Serula Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 9:18 PM, Tordan said: damn good question. I mean, if there isn't, then they will not achive the objectives. total epic fail to level up. It's in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo0510 Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 (edited) Thank you Deckard for explaining it. This clarifies so much. I gave Tordan, the creator of the wonderful voxel wedge a really hard time, because again and again the points in the wedge seemed not to be perfect. We all assumed that the engine representation of a voxel's width was an integer value and a potency of 2. Man, have we been wrong. I deeply need to apologize to Tordan for that. Not his fault. In fact it is simply mathematically impossible to create a perfect 1/8 or 1/16 wedge with that numerical system. All I can do at this point is to slowly walk away from this numerical nonsense. I am sorry. But from a coders perspective, I simply can not trust the team anymore. Edit : My statements needs more explanation. So someone could actually argue that it makes sense to have as many prime number deviders as possible in the width of a voxel in order to be able to create certain perfect slopes ... Unfortunately the team that coded the available rotation angles for elements did not talk to the voxel team. Everybody who ever created a perfect slope in a cockpit and tried to align glas windows to it knows what I am talking about. It's a mess... Edited February 1, 2022 by Ninator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo0510 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Addendum to my previous post: There seems to be a confusion with the 252 vs 253 points. 252 is clearly based on the prime factors 2*2*3*3*7 . The 7 seems to be a random choice, and personally if you go that way, I would have factored the 5 also into it. The thing is , if you draw a voxel of width 1.0 on paper and divide it by 10. What you have then is 10 deltas with a spacing of 0.1 and surprise - 11 dots in each dimension. So the amount of dots must always be +1. Otherwise your voxel can not be divided in the middle. Sounds strange, but its like that. The 252 vs 253 sounds like a communication error between the devs and the community managers to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight-Sevy Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 There will always be ungrateful people. Continue on this NQ path, your voxel system is exceptional. Whether it's 252 or 253, it doesn't make any difference to really epic constructs. The players who created the reactors did what they could to compensate in wait of this, a big thank you to all of these members of the community. Now that we will have steps of 84, we can literally do all the slopes we want in a more than precise way. The time saved for your in-game builders will be more than significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tordan Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 On 1/30/2022 at 8:19 AM, Serula said: It's in the video. excellent. now we just wait to see if the reality is the same as the promo. I would very much have liked the ability to just type in 3 numbers to get the spot i want. but hey.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptLoRes Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 That would be an efficient and intuitive method for precision building, and only problem with that is that it is apparently not NQ's style to make thing efficient and intuitive for the players.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazemonger Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 It would also have created a fairly easy way to script copying 3D models into the game with a fairly high precision. Something NQ seems to want to avoid if at all possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tordan Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 22 hours ago, Ninator said: deeply need to apologize to Tordan for that. no need at all. Stan and I argued for hours and hours, over 3 months about where and how we would pick which points were"best" to include in the reductionist wedge. (and other considerations that generally fly well under the colective radar) I am looking forward to the ease of moving vertisees around using the new tools, and when I know that I specifically want the location 10,x11y48z I will likely ***still*** go pull it from a wedge. my biggest hope is that the new tool will allow the sculpters (a skill i only dabble at) greater flexability to create cool stuff too. I even have a few projects on my to do list waiting for this... Peace. never apologize for arguing with me. I love constructive debate. Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabana Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 While I havent dive a lot into voxelmancy , I think now is the time to do it . With this tool constructs will be able to look cool and awesome , but this depends on imagination and creativity of a player . So I think this tool is another nice addition to the world of DU , maybe the most important one to shape the world itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddlybits Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 9 hours ago, Ninator said: Addendum to my previous post: There seems to be a confusion with the 252 vs 253 points. 252 is clearly based on the prime factors 2*2*3*3*7 . Can you elaborate on why the number of points would have been chosen based on prime factors? The devblog mentions that they chose the largest value divisible by 6 that will fit within one byte. That makes sense given the .5 overlap into neighboring voxels, but I don't see why the prime factors would influence the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo0510 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, fiddlybits said: Can you elaborate on why the number of points would have been chosen based on prime factors? The devblog mentions that they chose the largest value divisible by 6 that will fit within one byte. That makes sense given the .5 overlap into neighboring voxels, but I don't see why the prime factors would influence the decision. Sure. Take a piece of squared paper. We are going to construct some slopes. But the rule is, that voxel edges lay only on the grid of your paper. You can now define the dimension of your voxel ( how many little boxes on your paper make one voxel ). You will see that this choice defines the possible slopes. The definition of the slope is : angle = atan ( dy / dx ) with dx and dy beeing integral (natural) numbers. This boils down to the fact that you can only construct slopes wich use factors from the prime factorization of your voxels dimension. Sounds very mathematical, I know. But you can visualize that with your paper hands on. Of course somebody could now argue : wait a second, I can create much more slopes by (ab)using fractions if i am allowed to move the voxel edges in 2 dimensions. Sure. And the DU engine does that excessively. I personally do not consider those slopes perfect, and they drive me crazy inside the game. Whenever you encounter strange ripples in one dimension when you just changed a slope in another dimension of the voxel , then the slopes are not "perfect". Edited February 2, 2022 by Ninator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serula Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 On 2/2/2022 at 5:05 PM, Tordan said: excellent. now we just wait to see if the reality is the same as the promo. I would very much have liked the ability to just type in 3 numbers to get the spot i want. but hey.... That's where the sizable grid comes in. In a long lost past I had to make something similar where the input was very limited. In this case it might be more time consuming to enter three values than to navigate to it and it's also less intuitive for most people that are more into design rather than mathmatics or geometry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight-Sevy Posted February 8, 2022 Share Posted February 8, 2022 the day has finally come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maliciouss1 Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 since the vertex tool allows us to move the corners of a voxel.......isn't it about time you update the rotate feature ...allow us to rotate the same way we do in elements......id use that everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now