cgw

Terrain Voxel Maps

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, cgw said:

Nobody needs a planet measuring 40,075 km. What for?

Except they do. Orbits around small bodies are different than around large ones. Anyone who ever played RSS or even JNSQ will realize that a smaller planets mean different physics. Specifically, lower delta V to orbit. You cannot do anything to change that.

There are mods that make planets real size. Why? Becuase flying and launching rockets from real size planets is harder. Make them smaller, and you'll destroy all challenge KSP offers. In fact, they are much too small already for many players, which is why several mods sprung up to correct that.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ya'll not heard about PQS+? From what I hear, the new PQS system is great, and impressed even Galileo. It will even have Documentation! What more does one need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

Nobody needs a planet measuring 40,075 km. What for?

Because this isn't the Little Prince, this is a space simulation game, and it's bad enough already that the planets are 10x smaller than they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Hey this isn't minecraft with rockets.

Ah, but is it rockets with Minecraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cgw said:

So what? I do not see the need for a large planet.
Why a big planet is needed if these planets are absolutely empty (There are even no NPC buildings.).
On small planets there is enough space for everyone.
And the small planets will be empty (uninhabited).

Oh god...

If you have no idea about basic orbital mechanics, please don't comment on what is needed and what is not needed...

Sizes of planets tremendously affect the dv requirements which in turn tremendously affects gameplay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OutOfAblator said:

Because this isn't the Little Prince, this is a space simulation game, and it's bad enough already that the planets are 10x smaller than they should be.

Agreed, but my argument is better (hint: watch who you're quoting). :) 

That said, real size is too much for most people. JNSQ strikes about the right balance, actually. RSS launches tend to be a bit drawn out, 10 minutes from ground to orbit is a bit annoying, especially with physics warp being what it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, steuben said:

Game requirement specs are not a very good argument that the calculations are wrong... unless I'm missing a subtlety of the argument. Would you care to point out exactly where the calculations are wrong, or expand on your argument?

I do not know. maybe: The calculations are correct, but I meant small planets, not giant ones.

But look, you will not dig the entire planet, but only part of it. Why calculate what is not needed.

Spoiler

For Example Empyrion - Galactic Survival (Unity) on Steam  About 10 planets

https://empyriononline.com/threads/alpha-8-new-planets-playfield-tech.38165/

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTSSYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows (7, 8 and 10), 64-bit system required
Processor: Dual-Core Processor 2.5 GHz or better
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 or equivalent (at least 1GB VRAM)
DirectX: Version 9.0c
Storage: 2 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX® compatible

RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows (7, 8 and 10), 64-bit system required
Processor: Quad-Core 2.8 GHz or better
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or better (with 2GB VRAM)
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 4 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX® compatible

So your calculations are wrong.

THIS -> Storage: 2 GB available space / Storage: 4 GB available space

10 planets

 

1 hour ago, OutOfAblator said:

Because this isn't the Little Prince, this is a space simulation game, and it's bad enough already that the planets are 10x smaller than they should be.

The planets may be small (99% people no one will notice.), But physics is for large planets.
 

Edited by cgw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cgw said:

I do not know. maybe: The calculations are correct, but I meant small planets, not giant ones.

But look, you will not dig the entire planet, but only part of it. Why calculate what is not needed.

steuben covered that.  Even limiting it to just 1km down - about half of the physics bubble - and you still get Petabytes of data per world.  Now, I'm sure some compression could be possible - but you'll still have huge amounts of data to store.

21 minutes ago, cgw said:

The planets may be small (99% people no one will notice.), But physics is for large planets.

100% of the players in KSP notice the size of the planet they are launching from, orbiting, or trying to land on.  You may not notice that you notice, but it affects everything you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cgw said:

So what? I do not see the need for a large planet.

Fair, but most of us do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

steuben covered that.  Even limiting it to just 1km down - about half of the physics bubble - and you still get Petabytes of data per world.  Now, I'm sure some compression could be possible - but you'll still have huge amounts of data to store.

 

2 minutes ago, DStaal said:

100% of the players in KSP notice the size of the planet they are launching from, orbiting, or trying to land on.  You may not notice that you notice, but it affects everything you do.

I play Empyrion - Galactic survival with Voxel MAP I do not notice the size of the planet.
And 10 planets occupy less than 5 gigabytes. therefore, the calculations are not correct.

for example

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cgw said:

the calculations are not correct.

 

38 minutes ago, cgw said:

The calculations are correct, .

You gotta choose one. The calculations are either correct or not. 

My best guess, never having even looked at the game,  is that they are using  a chunked difference map coupled with procedural terrain generation. Which can generate huge amounts modifiable terrain very cheaply, raw data wise. But, when you have to have specific terrain in a specific spot each time, scaled up to a full planet, well you loose a lot of what ever you gain pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With some short search i found some speed limits of Empyrion 40 m/s in Atmosphare, and 110m/s in space. I don't that is correct, but with that slow speed, the Planet feels bigger, but in KSP that would be very slow.

I found also a estimated diameter of 10km, that mean you can stack 7 Empyrion Planets in Kerbins Atmosphare.

Edited by runner78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, cgw said:

I play Empyrion - Galactic survival with Voxel MAP I do not notice the size of the planet.

How often in that game do you have to calculate how much fuel you need to reach orbit?  Or to change orbits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, runner78 said:

With some short search i found some speed limits of Empyrion 40 m/s in Atmosphare, and 110m/s in space. I don't that is correct, but with that slow speed, the Planet feels bigger, but in KSP that would be very slow.

I found also a estimated diameter of 10km, that mean you can stack 7 Empyrion Planets in Kerbins Atmosphare.

Speed limits? KSP has speed limits. In atmosphere, the speed limit is as fast as you can without exploding you craft. In space the speed limit is your patience or if the kraken visits you. (I've seen a good percentage of c after a kraken visit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, cgw said:

I play Empyrion - Galactic survival with Voxel MAP I do not notice the size of the planet.

well...

On 10/8/2019 at 5:00 AM, cgw said:

Empyrion - Galactic Survival,  No'Man Sky, Astroneer, Space Engineers these games excellent and interesting, but in them are not present real physics of a trajectory of the planet of flights with an actual weight as in KSP1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cgw said:

The planets may be small (99% people no one will notice.), But physics is for large planets.

That cannot work. You cannot make a small planet with "physics" of a large one, because then, it's not physics at all! KSP relies on physics, it cannot do such obvious fakery. It is literally impossible to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely agree with previous statements that voxel terrain/ground manipulation is not that feasible in KSP2 and also not really needed. But I would say it would be nice to have caves (lava tubes and others) for science and colony setups. All static and the same in each save of course. But I'm 90% sure Star theory already said no caves or negative spaces. I just hope for more interesting and unique terrain which they say they are adding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could be done the same way as in KSP1 - as models on top of the normal terrain. If done right, this could look good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FinalFan said:

Ah, but is it rockets with Minecraft?

Or is it Minecraft rockets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP2 needs far more terrain detail. Planets are what you visit. They need terrain at a scale that makes landing non-trivial (unlike current KSP) to be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tater said:

KSP2 needs far more terrain detail. Planets are what you visit. They need terrain at a scale that makes landing non-trivial (unlike current KSP) to be interesting.

They have said they'll be improving the terrain, and providing things like colliable scatters, so that is planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DStaal said:

They have said they'll be improving the terrain, and providing things like colliable scatters, so that is planned.

It needs terrain features on the scale of lander legs. If you can land a jet on a random field on Kerbin (not a runway)... it's not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2019 at 4:05 AM, runner78 said:

I am a voxel terrain fan, but i don't think it fits KSP.

But it would be nice if maybe there is a possibility to change the hightmap, to flatten an area or make roads.

I think it would be about the only reason to justify a second game. I dont think the other things can't be done in KSP1. I don't care about voxel unless it can be given an interesting enough application. But that severity in change is the only reason to justify a sequel in my eyes. It's extreme enough of a difference. At least given what is common in games today.

They coud always do the options route and make both. Have a setting on game creation for which type of surface and what gameplay you can get from it later on. Voxel nbody physics anybody? If you mine too much the planet will deorbit! 8D

They don't have to do voxel the same way. They could use it like a layering system in mining and add new features and less terrain destruction so it's more realistic. But they could also do terrain destruction like heavy digging. Give a reason to haul large machinery around. Or build it. Maybe some things can only be found deep under the earth!

What if the kraken is hiding inside of the core of one of the planets and you have to find it and kill it like a boss fight. Or tame it like a pet. The options are endless! With multiplayer they could have large raids. Hopefully not static ones that always happen the same way but open ended ones.

Edited by Arugela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, tater said:

It needs terrain features on the scale of lander legs. If you can land a jet on a random field on Kerbin (not a runway)... it's not good enough.

From what has been said, all scatter but the smallest rocks and bushes will have colliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cgw said:

 

I play Empyrion - Galactic survival with Voxel MAP I do not notice the size of the planet.
And 10 planets occupy less than 5 gigabytes. therefore, the calculations are not correct.

for example

 

Two old dos games with examples of what you can do in space are:

Albion(for it's story telling, breadth and 1st person exploration)

Alien legacy(For it's space exploration, infrastructure, and planetary exploration(via spaceplanes!))

both are good examples of games that almost did what voxel games are doing. But from slightly different perspectives. They could easily be remade as voxel games now.

Games were way more progressive back in the day!

Both of these games have elements that fundamentally could be used in a voxel KSP or any other voxel game. Either organization of space or ground mission ideas.

Alien legacy is just like that game you showed with the planets but more expansive and from everything except 1st person.

Both of those games could be really good redone in voxel with 1st person and other things added. They were very advanced games for their time. They are basically the essence of voxel game infrastructures potential before voxel was applied in that way.

In fact I think that game is based on albion. That large monster appears to be a krondir! The planet life is also similar to albion a bit.

 

Edited by Arugela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.