Planets Map 2.0 Discussion (CONTEST OPEN)

[Reactor Worker]

CONTEST: Planets 2.0 Interior Challenge

Deadline: October 25^th

Objective: Create a working planetary interior for use in the planets 2.0 map. Planets consist of a 12 sided sphere with 6 stacks cut in half to form a semi-sphere. What you put on top or inside of the semi-sphere is up to you. All planets which have a surface (IE. Gas giants) are open to entrants.

Prize : Participate in BETA testing of map

Disclaimer: Contest open to everyone. By submitting your work you are giving me the exclusive right to use the content in the Planets 2.0 map. I reserve the right to disqualify, use, not use and edit or alter all submissions. Any art used will be credited in the map. Multiple entries are allowed and encouraged.

For more info PM me.

I was hoping to wait until I had some cool screenshots to show you before I even make a topic on the map but there are certain decisions related to the fundamental design of the map that could use some healthy discussion before I start assembling the map. I'm asking for community input because ultimately you are the people who are (hopefully) going to be using the map and it helps to get outside perspective.

Issue #1: Gravity

May as well start with one of the tougher subjects. Should the map contain normal gravity throughout? or just normal gravity around planets?

On one hand, having normal gravity throughout the map makes flying vehicles easier and avoids some of the glitches and annoyances associated with using interacting physical zones. Also, how should the player move in a zero-G environment without the aid of vehicles?

On the other hand, zero-G is more realistic (I am so going to regret saying that later) and provides the map with a unique feature.

Issue #2: Scale

How far are we willing to go beyond practicality to achieve a scale representation of the planets? Should the planets reflect their actual comparative sizes? or should the planets be sized more reasonably in a way so as not to fill the whole screen with Jupiter and Saturn?

Also tying into the scale issue is the spacing and positioning of the planets. Should the planets be spaced very far apart (like in version 1) or should they be closer together for convenience? How should the planets be placed relative to the sun? would it be acceptable to place the planets equidistant from the sun to form a circle around it with even spacing between each planet?

Issue #3: What to build on

The previous version of the map used very basic interiors for the surface of the planet and was not without problems. The interiors were very sensitive to light, had poor collision detection and looked really dull. What should replace them? Should I include a more detailed version of the interiors with hills and perhaps a trench for some water bricks? Any alternatives? Should trees and grass be placed on the ground?


I value your input and if you have any additional suggestions I am open to them. A penny for your thoughts?

[Ad Bot]

[captain blue]

Two problems that I had with the first Planets Map:
1. Too much space between planets.
 2.No enviroment on planets.

 I could just port the Condor to solve #1, but I feel the need for #2 to happen, it will add more to the feel.

 

[Reactor Worker]

Two problems that I had with the first Planets Map:
1. Too much space between planets.
 2.No enviroment on planets.

 I could just port the Condor to solve #1, but I feel the need for #2 to happen, it will add more to the feel.

 

Could you elaborate on the "no environment" statement? I'm not really sure what you mean.

[Ephialtes]

I propose a new venture for the Blockland Space Agency to explore the possibility of bovine space travel, or even travel via craft of a bovine-ish nature.

[captain blue]

Could you elaborate on the "no environment" statement? I'm not really sure what you mean.

 All of the planets had flat enviroment, I would like some mountains or hills on the planets, also, make some more build platforms.

[zackin5]

I think I have an idea for 1. maybe Two versions of the map? one with gravity and one without? That way one can chose witch to host

Could you elaborate on the "no environment" statement? I'm not really sure what you mean.

He means like trees and foliage, witch would only be good on earth as all the other planets don't have plants

[Reactor Worker]

I think I have an idea for 1. maybe Two versions of the map? one with gravity and one without? That way one can chose witch to host

He means like trees and foliage, witch would only be good on earth as all the other planets don't have plants

I would really like to avoid having 2 versions of the map as that would require 2 completely separate map folders meaning clients would have to download it twice or more. As it stands, the map will likely be too large to download ingame other than through RTB 2.0 . It also doubles the work load when it comes to bug fixes, patches and any other issues that happen to plague maps.

I'd like to include foliage on earth, but if I do, it must be in a way that doesn't interfere with normal building and gameplay.

One thing that I should put up for consideration is making the hosting of the map exclusive. Of course I would release the clientside files needed to join the map but the mission file and other needed files to host the map would be part of a separate package intended for  select individuals. This should help prevent map burnout and could help isolate any problems later.

[mike1337]

I put the visible distance to 1000000000 to see all planets.

[Space Guy]

I would really like to avoid having 2 versions of the map as that would require 2 completely separate map folders meaning clients would have to download it twice or more.

The Bedroom Dark map just references files from the original Bedroom folder for interiors/etc, the only difference is in the mission file to use the alternate sky and change lighting. Yours could do the same - the only difference would be it creating the physicalzones or not.

[Reactor Worker]

The Bedroom Dark map just references files from the original Bedroom folder for interiors/etc, the only difference is in the mission file to use the alternate sky and change lighting. Yours could do the same - the only difference would be it creating the physicalzones or not.

If I were going to make more than one version of the map, I'd be more inclined to make a "high performance" version and a "low performance" version with different meshes and textures. Disabling gravity is too small a change to warrant a whole extra map.

[Packer]

There is no need for a "Low Lag" version of any thing, if every one is lagging on a map that means its very badly designed, if some people with low end machines lag, then its time for them to upgrade.

[Reactor Worker]

There is no need for a "Low Lag" version of any thing, if every one is lagging on a map that means its very badly designed, if some people with low end machines lag, then its time for them to upgrade.

I don't expect everyone to lag and the map does have built in features to lower it (like using LOD meshes for planets) but I just know someone is going to host a big server full of 26 people and inevitably the lag will be blamed on my map.

When the time to release comes closer I will do some closed beta testing so I can see how different machines run it. My computer isn't exactly the best candidate for testing the map on the "low end" of hardware.

[Nitramtj]

In my space station build I made crouching push the player down, that seems to be a nice method for going down. Physical zones also don't break anymore in v9 so I vote yes for zero-g.

Scaling wise I'm not sure what you want to do but, it looks cool and is more realistic if you make planets so enormous that you can barely see curvature if you're close to the 'outside' of it. I modified packer's form planet making the terrain and view distance humongous and it looked very nice. The inside looked amazing too, you're able to see big buildings far away but not people themselves if you're high up in the atmosphere, it was a great effect, unfortunately viewing all the bricks isn't a good thing for fps.

[Reactor Worker]

Well, if the physical zones are fixed then I guess I will go with zero-G. Care to share your crouch thing that you made? that could really help.

[Aphtonites]

Nit's idea is great, and if you need better control as a normal player in space..

One of those would be great for it, and it might only require a change in the ski script and a new model which fits the player.
And preferably it would be nice if it was an item.