- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I don\'t know, this seems like a pretty good idea to me. easy fix to an otherwise complicated problem.
StarMade dev update: why spherical planets don't fit in a block world
- Thread starter schema
- Start date
What I don\'t understand is why the planets have to operate within Euclidean space; why not have a cube planet rendered as a sphere when further away and have a Spore-like entry into the planet\'s atmosphere when close whereupon the 6 sides of the cube are all flat and interconnected.
TheBlueThunder
Algorithm of hacks
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Reaction score
- 482
I would love this update Your a Coding God Schema, pls fix the item duplication glitch of the inventory. Love your game.
I support you 100%.
I support you 100%.
Wow! I\'m loving that sphere, sadly 
Thanks for putting together the proof of concept, Schema; I hope it wasn\'t too frustrating to set up. Is there no way to increase the diameter of the sphere to a point at which the block warping out at, say, 200 blocks from the center is much reduced (as there\'s no eay around at least some warping)? Do you think that spherical could ever work if you decreased the curvature of the outermost block layer to where it approached flatness and you capped the buildable height from the planet (to reduce block warping at extreme distances)?
Thanks for putting together the proof of concept, Schema; I hope it wasn\'t too frustrating to set up. Is there no way to increase the diameter of the sphere to a point at which the block warping out at, say, 200 blocks from the center is much reduced (as there\'s no eay around at least some warping)? Do you think that spherical could ever work if you decreased the curvature of the outermost block layer to where it approached flatness and you capped the buildable height from the planet (to reduce block warping at extreme distances)?
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Could gravity not be set to a coordinate? Same for ship/station gravity? And two additional settings: attract or repel and range?
For example:
On my ship I want four out rigged habitat zones. Instead of each having the same gravity pulling to relative down, I place a gravity unit at the centre and set to repel and set the range of the field. This would push the avatars outwards simulating directional gravity. Obviously avatar rotation then needs to be feet first.
It also means I could place a seperate gravity field into different rooms.
This would work for both two sided and six sided planets. Set gravity to relative centre and attract. But a better way would be to have a gravity point above each side set to repel. This would mean that a certain amount of force is required entering and exiting atmosphere, whilst maintaining facial gravity!
Spherical or cubiod I would love to see the planets upgraded.
For example:
On my ship I want four out rigged habitat zones. Instead of each having the same gravity pulling to relative down, I place a gravity unit at the centre and set to repel and set the range of the field. This would push the avatars outwards simulating directional gravity. Obviously avatar rotation then needs to be feet first.
It also means I could place a seperate gravity field into different rooms.
This would work for both two sided and six sided planets. Set gravity to relative centre and attract. But a better way would be to have a gravity point above each side set to repel. This would mean that a certain amount of force is required entering and exiting atmosphere, whilst maintaining facial gravity!
Spherical or cubiod I would love to see the planets upgraded.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 302
- Reaction score
- 46
I personally would prefer the 3D cube planets. They look nice and fitting, but as you said gravity in the corners would be a problem. Im sure you can work something out. Thanks for all the hard work you are doing. I do indded plan to buy this game soon.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2013
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 43
The first one is simple spherical coordinates. You may have seen this on youtube on some other engines maybe. It looks great, but has one deciding disadvantage: the planet is not full 3D. It\'s just a simple visual effect. The planet surface is a plane that is warped (kind of like very wide lense photo cameras) by converting all the points into spherical coordinates and make the ends repeat (so it loops). But a plane has as we all know only one up direction, and while you could have the visual effect of it even rotating, other objects would have to be warped in the same way as the planed surface. It looks like it\'s working, but without a real 3d space, there will be logic problems with every other object not in that planet\'s context.
Well, personally I think it\'s the way to go. You\'d have to try to implement a transition layer in planet\'s entity, to make \"out-of-context\" objects don\'t interfere with a planet, and objects entering the area-of-influence (atmosphere) of a planet to acquire the planar dimension to avoid logic issues. You would be able to pick an area of approach from within, but it would just move you to appropriate location over the plane, like it works with void-sys transition. To avoid logic issues from the planet view you can limit the vision to display only stars on night, and maybe only Beacon lights from objects outside, while you can\'t see anything in the daylight atmosphere, but the star which provides it.
It would likely require other major changes to happen, like increasing sector dimensions and decreasing their number, to make planets as more viable objects (though there\'s several other points why it should be done that way). It\'s okay this to be just a visual effect as long as you just can\'t approach the planet from the bottom, which is main issue in my opinion.
Well, personally I think it\'s the way to go. You\'d have to try to implement a transition layer in planet\'s entity, to make \"out-of-context\" objects don\'t interfere with a planet, and objects entering the area-of-influence (atmosphere) of a planet to acquire the planar dimension to avoid logic issues. You would be able to pick an area of approach from within, but it would just move you to appropriate location over the plane, like it works with void-sys transition. To avoid logic issues from the planet view you can limit the vision to display only stars on night, and maybe only Beacon lights from objects outside, while you can\'t see anything in the daylight atmosphere, but the star which provides it.
It would likely require other major changes to happen, like increasing sector dimensions and decreasing their number, to make planets as more viable objects (though there\'s several other points why it should be done that way). It\'s okay this to be just a visual effect as long as you just can\'t approach the planet from the bottom, which is main issue in my opinion.
The two sided planets is the best option...
- it is simple, and faster to implement.
- it is compatible with the grid system and the voxel (box) structure of the game.
- cube worlds would be cool, but the diagonal gravity field will probably be terrible, because nothing in the game works in diagonals hahaha.
- the two sided planets require less blocks on the entire planet, which is better. My note is crying when I am near a planet XD.
- it is simple, and faster to implement.
- it is compatible with the grid system and the voxel (box) structure of the game.
- cube worlds would be cool, but the diagonal gravity field will probably be terrible, because nothing in the game works in diagonals hahaha.
- the two sided planets require less blocks on the entire planet, which is better. My note is crying when I am near a planet XD.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
What if you give the planets a core gravity block Where everything is attracted to it but your feet are always pointing towards its. This way you can have a circular planet with even gravity
Core could be structured like:
- In the center a very hard block. So dense that equipment can\'t destroy or mine it.
- Just above it a layer of unminably hot lava. This would be another indestructible block type.
And yes, diagonal ruling makes perfect sense in determining which way gravity goes. It doesn\'t need to depend on any block on the planet.
- In the center a very hard block. So dense that equipment can\'t destroy or mine it.
- Just above it a layer of unminably hot lava. This would be another indestructible block type.
And yes, diagonal ruling makes perfect sense in determining which way gravity goes. It doesn\'t need to depend on any block on the planet.
I think this idea is amazing and would have the potential for planets to really be more planet-sized in game, lending them much needed size, character, and use.
If each was a seperate plane world (ala minecraft), orbital/atmospheric battles could happen where ships fight under the gravitational (and potentially even atmospheric, ie. increased drag, wind) effects of a planet.
WIth this idea there could be a greater distinction made between atmospheric flight versus space flight which I think would be awesome. Who wouldn\'t love to see an enemy unwittingly get their over-sized, under-powered ship bogged down on a hostile planet?
Since planets could be more real life planet-sized, faction blocks could claim a volume instead of the whole planet, so there could be territorial disputes/battles on planets as well.
If each was a seperate plane world (ala minecraft), orbital/atmospheric battles could happen where ships fight under the gravitational (and potentially even atmospheric, ie. increased drag, wind) effects of a planet.
WIth this idea there could be a greater distinction made between atmospheric flight versus space flight which I think would be awesome. Who wouldn\'t love to see an enemy unwittingly get their over-sized, under-powered ship bogged down on a hostile planet?
Since planets could be more real life planet-sized, faction blocks could claim a volume instead of the whole planet, so there could be territorial disputes/battles on planets as well.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Look I see that you\'re making a point why you can\'t do spheres. Well I am going to ignore all of it and suggest you sit down and sort it out. Your fans should have laid down all the \"why\", you just need to find the \"how\". Honestly, they look fine - sure the details you laid out need work, so make solutions for it!
I (and whomever else agree) want spherical planets, the discs are just plain weird. So screw the simplicity of the block system. Hows that for uneducated and opinionated fandom.
I (and whomever else agree) want spherical planets, the discs are just plain weird. So screw the simplicity of the block system. Hows that for uneducated and opinionated fandom.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
I had this same idea in mind for planets, everybody is thinking in terms of gravity always pulling in a single direction, this tends to work well for ships and space stations, but it wouldn\'t be adequate for planets because of gravitational switching with one field to another. It honestly wouldn\'t be that gamebreaking to generate spheres out of blocks (basically you\'d have something like picture two but more of a sphere instead of a box with six sides) and then the central core and your current location would determine the direction of gravitation. Of course this would only be calculated from within the planet\'s range of influence.
Tough issue to solve, each solution has tradeoffs for sure.
I tend to think Cuboid planets with 6 gravity vectors might be the best compromize really. Linden Labs new game called \"Patterns\" does this, and it is not as immersion beaking as you might imagine, it actually seems to work pretty well and does lead to planets that look much more natural.
You could switch to a simpler gravity model at X distance from the planet center as well to account for orbits.
Here you can see how their gravity model works at the boundry between edges http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0TIGT1CSoA
I tend to think Cuboid planets with 6 gravity vectors might be the best compromize really. Linden Labs new game called \"Patterns\" does this, and it is not as immersion beaking as you might imagine, it actually seems to work pretty well and does lead to planets that look much more natural.
You could switch to a simpler gravity model at X distance from the planet center as well to account for orbits.
Here you can see how their gravity model works at the boundry between edges http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0TIGT1CSoA