Spherical Planets Work Around
- Thread starter JadenS01
- Start date
MrFURB
Madman of the Girders
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,116
- Reaction score
- 413
*Sigh* Let\'s not get our panties in a knot here, folks. First off, if you\'re going to respond to a thread, make it constructive. If you\'re just going to insult someone, please leave it in a PM or private chat.
Second, round planets have a few problems game-play wise, and the solutions that would get rid of those problems (Lack of good building surfaces, gravity, physics bugs between different entities) aren\'t simple, as Schema himself commented on. I\'m sure he has plenty of plans for the planets, it will just take some patience as he has about a billion things to do right now.
Second, round planets have a few problems game-play wise, and the solutions that would get rid of those problems (Lack of good building surfaces, gravity, physics bugs between different entities) aren\'t simple, as Schema himself commented on. I\'m sure he has plenty of plans for the planets, it will just take some patience as he has about a billion things to do right now.
So, before we all continue to scream at this guy, let\'s look at his original suggestion, as I see it as slightly different from others.
To me, as someone who has a vague understanding of code, it sounds like you\'re saying \"place a point at the center of the planet which pulls everyone inwards\". Okay, that makes sense. Now, if this were to be applied to a cube-shaped planet, what would the effect be on the players walking on it? Let\'s say you walk to somewhere near the corner of the planet. Using this idea, the player is going to start slanting in comparison to the ground as their feet orient to be pulled towards the center, leaving them standing in such a way that the edge of a block is down. Essentially, it would look, feel and control really wierdly if you were anywhere near the edge of one surface, as well as some extremely strange effects underground as you attempt to go around the planet.
If you\'re assuming a cube shaped planet with pyramid gravity pulls, I feel the latest news post in regards to this critiques that point of view suficciently.
Now, to change the subject slightly, and make a statement: When I logged in and saw the news post in which schema showed what the circular planets might look like, I was surprised and slightly concerned. That he had to go and make a spherical planet for demonstration means that this has become enough of an issue that he had to take time away from other aspects of the game in order to make people quiet down about this whole thing. Understand that? He\'s decided on what he wants to do, and people insisting that he do it otherwise has made him waste time demonstrating to us what he doesn\'t like about it and not put said time into other aspects of gameplay that we would most likely enjoy.
Schema has said that he doesn\'t like spherical or cube planets. Leave it alone.
To me, as someone who has a vague understanding of code, it sounds like you\'re saying \"place a point at the center of the planet which pulls everyone inwards\". Okay, that makes sense. Now, if this were to be applied to a cube-shaped planet, what would the effect be on the players walking on it? Let\'s say you walk to somewhere near the corner of the planet. Using this idea, the player is going to start slanting in comparison to the ground as their feet orient to be pulled towards the center, leaving them standing in such a way that the edge of a block is down. Essentially, it would look, feel and control really wierdly if you were anywhere near the edge of one surface, as well as some extremely strange effects underground as you attempt to go around the planet.
If you\'re assuming a cube shaped planet with pyramid gravity pulls, I feel the latest news post in regards to this critiques that point of view suficciently.
Now, to change the subject slightly, and make a statement: When I logged in and saw the news post in which schema showed what the circular planets might look like, I was surprised and slightly concerned. That he had to go and make a spherical planet for demonstration means that this has become enough of an issue that he had to take time away from other aspects of the game in order to make people quiet down about this whole thing. Understand that? He\'s decided on what he wants to do, and people insisting that he do it otherwise has made him waste time demonstrating to us what he doesn\'t like about it and not put said time into other aspects of gameplay that we would most likely enjoy.
Schema has said that he doesn\'t like spherical or cube planets. Leave it alone.
I think a big part of the problem is that implementing a working gravity doesn´t seem hard.
If you think about it from the view of someone who doesn´t understand anything about coding (like me)
Once the planet is close enough (No Calculation at all since radar already determines that)The planet(core) starts attracting the player.The only difference with an round planet is that instead of just pushing the player down you have to calculat the line of the player to the planet(core) which really isn´t too complex ....Then you accelerate the player along that line which also needs no complex calculation at all...
It is basic math and the actually ridiculous part is that anyone claims it is ridiculous...
If you think about it from the view of someone who doesn´t understand anything about coding (like me)
Once the planet is close enough (No Calculation at all since radar already determines that)The planet(core) starts attracting the player.The only difference with an round planet is that instead of just pushing the player down you have to calculat the line of the player to the planet(core) which really isn´t too complex ....Then you accelerate the player along that line which also needs no complex calculation at all...
It is basic math and the actually ridiculous part is that anyone claims it is ridiculous...
Gravity is the simplest thing for programmer to do, that\'s not the issue here. Schema got lots of responses in the news comments about the diagonal planes etc. You don\'t even need to have a gravity well block or something like that in planet core. Every entity, including ship, station and planet has a center point, the diagonal rectangle we see ingame. Gravity can pull towards that point.
Ok, some of you may think that \"Oh but what if i get in the middle and there\'s huge gaping hole that i can\'t get out of?\"... There are at least 2 easy solutions to that (that can be even combined):
1) What is planet core in real life? On earth it\'s believed to be extremely dense mass of iron, surrounded by 6000 degrees hot magma. I\'m not sure if anyone can comprehend that kind of temperatures. That is why my proposition was 2 unbrekable block types: Planet core, and magma blocks.
2) As we descend towards planet, the gravity force is slowly, lets say linearly by distance from planet radius to core, weakening. Until at the absolute center of the planet is a null-gravity spot. Now lets think about the player... he\'s wearing a space suit with thrusters in it. Don\'t you think, with gravity force weak enough, he would start to use them? He can manoveur just fine in space.
- Sidenote, even though gravity is weak at the core, there is actually a crushing pressure. Human might not be able to survive that. Deepest oceans pressure is absolutely nothing compared to the pressure in core, caused by landmasses pulling eachother from all directions, at crushing force towards the center.
On planet shape, i strongly think now that best solution is a cube planet. It was great to see schema\'s sphere illusion too, but it\'s sad to know he doesn\'t want to go through the mathematics on it.
Lets say on top side of the cube, gravity was pulling downwards. On right side the gravity pulls to left. How does the physics engine know what side player is on? This math can be done with either diagonal plane Dot-product, or even simpler:
if (player.x
Ok, some of you may think that \"Oh but what if i get in the middle and there\'s huge gaping hole that i can\'t get out of?\"... There are at least 2 easy solutions to that (that can be even combined):
1) What is planet core in real life? On earth it\'s believed to be extremely dense mass of iron, surrounded by 6000 degrees hot magma. I\'m not sure if anyone can comprehend that kind of temperatures. That is why my proposition was 2 unbrekable block types: Planet core, and magma blocks.
2) As we descend towards planet, the gravity force is slowly, lets say linearly by distance from planet radius to core, weakening. Until at the absolute center of the planet is a null-gravity spot. Now lets think about the player... he\'s wearing a space suit with thrusters in it. Don\'t you think, with gravity force weak enough, he would start to use them? He can manoveur just fine in space.
- Sidenote, even though gravity is weak at the core, there is actually a crushing pressure. Human might not be able to survive that. Deepest oceans pressure is absolutely nothing compared to the pressure in core, caused by landmasses pulling eachother from all directions, at crushing force towards the center.
On planet shape, i strongly think now that best solution is a cube planet. It was great to see schema\'s sphere illusion too, but it\'s sad to know he doesn\'t want to go through the mathematics on it.
Lets say on top side of the cube, gravity was pulling downwards. On right side the gravity pulls to left. How does the physics engine know what side player is on? This math can be done with either diagonal plane Dot-product, or even simpler:
if (player.x
I don´t understand the problem again since you can simply take the oreo and turn it into a sphere by just replacing the height in Terrain generation whith the distance to the core.Bending Structures&trees in the right direction would have to be done by determining an angle again but since you already need to implement that for the gravity it is no big deal.
Also personally I would be for #2 since it is way more realistic,allows an greater use of planets (you can create greater caves) and is Funnier (+You got a really fast lift)
Also personally I would be for #2 since it is way more realistic,allows an greater use of planets (you can create greater caves) and is Funnier (+You got a really fast lift)
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 14
overally, any attempts beyond a simple, two sided plane {oreo} -- like creating a diameter of blocks around a center grav well or projecting a plane into a sphere creates more problems than it solves {if it actually does solve any} I would describe it as: \"being fanatic about rounded planets, meaning it stops being benefical and feels wrong when you look at it\"
and two sided- rounded plane at least resembles a sphere from certain angles when you compare it to a cube shaped planet
and two sided- rounded plane at least resembles a sphere from certain angles when you compare it to a cube shaped planet
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 790
- Reaction score
- 1
Gravity is the simplest thing for programmer to do, that\'s not the issue here.
Schema even made the planets as a sample, but couldn\'t do the gravity, you say it\'s kidsplay to do gravity, means you know how to do it, then do it and stop wasting your time with huge posts. If you can\'t, then don\'t speak about stuff you don\'t know about.
Mental note for you, on ships and planets there is no such thing as center point for gravity, there are just gravity \"planes\", if you get what that means.
Schema even made the planets as a sample, but couldn\'t do the gravity, you say it\'s kidsplay to do gravity, means you know how to do it, then do it and stop wasting your time with huge posts. If you can\'t, then don\'t speak about stuff you don\'t know about.
Mental note for you, on ships and planets there is no such thing as center point for gravity, there are just gravity \"planes\", if you get what that means.
At first, I want to say that my programming skills are not to good, but I now it it works basically,
and second that I do not want to offend anybody
The idea is different to what is already mentioned here, but I thought it would not be correct to start a new topic if there is already a vivid discussion here about it.
So my idea was , that when entering the colored sphere which surround the planet, you actually enter a new \'Dimension\' in the game, as in minecraft going from the normal world into the nether or into the end. The planet would be a minecraft simiular flat land, made out of chunks or what ever you want to call it (I do not want to mention minecraft to often because I like Star Made far more and because it is a different game).
The idea is that when you go further on in a direction, new chunks are loaded. The whole planet might be made out of 100x100 chunks, but I will give a 4x4 example of the idea
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
5 - 6 - 7 - 8
9 -10- 11-12
13-14-15-16
every number stands for a chunk
If you walk on, new chunks would be loaded, but instead, already generatet chunks will be reloaded. Lets say, a player loads a square of 3x3 chunks around him. The player stands in chunk 6:
1 2 3
5 6 7
9 10 11
If he moves a two chunks to the right (the player is now located in chunk 8), the following chunks will be loaded:
3 4 1
7 8 5
11 12 9
So when comming to the \'edge\' of the planet, you will end up where you started. Same way of loading chunks when going up or down on the planet.
Of corse I am aware that there will be plenty of issues with the coordinates, as well as other enteties on the planet and when leaving the planet, but this would convey at least the feeling of a round planet, even tough it is just a flat structure.
I am also not sure if this could be integrated into the starmade game that easely, and I believe it would be rather complicated, but I am sure this is an option which might work out pretty well, of corse with more \'chunks\' than just 16, I would rather think about 128 or something like that.
and second that I do not want to offend anybody
The idea is different to what is already mentioned here, but I thought it would not be correct to start a new topic if there is already a vivid discussion here about it.
So my idea was , that when entering the colored sphere which surround the planet, you actually enter a new \'Dimension\' in the game, as in minecraft going from the normal world into the nether or into the end. The planet would be a minecraft simiular flat land, made out of chunks or what ever you want to call it (I do not want to mention minecraft to often because I like Star Made far more and because it is a different game).
The idea is that when you go further on in a direction, new chunks are loaded. The whole planet might be made out of 100x100 chunks, but I will give a 4x4 example of the idea
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
5 - 6 - 7 - 8
9 -10- 11-12
13-14-15-16
every number stands for a chunk
If you walk on, new chunks would be loaded, but instead, already generatet chunks will be reloaded. Lets say, a player loads a square of 3x3 chunks around him. The player stands in chunk 6:
1 2 3
5 6 7
9 10 11
If he moves a two chunks to the right (the player is now located in chunk 8), the following chunks will be loaded:
3 4 1
7 8 5
11 12 9
So when comming to the \'edge\' of the planet, you will end up where you started. Same way of loading chunks when going up or down on the planet.
Of corse I am aware that there will be plenty of issues with the coordinates, as well as other enteties on the planet and when leaving the planet, but this would convey at least the feeling of a round planet, even tough it is just a flat structure.
I am also not sure if this could be integrated into the starmade game that easely, and I believe it would be rather complicated, but I am sure this is an option which might work out pretty well, of corse with more \'chunks\' than just 16, I would rather think about 128 or something like that.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 14
I had a very long discussion with my friend on a very similar idea as yours, Brickfix {and it is a pretty good one tbh}, the coordinates and the texture would be somehow projected onto an illusionary 3d sphere {which would appear from outer dimension} so yeah you enter where you really enter and you leave where you really leave, it could work that way,
but again I say, it is too late for that, as the basic engine is already laid out, it might not very well support it, which leads into further and further complications.. this idea, and many other ideas would work well if schema said \"I want to have planets this way\" before he started working on anything
but again I say, it is too late for that, as the basic engine is already laid out, it might not very well support it, which leads into further and further complications.. this idea, and many other ideas would work well if schema said \"I want to have planets this way\" before he started working on anything
Schema even made the planets as a sample, but couldn\'t do the gravity, you say it\'s kidsplay to do gravity, means you know how to do it, then do it and stop wasting your time with huge posts. If you can\'t, then don\'t speak about stuff you don\'t know about.
Mental note for you, on ships and planets there is no such thing as center point for gravity, there are just gravity \"planes\", if you get what that means.
Mental note for you, you should look up Newton\'s law of gravity. It is primarily built for 3D for math like earth pulling moon towards it, and counting cosmological orbits. And yes, i have already simulated gravity on multiple occasions myself. At best here\'s 3000 particles which each pull all of eachother towards them... That gets a little slow for sure, but it works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aycVw4Qk_c
But for cubic planets we don\'t even need this
because we don\'t have accelerative gravity in Starmade, so your formula will be simpler than that. Should we? I don\'t know, but it wouldn\'t be a performance hit in this scale at all. At most it would cause problems for high speed collision.
Also know that everything about gravity, is always calculated from center of the objects mass. r in Newton\'s formula means distance from say ship center to planet core.
Well, to give simple alternative for non-accelerating gravity per 2 points:
F = G
Really...that is all. But G is directional vector from ship to planet core, being
G = Normalize(PlanetCore - ShipPosition) * GravityConstant
Mental note for you, on ships and planets there is no such thing as center point for gravity, there are just gravity \"planes\", if you get what that means.
Mental note for you, you should look up Newton\'s law of gravity. It is primarily built for 3D for math like earth pulling moon towards it, and counting cosmological orbits. And yes, i have already simulated gravity on multiple occasions myself. At best here\'s 3000 particles which each pull all of eachother towards them... That gets a little slow for sure, but it works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aycVw4Qk_c
But for cubic planets we don\'t even need this
because we don\'t have accelerative gravity in Starmade, so your formula will be simpler than that. Should we? I don\'t know, but it wouldn\'t be a performance hit in this scale at all. At most it would cause problems for high speed collision.
Also know that everything about gravity, is always calculated from center of the objects mass. r in Newton\'s formula means distance from say ship center to planet core.
Well, to give simple alternative for non-accelerating gravity per 2 points:
F = G
Really...that is all. But G is directional vector from ship to planet core, being
G = Normalize(PlanetCore - ShipPosition) * GravityConstant
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,491
- Reaction score
- 20
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,491
- Reaction score
- 20
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 5
If you just do a cube then you don\'t have to go into any length of detail and it is more fun in my opinion to have odd worlds that don\'t fit in, but then you have the gravity issue... and if you round the blocks, how are they going to get placed, I think you should have worlds where the gravity is detemined by the block(s) so that you are also ways on the ground, and have our hitbox float over it so that is doesn\'t collide with the ground, sure this will take some effort, but it is nothing you can\'t handle I\'m sure