The size of a planet

Saravanth wrote:

Vinyl wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Vinyl wrote:

How about divide 5000x5000 into a cube instead of a massive 5000^3

Because that's tiny. That would be a planet less than 300 blocks on a side.

Each face would have 4,166,666.67 blocks on the surface.

833² per face. That IS tiny.

2041^2 per face, dividing 5000 by six does not give you the square root of 5000^2 divided by six.

And Fr0st, you divided 6 by 25,000,000, there, shouldn't it be 25,000,000 divided by six? Or am I doing it wrong.

@Saravanth
Dunno.  I'd prefer something less random, especially since we have a finite map to deal with.  Maybe colder toward the poles, humidity contrast around mountains, that sort of thing.  I'd also like to get one more octave of noise so that continents will be a little better defined.

But there is also the issue of different planets having different formulas, or different versions of the same formula.  Most likely, the algorithm will need to be saved along with the planet, which does give us considerable freedom.

Prototype wrote:

And Fr0st, you divided 6 by 25,000,000, there, shouldn't it be 25,000,000 divided by six?

What? I did no such thing.

As I said frost the planet itself is actually FLAT REGULAR mc world and only the INAGE is distorted, and even that is not a must because eventually we just need a working planet. As for you LJS tell me what is so bad in that system ? Name me your cons and I will count all cons of a square planet, and see I got this in the bag assuming that frost generated a normal 5000x5000x256 world, a 5000x5000x5000 one will eventually weight 23.4375 GB ! And the faces will be slightly less than 7.2 GB , that is insane per planet.

So yes it will require Frost to find a solution without making the planet itself too small and although frost is a genius I don't want to put everything on him, I'm quite sure he has more important engine issues to solve such as the increasing of the view range without getting FPS down to 1. After these calculations your insisting on throwing that idea away seems just stupid. OFC if you manage to find cons that outweigh that I might review my point of view because say what you want about me being an asshole but I actually read what you say and back off from time to time too, and that is unlike those discussion and arguments, a fact.

Iv121 wrote:

As for you LJS tell me what is so bad in that system ? Name me your cons and I will count all cons of a square planet, and see I got this in the bag

No. Very mature of me, I know, but if you find it unnecessary to actually come up with arguments to support your points I see no reason why I should have to. We've been over this enough times that you know what my problems with your system are. I'm right and you're wrong, and that's the end of that. I've got it in the bag. There's no point arguing this.

Additionally, off-topic deleted because this is a productive thread. Also moved to Member's Lounge because it isn't actually off-topic.

If you're going to call this 'off-topic' bs, delete the past page of you and Iv going at it as well. Don't selectively enforce the rules.

Comrade Tiel wrote:

If you're going to call this 'off-topic' bs, delete the past page of you and Iv going at it as well. Don't selectively enforce the rules.

We're arguing about what the thread's about. You posted something completely unrelated about some girl you know. Those two are not equivalent.

They're roughly the same in the forum's ability to give a shit about it.

No one wants to hear your bickering, it adds absolutely nothing to whatever discussion it takes place in and generally pisses everyone off.

Comrade Tiel wrote:

They're roughly the same in the forum's ability to give a shit about it.

No one wants to hear your bickering, it adds absolutely nothing to whatever discussion it takes place in and generally pisses everyone off.

That's not the same as it being off-topic.

You're saying that isn't the very definition of offtopic.

Frankly, I could care less whether your arguments 'have to do with the thread', they achieve the exact same results and clearly both of you are doing it to attack each other rather than have an honest debate on helping fr0st with his system. You see my post? You see how that annoyed you since you were talking about something and suddenly this idiot dashes in and disrupts the flow of discussion? That's how the ones you and Iv make look, and I can't be the only one getting tired of it.

I suggest deleting all posts containing the argument between Iv and LJS.
Every time planets/ground-based stuff comes up, those arguments start.
PLEASE quit and TRY NOT TO START AGAIN.

This meta argument is off-topic. LJS moved the thread out of off-topic so we can't have those no more.

To be true I have no idea why your brought it even up LJS, "Im right you're wrong" is not exactly of the strongest of arguments and actually shows how absurd it is. I also welcomed Tiel's off-topic because it was a really good way to defuse the situation, that you apparently deleted ...

As for Pros here is the full list:

- It is aesthetically clean and allows you to have any sort of planet shape attached to the actual MC world - want a round planet ? You can do it now ! Want a square planet ? Although it looks worse than a round one you can do this too.

- Flexibility - you can adapt this system to your need and BTW use it not only for planets but for a large variety of other objects.

- Easy to execute - It will speed up the development process quite significantly and allow frost to add much cooler futures.

- Fully fulfils all functions of other methods - Gameplay wise the player will experience these planets the same way in both methods so why make it hard for ourselves and loose on these advantages if you can do the exact same now and better ?

- It solves the size issue: You can attach any world of any size without considering how big it will look like from outside. You can now choose the exact size you need for the playable area and unlike a 5000x5000x5000 cube here you will only have a standard MC 5000x5000x256 world, you can even increase the Height and depth again to adapt it to your needs, playing with the thickness of the atmosphere etc.

- It solves the gravity issues players will experience on the borders of two faces of a world.



I bet fen can add more but that is already more pros than the square block planet system. With the pros of easy to execute and easthetically pleasing it will be hard for you to overweight with any other arguments as far as I see because yea I already made the same list of pros to your world.

When you get tired of searching for pros you can also look up some cons but again they will not be able to overweight these pros as far as I saw.

-there will be distortion and improperly mapped areas because it is impossible to project a rectangular mesh onto a sphere.  We might be able to do it but it will necessarily be more restricting.

-it will take longer to develop and make the math much more difficult.  1:1 spacial representation will always be the simplest.

-there's no reason we can't make planets smaller. The current scale was simply eyeballed as a satisfying size to support continents. A fully generated 3D world will be too big to be usable at any scale. We have to rely on at least partial procedural generation.

-gravity is about the only objective benefit of the projection strategy. But we need to deal with reoriented entities anyway because of space, so we can't simply ignore it.

I think spherical worlds would look cool, too, but I don't know that they are worth the trouble they bring.

Hey Fr0st, have you actually a rough idea about how liquids are going to work? If not quite, I think I may have a solution...

EDIT: And please clarify if the ships' hull can be penetrated in battle and similar situations or not, an idea of mine for life support systems depends on that...

I kinda like the idea of Square planets, it keeps the definitive feel of minecraft, and somehow seem more iconic

MrTargareyan wrote:

I kinda like the idea of Square planets, it keeps the definitive feel of minecraft, and somehow seem more iconic

You got my (although not-really-that-important) support.

I myself don't think the size matters that much (within reasonable limits) if most of the planet stays unloaded/-generated (since you don't see/interact with all of it at once). Also 12,88Gb (I used a calculator and frost's given size of the 5000x5000 world) per planet (4069^3) is not that much for a server if it doesn't need to load all at once.

fr0stbyte124 wrote:

-there will be distortion and improperly mapped areas because it is impossible to project a rectangular mesh onto a sphere.  We might be able to do it but it will necessarily be more restricting.

-it will take longer to develop and make the math much more difficult.  1:1 spacial representation will always be the simplest.

-there's no reason we can't make planets smaller. The current scale was simply eyeballed as a satisfying size to support continents. A fully generated 3D world will be too big to be usable at any scale. We have to rely on at least partial procedural generation.

-gravity is about the only objective benefit of the projection strategy. But we need to deal with reoriented entities anyway because of space, so we can't simply ignore it.

I think spherical worlds would look cool, too, but I don't know that they are worth the trouble they bring.

Again I will explain: - Because the planet is merely an image it can look like anything we want, maybe even nothing near the original, like colored in beautiful atmospheric colors, making a purple planet if the terrain is generally purple for example, you gonna argue that is hard ? That is harder for me as the guy who makes these pictures to make them look cool and that is quite easy to do.

- There is: You will end up with planets that look too small from the outside which will result in pretty much Starmade style planets that you really don't like. Keep in mind that the avg dreadnaught in FC will probably be 500m long or stuff like that.

- Yes we can, we only care about their teleport back to the planet and there as it is a simple Mc world gravity is always down.

craftqq wrote:

You got my (although not-really-that-important) support.

I myself don't think the size matters that much (within reasonable limits) if most of the planet stays unloaded/-generated (since you don't see/interact with all of it at once). Also 12,88Gb (I used a calculator and frost's given size of the 5000x5000 world) per planet (4069^3) is not that much for a server if it doesn't need to load all at once.

The problem is there is not one planet, but maybe 4 per system and how many systems you'd like ? 40 ? 2060.5 GB, and yes some of them will need to be loaded at once because someone might be in the system and because the planet is mere blocks in that system you just must keep at least the surface of the planet loaded.

Iv121 wrote:

Again I will explain: - Because the planet is merely an image it can look like anything we want, maybe even nothing near the original, like colored in beautiful atmospheric colors, making a purple planet if the terrain is generally purple for example, you gonna argue that is hard ? That is harder for me as the guy who makes these pictures to make them look cool and that is quite easy to do.

Again, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NONO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO F**K NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE TERRAIN AND THEIR GODDAMN STRUCTURES FROM SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... (Rule 108.5)

Iv121 wrote:

Again, I...

Iv121 wrote:

Well, as I said...

Oh please, for the love of god, if you have something to say say it ONCE and never again instead of trolling and repeating yourself over and over... -_-

I am sorry but I can't think of any other way than this to try making you understand that fact anymore.

Iv121 wrote:

-snip-

craftqq wrote:

You got my (although not-really-that-important) support.

I myself don't think the size matters that much (within reasonable limits) if most of the planet stays unloaded/-generated (since you don't see/interact with all of it at once). Also 12,88Gb (I used a calculator and frost's given size of the 5000x5000 world) per planet (4069^3) is not that much for a server if it doesn't need to load all at once.

The problem is there is not one planet, but maybe 4 per system and how many systems you'd like ? 40 ? 2060.5 GB, and yes some of them will need to be loaded at once because someone might be in the system and because the planet is mere blocks in that system you just must keep at least the surface of the planet loaded.

To clarify my post:
- 12,88Gb is the MAX size of a planet (every single block generated), although it may go up to 13Gb with entities (if you spam the planet with NPCs or similar)
- most servers DO have 2TB or more space for saving stuff, so thats not a problem
- as per planet (surface) loaded, I can't give you an exact number (since calculating it brought up results ranging from 7,9Mb to 189Gb, so my math is failing me here {I tried multiple times/approaches since the first one was unexpected}), but I'd say you could just have an image of the planet/chunks and load the chunks when players are near (since seeing doesn't necessarily mean that you could interact with it) the surface (unless you shoot at the planet, in that case the affected chunks have to be loaded)
I hope this clarifies some of the stuff I said.

MrTargareyan wrote:

I kinda like the idea of Square planets, it keeps the definitive feel of minecraft, and somehow seem more iconic

Agree

Pro-cubic here as well...

See the problem is sara that I wouldn't repeat it if you got from the first time, NOW you NEVER get it from the first time so make your conclusions ...


And for you CraftQQ the problem is not that the server has or has not 2TB of memory but rather if the PLAYER has it and if he has the bandwidth to transfer even 1.2 GB from the server, as see each time he encounters a new FACE of a planet he gets to DL 1.2 GB of data, that is huge, that is in fact too huge to be possible with the current computers so Frost has to DRASTICALLY improve the system to transfer data that is on the server worth 1.2 GB seamlessly, and that 6 times per planet and 4 times per each planet in the system !

Iv121 wrote:

To be true I have no idea why your brought it even up LJS, "Im right you're wrong" is not exactly of the strongest of arguments and actually shows how absurd it is.

I'm glad you caught that, Iv. "I'm right and you're wrong", "That's the end of that", "I've got it in the bag", and "There's no point arguing this" are all things you've said to me over the course of our arguments. My idea was that showing you how stupid and condescending they seem from the other side would perhaps make a point and convince you to use them a bit less frequently. You have at least acknowledged that they're absurd and greatly decrease the credibility of your entire argument, but I was rather hoping for a bit more than that. Some progress, I suppose, is better than none.

Iv121 wrote:

See the problem is sara that I wouldn't repeat it if you got from the first time, NOW you NEVER get it from the first time so make your conclusions ...

The problem isn't that we didn't hear or understand you, the problem is that we don't agree. Repeating yourself isn't going to change that.

----------------------------------

I also support cubic planets. It's important that we keep some amount of Minecraft around somewhere, and I think they look cooler anyway. Everyone (heck, even real life) has spherical planets, but as far as I know we'll be the only ones with cubes. If we had to make them a bit smaller, I guess that would be OK, but I wouldn't want to go that much smaller—planets always need to feel big.

You are aware that the player is never having to load the whole 5km² of a face at once? The chunks are cubic, and only loaded (and unloaded) in a certain radius around the player. By the way, don't forget that the planet has a whole inside volume of blocks.

Also, do you ever even think about the slight possibility of your idea being flawed? And other ideas being just better and more fitting? We are not stupid, we understand what you are saying. YOU, though, should try to understand what WE are saying. You are doing nothing but annoying the people here by repeating yourself so often that we can predict what you are going to say even before the first post of the thread is made, and whining that everyone apparently hates you (which you are seriously provoking) when we disagree with you for the x'th time...

you wouldnt have to render every block in space, you would just display a lower resolution image of whatever face, and only load the chunks and blocks when you get closer, the closer you get the more hi-def the image gets, but as you get closer you only need to view a smaller area.

if that makes any sense whatsoever.