Yet another planet thread

[Valiant70]

Yes a loading screen can brake immersion but it would be worth it because it would allow larger worlds to build on without lagging in the middle of combat or movement.

I don't think it would be worth it. There are better ways of getting around engine limitations. "No loading screens" is a major strong point of this game, and it shall remain. I'm sure planets will improve. Whether we get a seamless surface or not, I have no idea, but I know they must improve because they are currently not acceptable. They're tiny, and they lag client and server alike. Hardly anyone uses them, although the few that do demonstrate why they should be made better. I expect it will be a matter of reprogramming the way the game loads planet surfaces into client and server.

 

[SapioiT]

Schema tried round planets. They don't work in Starmade. Dodecahedron planets are fine.

I'd still preffer a cube, with a lot smaller cube, prefferably... it would help with the frames, as well!

 

[Valiant70]

I'd still preffer a cube, with a lot smaller cube, prefferably... it would help with the frames, as well!

The reason we don't have cubes is that it's difficult to make the gravity transitions work properly on a 90* corner IIRC.

 

[SapioiT]

The reason we don't have cubes is that it's difficult to make the gravity transitions work properly on a 90* corner IIRC.

Is it easier to make it work on the current structure? I mean, it would be basicly the same thing, but reducing the number of plates... wouldn't it?

 

[Valiant70]

Is it easier to make it work on the current structure? I mean, it would be basicly the same thing, but reducing the number of plates... wouldn't it?

The current structure has a much gentler angle rather than basically stepping off a cliff.

 

[Ithirahad]

Schema himself stated he was against such a solution, as a loading screen breaks immersion.

I don't find instanced planets to be a perfect solution either, but come to think of it, if his best argument is immersion, that's just silly... According to him, a loading screen (Which may not even be necessary really, considering the way sector transitions and planet (entity) loading work currently) breaks immersion less than weird jagged edges and wonky angular gravity transitions?

 

[Valiant70]

I don't find instanced planets to be a perfect solution either, but come to think of it, if his best argument is immersion, that's just silly... According to him, a loading screen (Which may not even be necessary really, considering the way sector transitions and planet (entity) loading work currently) breaks immersion less than weird jagged edges and wonky angular gravity transitions?

I have an idea that builds on my previous planet ideas that basically merges seamless world and instance advantages into one. I'm still working out the kinks though. So basically it's a little bit like copying the surface of an instanced planet into the seamless world client-side and adjusting a few things around it (again, client side) to make it work on the surface of a sphere in the middle of Schema's wonderful seamless universe. There is a potential problem causing discrepancies of line of sight past the planet's surface between clients close to and far from the planet though, so I have to figure out a good solution and find the time to write up a whole new theory on seamless voxel planet spherification, which might take a couple of weeks...

 

[Snk]

It could be instanced, like minecraft terrian. It just saves how something looks like from a distance, and only loads it when you get near. The part you are standing on would be flat, but as you get farther into orbit it only appears round.

 

[Valiant70]

It could be instanced, like minecraft terrian. It just saves how something looks like from a distance, and only loads it when you get near. The part you are standing on would be flat, but as you get farther into orbit it only appears round.

That's more or less what I have in mind, although it's not nearly that simple. There are all kinds of gemetric weird things you have to deal with in the transition between flat and spherical. Angles and ranges between a lot of different stuff have to stay consistent and appear normal to the player while still being calculable for the server. The problem isn't what we want it to look like, but how to make it like that. I'm trying to think through that problem. I've got an (extremely complicated) idea in my head, and I'm in the process of working the kinks out. When I have time I'll write it up and post it in the planet thread in my signature.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

I don't find instanced planets to be a perfect solution either, but come to think of it, if his best argument is immersion, that's just silly... According to him, a loading screen (Which may not even be necessary really, considering the way sector transitions and planet (entity) loading work currently) breaks immersion less than weird jagged edges and wonky angular gravity transitions?

It's not just about loading screens. The biggest advantage we have now is we can interact with a planet from space, or vice versa. Instanced planets will go against that.

 

[Valiant70]

It's not just about loading screens. The biggest advantage we have now is we can interact with a planet from space, or vice versa. Instanced planets will go against that.

Right. Loss of interaction is what I'm trying to figure out how to avoid.
EDIT: I seem to have found the solution to the problem I was talking about before. It's less than perfect, but it should be workable and it's about as close to perfect as it can come.

 

[Ithirahad]

It's not just about loading screens. The biggest advantage we have now is we can interact with a planet from space, or vice versa. Instanced planets will go against that.

Define 'interact.' If by that you mean shoot, then I don't really see the use in that either. Sure, conceptually being able to nuke/bombard/glass a planet from orbit sounds really cool, but in a voxel game, in practice it just means that anything you build on a non-homebased planet can and will be destroyed by someone with a big enough doombrick/ship. Besides... wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to have to actually stage a planetary invasion, with fighters, bombers, troop transports and the like, than just wipe everything out from orbit with one rather unspectacular shot?

 

[Snk]

Define 'interact.' If by that you mean shoot, then I don't really see the use in that either. Sure, conceptually being able to nuke/bombard/glass a planet from orbit sounds really cool, but in a voxel game, in practice it just means that anything you build on a non-homebased planet can and will be destroyed by someone with a big enough doombrick/ship. Besides... wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to have to actually stage a planetary invasion, with fighters, bombers, troop transports and the like, than just wipe everything out from orbit with one rather unspectacular shot?

I think both options should be viable.

 

[Ithirahad]

I think both options should be viable.

How is that even possible, though? If any form of orbital strike (besides maybe disintegrator bombs) is allowed, then by nature it automatically outclasses a proper planetary invasion. The only disadvantage is that it would be less accurate and more likely to destroy valuable assets, but the main point of taking over a planet would probably be just destroying whatever the enemy is doing there and setting up your own stuff so that doesn't matter too much.

 

[Snk]

How is that even possible, though? If any form of orbital strike (besides maybe disintegrator bombs) is allowed, then by nature it automatically outclasses a proper planetary invasion. The only disadvantage is that it would be less accurate and more likely to destroy valuable assets, but the main point of taking over a planet would probably be just destroying whatever the enemy is doing there and setting up your own stuff so that doesn't matter too much.

Better anti missile defense systems, I suppose. Can't nuke them from orbit if all of your missiles are being shot of the sky. On the flip side, that makes it so the invading team would need to take out the point defense sites if they want to bombard a planet.

 

[Ithirahad]

Better anti missile defense systems, I suppose. Can't nuke them from orbit if all of your missiles are being shot of the sky. On the flip side, that makes it so the invading team would need to take out the point defense sites if they want to bombard a planet.

It's pretty easy to overwhelm missile defense with lots of cheap little swarm missiles, or single-block waffleboarded rapid missiles, which would render point-defense systems 99% ineffective...

 

[Snk]

It's pretty easy to overwhelm missile defense with lots of cheap little swarm missiles, or single-block waffleboarded rapid missiles, which would render point-defense systems 99% ineffective...

Maybe, but the trade off would be less firepower. Maybe then you couldn't break the planet's shields.

 

[Ithirahad]

Maybe, but the trade off would be less firepower. Maybe then you couldn't break the planet's shields.

There would be no tradeoff. All it would be is a trivially-small extra system installed on the front of your ship to distract point defense while the real missiles go to work.

 

[Snk]

There would be no tradeoff. All it would be is a trivially-small extra system installed on the front of your ship to distract point defense while the real missiles go to work.

No, there would be a trade off.

 

[Lecic]

No, there would be a trade off.

I'm pretty sure a triple-stacked waffle of dumbfires to distract PD has an almost completely negligible negative effect.