear gravity, separated by vast a no-man\'s-land of jagged cubic insanity. Take all the unusable terrain out from the middle, and you\'re once again left with just a series of independent space stations.

 

[Nootau]

I am not misunderstanding things, I think you don\'t understand what you are missing.

By thw way, trees are plants. Trees are made of several blocks. If you are suggesting to bend plants/trees you are suggesting to bend blocks. Is this basic understanding elusive to you?

 

[Cool3303]

@Alexander Prime:Sorry I didnt saw your new post
(some forums would notify about that lol)

So let me see if I can force you to agree with me.

The majority of the planet cannot be corrected like this, and ignoring surface gravity makes building on a planet pointless to begin with.

Gravity blocks would fix the whole planet but if it looks aesthetically appropriate is an different thing.And please dont tell me that its still a problem.The area which looks good would be equal or bigger than the planets radiuswhich is giving you more space than a flat world would (depending on how much pitch you accept)Also ignoring gravity is not different than ignoring a mountain it isnt pointless.



The angle of plants is based, like everything else, on the grid that they\'re built on.

Wrong the angle of plants is dependant of what schema does to them.How I already said Plants are nothing but a texture bent in \"some\" direction.It is an different problem with the structures though which of course would only be limited compatible to the gravity but they would somehow \"fit\".

You say that flattening the planet would be pointless \"except on the extreme edges\"

I meant the areas which lie directly diagonal.Since they somehow are the gravity transition areas I decided to call them edges sorry for that

 

[Alexander Prime]

here. \"Gravity transitional areas\"? I thought you were talking about using radial gravity?

Hang on, I\'ll get to that.


Gravity blocks wouldn\'t fix the whole planet, they would fix the surface of the planet approximately perpendicular and up-facing to their gravity vector. That means you\'d need six of them to cover the building areas you\'d talk about, and the rest of the planet would still be at an extreme slope in between. And again, with these gargantuan divisions between the buildable surfaces, why not just use a space station or cookie planet, whose buildable surface is 100%?

And I don\'t think I understand what you mean about \"ignoring a mountain\".

Plants are blocks. If you don\'t believe me, go and try placing one in the center of a 2x2 space.



And now we come to the transitional areas...

I thought I remembered you saying earlier in this thread that you wanted radial gravity, the point of which is to avoid transitions and have an even pull towards the planet\'s center from all directions. If I misread or misunderstood you, then you\'ve got a better case; the only problem I have with cubic gravity is what to do when crossing those transition planes in order to alleviate the jerky, disorienting change in \"up\"ness. That\'s why Schema favors the cookie design, I think; anyone who crosses the transition plane on a cookie planet gets a full reversal, which is exactly what they should expect.

There\'s a thread about box planets as well, if you\'ve got ideas for that.

 

[me2005]

You missed my suggested solution, which is nothing like either of those. It does, however, utilize the MC-esque tatic of switching the \'realm\' that the player is in. You\'d go from outer space to atmospheric space when you approached the spherical planet. Once the player got through the atmosphere, the map would be a standard flat MC-style map. If the player flew high enough, they\'d transition back to outer space and see the sphere again (but not the blocks making up the planet).

If you drew it, it\'d be a sphere switching to a flat plane when you went through a landing/atmosphere sequence.

The troubles here have largely been identified, but are:

* The planet would need to have a solid layer at some arbitrary depth (just like in MC) below the surface to keep players digging into it too deep.

* It would be impossible to mine planets into nothing because of this (though it\'d be insane to do so, planets could be entire minecraft worlds each in size easily).

* It would be impossible (or rather, too difficult to be worthwile) to mine a planet from orbit. From in-atmosphere, it\'d be as easy as it is now.

* Loading to switch between orbital \'sphere-object\' planet and blocky surface map.

The advantages are:

* Spherical planets

* Low-overhead planets (they aren\'t blocky entities in the same space as your ship unless you go to land, even then they can be controlled by only loading portions at a time)

* No bent-cubes

* No Gravity weirdness

* It\'s been done in another game - Pytheas. Works great, not impossible to code, not just \'another theory from a non-programmer;\' this actually exists and you can try it yourself.