The Inner Space of Voxelmancy

+1 for a simple voxel manipulation tool as proposed above.

It does NOT have to be complex. Complexity in the tools = FAILURE in tool design and implementation.

Or even better listen to the proposals that the VAST majority of smart and intelligent users are proposing (or just agreeing that they would like to use) and implement one of them. Crowd sourcing for the win!

I don't disagree, as they said, they might work towards that type of advanced tool in the future.
Yes, it was a flawed analogy, but it does take in the point of iterations past the initial voxel as well-call an extreme simplification example visual for folks to relate to.

The tools right now are still in formation, everyone agrees on that, they still have *bugs*.
Yes the average player can make a castle, walls, ceiling floor, paint and color them.
But not towers/pillars without some tutorial.

Perhaps, but at least one post suggesting roaming vectors preceded putty.

Vertexes all belong to some voxel. What seems to drive people crazy is their inability to see what is in front of them. This diagram, is repeated over an over again in game. It shows 27 voxels. Each point on the graph is also a is a center point of a voxel. They overlap. This diagram shows the maximum extents of one voxel based on the center point. The default shape is centered about the center voxel. In this diagram there would be 27 game cubes. 3 by 3.

Vox View shows this very well. What it doesn't show is that there is never a time in game when any voxel is by itself. Never. The world is a series of cubes, 8000 by 8000 by 8000 of them. And while you are in the game you are moving through voxels. Air voxels. Each vertex of the default cube is shared with eight cubes.

yes but have you ever had to try and explain these thing s to a noob to the game, i have many times and after having to tell them the same thing about 500 times i'll glad the dev explain this way. plus i have met many people who have played for a while and then want to learn these things and still these people don't under stand all the terms and words/phases i use.

so in my eyes big up for explaining it like i'm a 6 year old as that seem to be what most player who are new to the game can only understand

I think you may be missing the point. Yes we all understand that the existing tools are in early form and still being developed. But the existing tools, no matter how refined, will not give us the type of manipulation we are looking for.

What we want is not a better version of the existing tools, but different tools altogether that would in the end be better.

Actually I finally figured out why that diagram about proposed manipulation voxel tool from SniperMonkey was so very familiar and the phrase about "art program" kept poking at me.

I kept scratching my head over it, then while I was working on a model...I.stopped..blinked...pulled up my tools in my running programs...
and told myself "duh, dummy, it's shape manipulator using 3D coat or a Blender lattice modifier.."

i am so sorry. i did want to write a little bit about this. and then that. and it, uhm, kind of snowballed. made some headlines and the key lines fat. hope that will help this posting not to be too anoying.


the voxel and the shape # a review

i thought about the actual voxels "terms" some time now. and though i liked them from the start (because they are simply the truth) i more and more doubt the practicability.

i am not completely confident right now, but i think i will furthermore call the "shapes" voxels. and refer to the "voxel" as voxel-head, true-voxel, or something like that.

the reasons:

new players look at the cube. for them "this" is the voxel. at least in the first moment.

"oh, landmark, yes, a voxel based game. look, there they are. i know them from minecraft and other things. i can set them down, delete them, manipulate them. uhm. what? what do you mean, it is not true what i see? i am confused. didnt you say they are volumetric pixels. the "shape" is volumetric. the point on the south-east-up side isnt. it is just a point! so what are you telling me man?"

technically right? yes.
practicable? not really.

player may need to know, that the data of a voxel is bound to the standard south-east-up edge. the i.e. voxel-head (true voxel, technical voxel, whatever). that this is the voxels home and its true position. and that the shape of a voxel is built, by lets say retrieving and connecting the positions of neighbouring voxel-heads.

but the more i think about it and the more i try to bring the actual terms to people, the more i think that calling the shape not voxel is much to confusing for many many people. except of the specialist. but they dont need such explanations anyway.

anybody else with this experience/thought? or maybe even with an opposite experience? lets hear.



the voxel manipulating tool # maybe a very simplified type?

*signed*
nearly.

i wouldnt make it that complicated for the start. we want to have a voxel-manipulation tool? soon, if somehow possible? than lets make concessions. meaning: lets forget about something like the wireframe for a moment.

if using the i.e. "shaper" (voxel manipulation tool), clicking somewhere will activate the nearest corner (=true voxel). then you can manipulate it immediately by using the arrow keys. in steps of minimum 1/8, better 1/16 of a standard voxel length. the corner could be highlighted and maybe there could be a checkbutton before you apply, but both shouldnt be a mustbe for the first version.

maybe this is much less complicated to realize. but even in this way would help us very very much.



paint air # yes. please

*sign*
cant count the time i spend with putty voxels. a fill tool would just be awesome. but how to realize? it is kind of a basic truth, that air voxels cant be selected directely. how to realite without another kind-of-workaround thing? i am very curious about what we will get and am absolutely looking forward to it.



are we called stupid? # finding the midth

feedback should always be welcome. but it is likewise a nice thing to accredit the challenge of finding a way to explain something to thousands of very differing people. it never can work for everybody in the same people. i personally think, that this explanations hit the midth quite well. so lets forget about some words that have been spoken under the pressure of giving enough information for the masses, without overstraining new players to much.

i very well remember the first days of alpha, when nearly nobody knew anything about voxels. otherwise all the player findings wouldnt have come time after time, but immediately. it took weeks and sometimes month for many people to discover and understand those "basic principles". not everybody has the same amount of talent, time or interest at all. and more people are coming every day. i waited so long for excately such an explanation that i finally lost my patience, wrote nearly the same myself some weeks ago and posted it in our national forum.

we should be happy, that especially our new players dont have to find out every little thing, step by step, month by month. and simply be proud if we did reach this on our own account. no reason to feel condescended. just be proud to be in the know. and then show it with a kind smile. thats a good way i think.

I thought I would give anyone who is interested an idea of how points can create an image. The first image is of an art exhibit that took place in 2008. The image you see is on a web cam image used to light up the individual spheres. A man with his arms folded across his chest. These are a fairly good representation of voxels as points. Shrink the points and get a better picture.
Next is something called pin art. It uses a mix of colored pins with shading on the pegboard to make
you see. John Belushi. Well kinda. Closer to the game. The game uses a thing called dual contouring to make the game help you see the shapes the voxels represent. The math plumb escapes me.

Here is points taken to another level to make you see something that isn't real. Two images and I'm done. From the website of Pablo Jurado Ruiz. He is simply amazing. This is an art form called pointillism. First this.
Then a closer look at the magic of points. That is all there is here really. Points.

Yes completely understand, i had issues with Voxels too, not the doing or making, the math involved and the limitations they bring, a simple thing like painting an edge of one for ages i couldn't understand why it would not allow that..

Couldn't only four Vertexes be the painted surface?

i know these things are new and complicated to explain to a layman but there is no need to be condescending like our brains will hurt or other such silliness..

Thing is, you can explain stuff in technical manner:

• here is voxel-vertex
• and here is another
• placed like that they connect that way
• and if placed that way, that other way

Seeing underlying structure, those things are easy, but you need to be able to do "show and tell", and actually have predictable results obtained in user-friendly manner.

Instead you have all this voxelmancy voodo names, because of need to circumvent limited tools to get data in a way you want it, and no direct way to do it.

Simple fact of life is you need to absorb some knowledge to be good at something. In dark ages knowledge was masked and obscured by magickal terms. Only when Enlightenment stripped those and was left with logic and engineering/physics, civilization flourished. It is same case here. High priests vs technology.

Either you have solid engineering or lots of flailing around and virgin sacrifices to RNG gods. It is sad that SOE favours the latter.

i like the illustrations provided, Reese, but let's get a bit closer to what we are playing with, yeah?
That said, most think minecraft re: voxels (as mentioned) so, this is that kind of image:



plenty more where this one comes from, but not much of a "Lion" if you ask me.
This is what most of us did in alpha, before we broke out of the tools.

This is more of what we do now, with all those "clunky" (though to me just time consuming, and why if you see my shop, there are so many things i use to "shortcut" to save the time of making) methods of "voxelmancy":

...and This is the High end of what one can do with Voxels. I am fairly certain though that what is behind this escapes most, and that is this:


to ask for this "Simple" tool is admirable, but probably unrealistic.
This is not 3DMax or ZBrush (i use those way too often and this is my relaxation / game).
i believe that kind of code may not be possible here and that we, the players may want something that the Devs don't even have nor will they get for some time to come.

Remember, it has been said by a few of the devs that they are having their teams learn OUR tricks. Must be a reason for that to be so, and i believe it to be that they don't and can't have the tool You want. Miguel might know but he's not telling.

That having been said, so you have to put a bit more effort in to making what you want. **shrug** nothing worth anything comes easy. Ultimately, with this "game", if you don't enjoy it (effort, time, frustration, more adjectives than i care to list), then perhaps you should consider finding one you will to fill the time until the one you want (EQN for most of us?) shows up.

If you decide to stay, put up with the methods and tools.
Give Constructive feedback, interact with the community and devs,
stop doing the party plate about how much this isn't what you want
(it's still becoming and you are a great part of that, revel in it).
Help it maybe become what you'd like to see.

Put forth suggestions on the current tools need and tweeks
(we've seen changes to them from such. roaming vectors, anyone?)

Oh, and a few more pics after that TLDR above
(pictures are what we want anyhow, yeah? who needs words ;p )

This is Our Land:


This is Our Structure:


and, This is Us, just be glad we look better:




this PSA was brought to you by the letters V, B, and S.

I'm enjoying the idea that I've paid my money... now I should just be constructive or shut up and go play something else!

Yes, it exists and Blender is open source. The "leap" from that source code to the game is much smaller than rolling from scratch. Or license/work with 3D Coat (which is an awesome program) for that piece. Suspect the Blender route is friendlier to SoE's plans, but the 3D Coat route would probably be infinitely more user friendly.

Why? The post wasn't about how the game is. It was about how points could represent shape. It isn't about dual contouring, isocontouring or roaming vectors. It isn't about 3D Coat. It has nothing to do with octrees, sparse voxel octrees, or frustrum culling. I don't want to play game developer. I want to have some amusing minutes playing the game. Killing, plundering and looting and building. I know enough about the underlying engine to do what it is that I need to do.

I would love if there were advanced editing tools. I would love even more if there were a game underneath it all and if it all worked. Editing tools do not make a game. And having the underlying engine continuously change, causes more problems than it cures. I have at least twice spent long periods of time investigating the behavior of the game mechanics, and then watched it all go down the drain because they changed basic behavior. Why should I invest the time if my time is to be wasted? What I would like to see is feature lock. I would also like to see things that are in now, work. Mouse handling is broke. I'm tired of retrieving my tools after I drag them off the tool bar. Cursor behavior is inconsistent. IMO it isn't the big things, it is all the tiny little annoyances, that get on my last nerves.

If I can get a game, or I can get advanced editing tools, I would as soon have a game. A little PVE, maybe a little PVP if I'm strong and you're weak. I want to loot some dungeons. If this is a testbed for Everquest Next, then lets test something besides buildings. If the game is successful then I have no doubt that the tools will come. But no game and no fun, will equal no players after some span of time.

Reese, sorry, you misunderstood me as pointing to you.
Bad punctuation and formatting on my part.
Again, Apologies, as i didn't intend to direct anything at you.
(and what follows is directed to the Content of your comments not you either)

Two words: In Development.

Doesn't matter that monies were paid to get here.
Doesn't matter that this is "Beta".
Matters that is a new tech.
Miguel Improves,
Sony Improves.
Some get frustrated,
Others knuckle down and relearn.
Just the nature of the process.
Often the meat of why it is done.
Reward in working out the knot.

Perhaps unrealistic expectation is at the root of any dissatisfaction.
This is not a finished product, In many ways, it is still an Alpha.
It is a very annoying and frustrating thing to develop software, and
it only gets more so with an increase in the software's complexity.
Imagine what it must be like on the other side of the screen.

this is why i suggested critique not criticism. The latter is often mistaken
for the former, which is lodes more productive. often, neither help until
after a deep breath.

I have created a thread in the general discussion about my proposed voxel manipulation tool. You can find it here. Please stop by and show your support! In a perfect world, the idea would get a lot of support from the community and the devs would take notice.

I think I read somewhere that a voxel can move in increments of 1/128th of the healed distance between two voxels. Is this still accurate? If so it might be worth adding to the description as it gives us an idea of the finest level of detail we can achieve.

Smokejumper is it ok to say I love you? In a many sort of way of course! I have been looking for a clean explanation of the differences and was just about to ask again when my search for anti voxel (instead of antivoxel) turned up nothing. The old brain is not at 100%, proof being that I got a tad grumpy with someone quoting Wikipedia instead of answering the question Now if someone would answer why trap doors don't appear to do any trapping yet the verbiage for the item states that it can be used to keep others from areas you don't want to see. That was where I got grumpy. Yes, I can see from the dictionary that trapping is not specifically part of a trap door but my question was the ability to conceal from others which does imply some form of trapping be it body or sight. Sorry for the rambling reply, rough nights and old men don't make good play fellows..

No. Based on comments from sklug, we know the precision is less than what it was. The old precision was an experimental result. For a long time it was a theoretical result until underwater smoothing confirmed it. I'm not sure whether a new precision has been confirmed or not, but I can speculate that it's about a third of what it was now (less precise)

Edit: fixed numbers