Jump to content

DEVBLOG: PRECISION IN BUILDING - discussion thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

I would have liked to have an export/import function for this. You could make a program help with making more mathematically perfect points and paste in the code for that vertex... or maybe just having the ability to type the exact value you want could be a huge help. I don't believe you can do that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, EasternGamer said:

I would have liked to have an export/import function for this. You could make a program help with making more mathematically perfect points and paste in the code for that vertex... or maybe just having the ability to type the exact value you want could be a huge help. I don't believe you can do that, right?

I asked for this, multiple times, in mulltiple Q&As  and for the ability to just type in the numbers too.

I got two answers both less then satisfactory. The "tool" paradyme is the point of consistancey that they did not want to alter.  so being able to just DRAG the vertex, or enter the co-ords was too inconsistent with the existing tool set.

The ability to just import a set or list of coords would allow for copyright infringements to be too easy. (*sigh* again)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys !

First of all, thank you all for the warm welcome to the VPT. We've been working for a while now, trying to make it as ergonomic and intuitive as possible, we hope it will live up to your expectations when you test it yourself with Panacea. 



I take the liberty of intervening on this non-Lua devblog for questions related to it, and thus to answer your question @EasternGamer 
 

13 minutes ago, EasternGamer said:

I would have liked to have an export/import function for this. You could make a program help with making more mathematically perfect points and paste in the code for that vertex... or maybe just having the ability to type the exact value you want could be a huge help. I don't believe you can do that, right?

Having the ability to export/import with Lua or without, a bunch of voxels was considered but we were faced with a lot of quick and hard to prevent automation possibilities, copyrights ...etc. The game could have quickly become an import show of all kinds of 3d models. 
So we decided not to implement it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NQ-Ligo said:

Hi guys !

First of all, thank you all for the warm welcome to the VPT. We've been working for a while now, trying to make it as ergonomic and intuitive as possible, we hope it will live up to your expectations when you test it yourself with Panacea. 



I take the liberty of intervening on this non-Lua devblog for questions related to it, and thus to answer your question @EasternGamer 
 

Having the ability to export/import with Lua or without, a bunch of voxels was considered but we were faced with a lot of quick and hard to prevent automation possibilities, copyrights ...etc. The game could have quickly become an import show of all kinds of 3d models. 
So we decided not to implement it.

Even just entering a vertex coordinate manually would be good enough. It's still a manual process, for sure, but much quicker than dragging stuff around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tool in action looks great, but the new numbering system seems like a solution to a technical problem at the expense of logic and usability.

 

Using steps of 2-4-8-16-32-64 etc (which we can do with the current reactors) makes it very easy to plan shapes and just double the precision each time you need a finer line for instance.

 

Having 3 different scales 2-4 steps, 6-12 steps, and 21-42-84 steps within the same system seems like it will be a pain to use when scaling shapes up / down. At the moment I draw everything on graph paper and just select the precision that will allow me to create the shapes I want. Usually 16 is enough.

 

I can't imagine how I would be able to do this when it would need to show 3 different scales that aren't divisible by each other. 

 

Is there no way you can make it work with a geometric progression? It works with reactors now, so what's the problem continuing this way?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ving said:

Having 3 different scales 2-4 steps, 6-12 steps, and 21-42-84 steps within the same system seems like it will be a pain to use when scaling shapes up / down.

 

To give a simple example: If I've built a shape that uses 4 steps/voxel, but I then want to make a smaller version that is half the dimensions I can't do it...none of the Grids provided are divisible by 8.

 

The only way to get close would be to jump up to 84 steps and use 10 or 11 to approximate an 1/8 step. This just seems crazy tbh, or am I misunderstanding how this works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey NQ, when are you going to add a better way of placing static cores such as a preview, and a bigger working build area.

 

We've been wanting these qol updates for years.

 

Also a way of locating micro voxels. This seems to be a huge amount of the daily help time, and really would make everyone's life easier.

 

I'd also like to ask the players to stop spamming GMs for help for these requests.

 

Cores are cheap, time is not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what I saw in the video (in particular the absence of the actual tool from the field of view). I'm unsure how noticeable the loss in precision will be (no doubt there will be cases where it is noticable).


One cautionary note. Some time ago I created a floor tile pattern with thin voxel "grout" lines separating the tiles (created using the old voxel smooth tool  so I can't give an actual size - maybe 1/32?). It looked perfect until the vertex server was introduced. Everything was (and is) still fine in build mode but on exit the floor was (and still is) a total mess. The grout lines were distorted in some places and missing in others.

 

Any chance the new grid will be treated better by the vertex server?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm terrified. 

 

If I am understanding right, 42 is 1/2. 21 is 1/4. and we cannot make a 1/8 or 1/16 slope within a single voxel?

Was it like this in the past? I feel like the "wedge" that was used to make the pasts 1/8 and 1/16th was spot on accurate. Was it not? I used this wedge a lot. Am I now going to have mold lines in all my ships after this update? 

 

I have also seen a 1/64th wedge. Was that simply not accurate at all? 

 

If these are indeed accurate as is, can't you just make this tool work with what we already have moving by 1/64th without messing anything up for anyone? The same way we do whenever we use the wedge. This seems like less precision in this precision tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NQ-Wanderer said:

Greeting Noveans. Let us know what you think about our latest devblog, Precision in Building!

 

Its really nice but arent you guys afraid that everyones tile is going to have a complexity rating of like 500+%? Is this why the complexity rating was added and eventually you will need to cap out voxel complexity in the future since we cant dig out voxels everywhere the new meta seems to be the reverse in the sense that instead mining everything is being added to the surface/sub surface basically adding it all back in making lag and escalting costs in the same sense as onworld voxel mining since you are giving out ore like candy with no sinks to slow it down and many people are just building since they are tethered to their mining operations with ore they cant really sell at this point and just building with it?

 

It does look like a good system and im hoping that it has some really good keyboard placements if you hover over the corners. 

 

Other then that heres to hoping you guys bring out some new voxels as well at the same time as a bonus like a couple of colors of luminescent glass (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, Orange).

 

It would be nice tool if you guys cloned the Add/Remove voxel tool in build mode and cloned it to be an Add/Remove Teravoxel tool so that players could dig out the dirt within their static cores since the demeter update shows that some form of this tool exists and it would be nice to actually make clean core walls rather than snowballs or cylanders to try and do the same thing or using teravoxels in conjunction with teravoxels in builds if wanted/needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

We could have chosen 193, so that you could split a voxel in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64, but that would have meant a huge loss in precision and significantly deformed most constructs.

I find the claim that 64 steps per voxel would deform ships dubious, since as far as I can tell the voxelmancy-heavy ships (those built using voxel reactors, the ones where deformation would become obvious) would align exactly to those steps - as far as I know, all voxel reactors have a detail degree of a multiple of 2, and I've never heard of anything more detailed than 64 step. Even if it did deform ships a little, 1/64 of a voxel is not even 4mm/0.2". I think 64 steps per voxel would make much more sense.

 

Quote

And, in the example of these four cubes, if we were to go to a value above 84, it would result in an ill-formed shape because the blue shape would have a negative volume. This would probably create visual artifacts, and we may prevent this situation in the future.

Please do not lower the voxel extension range below what it is today. Being able to extend a voxel by 1.5vx in any direction is extremely useful for things like detail work and connecting complex shapes without having to line them up to each other. Just as an example, many of the finer details in this build (e.g. the struts, landing gear and horizontal stabilizers) were only possible due to the ability to stretch voxels by 1.5vx on each side. Limiting this range now would probably ruin this and many other builds.

stearman4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ving said:

 

To give a simple example: If I've built a shape that uses 4 steps/voxel, but I then want to make a smaller version that is half the dimensions I can't do it...none of the Grids provided are divisible by 8.

 

The only way to get close would be to jump up to 84 steps and use 10 or 11 to approximate an 1/8 step. This just seems crazy tbh, or am I misunderstanding how this works?

using the techniques we used to create the wedge. shrinking, and then combining reactors to get the vertex positions in between what the tools normally would allow will still (and always) be possible. so... no problem really. The vertex tool, will make most of the steps MUCH faster.also make it much easier to locate and isolate an existing position.

I look forward to playing with it. I will likely make a few new videos too. /smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Warlander said:

Its really nice but arent you guys afraid that everyones tile is going to have a complexity rating of like 500+%?

I am unconcerned. even the BIG wedge maxes out at 95% complexity.  my stairs, ladders, max out at 85% and for those litterally NONE of the voxels are actually wherethey look like they are.

 

 

image.thumb.png.209f6fed7a3d0d38d1aabccdcfa1dcb5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, helvetian said:

Please do not lower the voxel extension range below what it is today. Being able to extend a voxel by 1.5vx in any direction is extremely useful for things like detail work and connecting complex shapes without having to line them up to each other.

 

Yes - it is absolutely essential that we be allowed to extended vertices 1.5 voxel away from zeroed. If they limit us to 1 voxel in the future, it will break so many amazing builds and make many feats of voxelmancy impossible. And for what? Why would we need to limit this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TobiwanKenobi said:

Yes - it is absolutely essential that we be allowed to extended vertices 1.5 voxel away from zeroed. If they limit us to 1 voxel in the future, it will break so many amazing builds and make many feats of voxelmancy impossible. And for what? Why would we need to limit this?

The blog said nothing about reducing the move limit of a point! you will still be able to move a point 1.5 vx in any direction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tordan said:

I am unconcerned. even the BIG wedge maxes out at 95% complexity.  my stairs, ladders, max out at 85% and for those litterally NONE of the voxels are actually wehre they look like they are.

 

Just wait the uper limit will likely be 1000% to start since full cores with relative complexity seem to run on average 500% and the more complex ones seem to be running at 700% in some of our cores.

 

Since Demeter and the falling prices on everything due to all reasons of consistent ore production, hoarding, etc we have start just selling what we need, hoarding for some other update that adds sinnks and just expanding as much as we can in our industry/voxel production and just expanding as much as we can and im sure we are not alone in that regard as we have been watching other tiles just blowing up all over the place in building as well.

 

There will come a time when the costs of people filling cores with mass amounts of voxels will start to escalate in sever costs since instead of mining players are just filling up the surface/subsurface with voxels and various degrees of voxel complexity that some bean counter at NQ will impose it or force players to simplify their builds. You can count on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tordan said:

using the techniques we used to create the wedge. shrinking, and then combining reactors to get the vertex positions in between what the tools normally would allow will still (and always) be possible. so... no problem really. The vertex tool, will make most of the steps MUCH faster.also make it much easier to locate and isolate an existing position.

I look forward to playing with it. I will likely make a few new videos too. /smile

Look forward to the videos. Because I am confused. If these points between do exist and can be used and accessed, why not just allow us to reach them with the new tool? Make everyone's life easier. Why use these strange 42/84 model? I hope your first video explains all this. 

 

A tool that allows us to collapse all a voxels verts onto one found vert would be amazing!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...