The Inner Space of Voxelmancy

Discussion in 'Update Notes and Developer Discussion' started by Smokejumper, Jul 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ACheith Founder

    I second, third and fourth this. While the infinite voxel cube manipulator of stupendous power has its uses, shapes are where it is at for most folks. Basic things like arc segments, ovals, ovoids, etc, etc, etc.

    Having to unlock all these things sounds like a good mini game.
    Ohnix likes this.
  2. Ansalen Trailblazer

    Interesting and helpful. Pretty sure I'm "more dangerous than I was before." ; ) (Which was "not very," granted...)

    Seeking further enlightenment, re air: Does the air in the space on my claim where I experiment with crazy stuff get warped in ways which don't return to normal when I think I'm deleting everything? Is it possible to leave behind invisibly deformed air (or "scarred," in keeping with "healing" metaphor) when a complex, super-warpy chaos experiment has been deleted from the airspace in a claim?

    ...And if so, do I care...? -- for either data-buildup/memory/processing/whatever-related reasons (since user-altered stuff has more data), or else because it might affect something in the space, somehow (which seems unlikely due to pasting dominance...)?

    Basically wondering whether there's any reason to heal the air, along with the ground, after working on a messy project out in the yard... ; )
    Jaedor, Grumbles and Ohnix like this.
  3. Smokejumper Developer

    Yes, it's possible to leave behind "warped air". That's a cleanup task that we intend to embrace someday.

    However, it typically has no effect on the game at all. It's only on our list because we can optimize our data storage a bit more if we get rid of those.
    Talimar, Jaedor, Grumbles and 4 others like this.
  4. Andesine Trailblazer

    So... each voxel has data that

    1) Identifies it's absolute center relative to world space,
    2) It's position relative to it's center,

    and

    the material it should project to the NE, NW, SE, and SW, twice (one set for above it and the other set below it)?
  5. Ansalen Trailblazer

    That makes sense. Thanks for the info! : )

    Now wondering about the following specific case: Would the different technical in-game treatment of player-studio templates (in terms of reduced ability to edit them, and/or how they affect, or are affected by, their surroundings, differently than our own creations) perhaps argue for our taking time to "clear the air" of such warping, prior to creating a template intended for sale, which incorporates that air? ...Or still not a worry?
    Ohnix likes this.
  6. SniperMonkey Founder

    I saw that Smokejumper that a voxel manipulation tool is “not on the near-term list” and “too complicated for the vast majority of users.” I don’t believe that the tool has to be complicated. Get your user experience designer on it, that’s what he/she is paid for. Regardless, I believe it could work something like this…

    [IMG]

    1. You would select a voxel (or voxels) with the voxel manipulation tool. The selected voxels would go into wireframe mode. This is for better visibility.
    2. You then select the voxel you want to manipulate. In the image I only show the corner voxels because I’m lazy. You could provide all the voxels in the shape but it would get very crowded.
    3. You would then use the arrows to manipulate the position of the selected voxel.
    4. Deselecting the shape would fill the material back in.
    As a player that is participating in the workshop and considering using player studio, this tool is very important to me. My frustration level with warping is high and reactors with shape boards are too time consuming. As a creative person I will never be able to compete with people that are both creative and have TIME to use the many complex workarounds.

    Please consider making a voxel manipulation tool a higher priority. Thanks.
  7. kristakis Trailblazer

    Fantastic guide - thank you for this!
  8. Nerune Founder


    I think far from being too complicated this would demystify and simplify dang near everything. For point 2... You could have a toggle... say ctrl... that switches between corners and mid-line voxels.
  9. SniperMonkey Founder

    I really like the idea of toggling between corners, mid-line, and center voxels. The Tab key would be most appropriate sense it cycles through modes in other tools.

    The below image shows a toggle between corners and mid-line voxels. In my opinion it's way too busy and would be hard to select the correct voxel.

    [IMG]

    The below image is a new option where you keep the material. The player would only see the voxels that they are facing. So you would have to walk around the block to edit the opposite side voxels. It seems reasonable and would make the selection of the voxels much easier.

    [IMG]

    I like it. Make it so!
  10. Wendoll Founder

    It feels like my brain has been beaten with a hammer, but I feel smarter for it!
    Thanks for the in depth explanation smokejumper.
  11. Aerial Active Member

    th
    this is exactly what I was picturing. By delaying this feature they're making it more complicated for ALL users. They don't even have to understand voxel mechanics to use this effectively. They just pick it and drag it around and see shapes forming. By not having this they're forcing "vast majority of users" use even more complicated and tedious methods. Can somebody just force push this to him or other developers? This post needs go get through no matter what.
    CreationStation, Simdor and Ohnix like this.
  12. Khandro Trailblazer

    Oh. My. Stars. THIS. Please.

    I read the entire thread and while I 'get it', this last three or four posts with the idea for managing shapes is just... brilliant. Not only would it make my experience FAR less frustrating, it might actually get me more interested in building (and maybe even Player Studio).

    /signed
    /agreed
    /willing to beg, bribe, kill, or steal to make this happen
    CreationStation and Ohnix like this.
  13. Bumboo Trailblazer

    as not native english speaker this sentence is very hard to understand. at least for me. so i dont know if it is wrong or just capable of beeing misunderstood. but, with all due respect for the need of simplification and this very well done letter of demystification,
    - the string (ends) will cause side warpage (expansion) if set onto another shape.
    - a normal cube set onto or under the string ends will warp (expand) the string edges to the sides.

    we could say, that horizontal strings will cause no visible warpage, if set onto a flat and unitary ground. or that it wont cause warpage to standard cubes in direction of the axis where the string meets the standard shape boundary. or that it will cause warpage only along those axes on wich the string doesnt fit to the standard shape boundarys. in the past i liked to use this picture to explain what happens. it is not perfect. but it is gratis. xD

    [IMG]

    i think it would be good to clarify this a bit more. otherwise people could misunderstand and think that strings wont warp/be warped. and wonder why things dont work that way and why they get funny patterns on their floors, if they try to use that information.




    remember, that we are talking about roaming vectors. not roaming voxels. the voxels (points) stay where they are. but a shape (in the past colloquially mostly called voxel) may get some additional vectors (lines) to voxels (points) outside their normal reach (> "default + 0,5"). this may add some kind of virtual voxel (point) where those roaming vectors intersect. but because their data is only borrowed, this points doesnt always behave like normal points. lets take a nearer look.

    a standard shape is displayed by 12 vectors (lines) between 8 voxels (points). simplified we could say: if vectors belong (together) to a specific side, the space between them will be filled out with a texture (i.e. 1, 2, 3 and 4 belong together, so the top of this shape is filled with texture). i like to call this sheet.

    [IMG]

    now roaming vectors will add to a voxel, if (as far as i can see, anybody correct me, if i am wrong) for example the vectors of one voxel and its next two neighbour voxels (in a row, like: a b c ) have too different angles. in this case the voxel (a) will not just create a vector to its direct neighbour voxel (b), but also additionally set a roaming vector to its "normaly out of reach" second neighbour voxel (c). it may set roaming vectors to direct neighbour voxels too (that normaly wouldnt connect), it they fit better.

    the shape in the following picture is a single shape (as we used to say "it is just one voxel"). as you can see it doesnt have 12 vectors (lines). it has at least 14 we can see in this picture. the red marked point is a virtual point, where three additional roaming vextors intersect (2, 3 and 13).

    sometimes you can identify roaming vectors very simple. they have the ability to sting through voxel sheets without needing a connecting voxel (point). the sheets 1-2-3 and 2-13-14 are such roaming sheets that stings through other sheets.

    [IMG]

    i havent found any shape with more than 8 clear vertexes yet. but i guess that is just because they are somewhere within the shape. if sheets sting through others and intersect somewhere way from the normal sheets, than this will be roaming vectors, building roaming sheets, defined by loan data from a neighbour voxel, meeting at a virtual version of this foreign voxel. like the red marked one.

    by the way, this intersection points of the roaming vectors seem not to behave like normal voxels (vertexes) if they are outside the regular maximum range (> default +0,5). this intersections points will not warp or be warped by voxels outside the standard range. thats why i call them virtual voxels (points/vertexes) and thats why it is possible to let them sting through normal shapes without deforming them. just like this.

    [IMG]
    Blac, Naleth, Ohnix and 3 others like this.
  14. Ohnix Trailblazer

    Very useful post - thanks for laying it all out in layman's terms. I've been following and using the different techniques as described by you in Landmark Live or from various YouTube videos ... very nice to get a 'simple' written reference to it all.
  15. libertyhaze Founder

    BIG thankyou for taking the time to write/post this

    Nods head this is just a 'game'

    But i also believe this is the 'tool' to create EQN, in this respect doesn't it make sense to give us the best tools Possible.

    I know that management most probably believe that only a minority would benefit, i Believe the majority would benefit in the long run - and so EQN would benefit

    looking forward to soe live - and some impactful things (hastily chains up the sphere floating above my house lolz) ;)
  16. Darktide Trailblazer

    Dave, we appreciate the post, thanks.

    I do have an issue and it refers to a poll we took long ago about how complex we want Landmark to be.

    Yes, We voted for complexity. I don't believe this is what was meant by players when deciding upon their vote. The tools you have given us are extremely simple in their function. The rest was thrown to the players to figure out on their own with, what I perceive to be, little concern by the Dev's to add more tools that incorporate all of this "voxelmancy" in a simplistic manner.

    As the Environment team catches up, we are all hoping to see huge improvements. For one, a "Dominant" function should be added to prevent warping should we so choose. The voxel manipulation idea has unfortunately been floating around since the early days of Alpha. As has the request for a curve tool(line tool with voxel manipulation to bend the line, like a curve!). I think all of these would be great additions.... Very disappointing if we have to rely on lengthily processes for little result.
    Sapphic Serpent likes this.
  17. ChucklesAE New Member


    The way I look at it, stone, sand, dirt, copper, mithril, ect.. are materials. Thats what you use to fill shapes, it's the values the voxels inside of shapes are made of. Each material has one or more textures which affect the material's outward appearance.

    So really saying stone is a texture isn't right. Stone by itself is a material. Worked stone slate IS a texture as it's a sub-appearance within the stone material. However ultimately you can't have a material without a texture, at least not a material you can "see". That would be air which has no texture, and really no values. So for sanity sake I'd look at it as a tiered material system. The base material that has values, and then appearance textures as children within the base material that allow you to see it.
  18. Teryn Trailblazer

    Good to know "Dave IS here."

    Great bit of work, Mr. Georgeson.
    Thank you.

    now, could we Please
    Sticky this in the Tutorials?!

    would save many a lot of time,
    and wear on the joints that we
    could put to teaching with the
    nifty, new, "show me" features.

    @ Kelvani, if what you are asking is
    what i am thinking, maybe. Domino
    did a video using "painted, healed earth
    (aka Putty) but can't link it, just look in
    the forums for the info. sCat has a bit
    of video with some tecniques for what
    i believe you may want to do, as do many
    in the community (as you've seen they
    are more than willing to offer their aide)

    ...oh, and Bomdiggety,
    that tome...



    was guarded by a Grue.

    You've been eaten.
    Aldente likes this.
  19. JarnesKassin Founder

    But why then would you not implement the delete as a "paint with air material"? In code it would be incredibly simple. I mean, if you can target all the pertinent voxels in the shape for a standard paint, why not switch out to air?

    Also, this does not exactly match the current behavior of the delete brush. The top edge is most often distorted while other edges might be spared. It is not pasting cube shapes.
  20. Aerryn Trailblazer

    Having trouble reconciling why you see apparent asymmetric surface sheering effects on multilayered constructions if pasting dominance holds true for the surface layers. I need to think on that more though.
    Cheers for the great posts and especially the (sensible) revised nomenclature Smoke.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.