G33X Nexus Entertainment > Precursors
Galaxy Generator.
whitelynx:
Well, CS could very well break with that unless the object was at 0,0,0. Keep in mind, float is much more accurate near 0 than anywhere else; at 0, you may be able to accurately represent the number 0.00000001, but make that 1000.00000001 and all of a sudden it will drop the trailing digits.
I agree with Recon's proposed coordinate systems, except I don't think coordinate system number 2 is necessary... Moving things around in RA/Dec/Dist space is a bit more complicated than I'd like, and doesn't give us much advantage... we need rectangular coords for rendering (even to the skybox) so it'd be easier to convert to the galactic scale (number 2) and manipulate the numbers there. I'd personally rather change all of the stars' coordinates in the data files to be rectangular coords, centered around the galactic core, so that we have a relatively even distribution across the coordinate system, and use the int-based fixed-point data type discussed earlier to work with that in code. We can use fixed-point math to calculate the size of the impostor that needs to be rendered and to calculate its coordinates on the skybox, and then convert those numbers to float for the actual rendering. Shouldn't be too difficult, and lets us keep track of coordinates on a galactic scale relatively easily.
A system like this will give us a very nice way of splitting things up across different servers. (each node server handles one solar system)
contingencyplan:
Skimmed over - kudos to Recon for figuring all of this out. You'll fit in well with us, I can tell :-).
In terms of technical merit, all looks good to me. Then again, I'm a little stressed out, so I can't say much more on it right now. Fucking semester ending and all.
Recon:
--- Quote from: whitelynx on November 09, 2006, 03:57:37 pm --- Moving things around in RA/Dec/Dist space is a bit more complicated than I'd like, and doesn't give us much advantage... we need rectangular coords for rendering (even to the skybox) so it'd be easier to convert to the galactic scale (number 2)
--- End quote ---
I actualy disagree here, I think the RA/Dec/Dist is exactly the system we need. while rectangular cordiantes are easy to understand they require lots of calcualtions. as for the sky box , the simplest and quickest way I can think of doing it is using a sphere instead of 6 planes. Then do a orthagraphical projection onto a flat material. If there is a simpler way to do this I dont know it.
think we should only go to rectangilar cords when things have to be rendered in Crystal Space. But I will know more about this in a couple of weeks when I try code a skybox :)
Still the MASSIVE question regarding a thin or thick client to be answered. This is the biggest outstanding design question as it affects everything!!!! the sooner we have a answer to this the better.
regards
Rosencrantz:
--- Quote from: Recon on November 10, 2006, 07:06:17 am ---
--- Quote from: whitelynx on November 09, 2006, 03:57:37 pm --- Moving things around in RA/Dec/Dist space is a bit more complicated than I'd like, and doesn't give us much advantage... we need rectangular coords for rendering (even to the skybox) so it'd be easier to convert to the galactic scale (number 2)
--- End quote ---
I actualy disagree here, I think the RA/Dec/Dist is exactly the system we need. while rectangular cordiantes are easy to understand they require lots of calcualtions. as for the sky box , the simplest and quickest way I can think of doing it is using a sphere instead of 6 planes. Then do a orthagraphical projection onto a flat material. If there is a simpler way to do this I dont know it.
--- End quote ---
Just to play devil's advocate here. How does RA/Dec/Dist require less calculations? What specific calculations are you referring to? How many conversions to and from rectangular need to be done, and what about re-deriving equations of motion and translation if you aren't going to convert?
In short, What specifically are the benefits gained? And what is the range of use of these coordinates?
(FYI, I'm all for changing coordinate systems if it makes the calculations significantly eaiser).
Recon:
--- Quote from: Rosencrantz on November 10, 2006, 12:21:10 pm ---
--- Quote from: Recon on November 10, 2006, 07:06:17 am ---
--- Quote from: whitelynx on November 09, 2006, 03:57:37 pm --- Moving things around in RA/Dec/Dist space is a bit more complicated than I'd like, and doesn't give us much advantage... we need rectangular coords for rendering (even to the skybox) so it'd be easier to convert to the galactic scale (number 2)
--- End quote ---
I actualy disagree here, I think the RA/Dec/Dist is exactly the system we need. while rectangular cordiantes are easy to understand they require lots of calcualtions. as for the sky box , the simplest and quickest way I can think of doing it is using a sphere instead of 6 planes. Then do a orthagraphical projection onto a flat material. If there is a simpler way to do this I dont know it.
--- End quote ---
Just to play devil's advocate here. How does RA/Dec/Dist require less calculations? What specific calculations are you referring to? How many conversions to and from rectangular need to be done, and what about re-deriving equations of motion and translation if you aren't going to convert?
In short, What specifically are the benefits gained? And what is the range of use of these coordinates?
(FYI, I'm all for changing coordinate systems if it makes the calculations significantly eaiser).
--- End quote ---
Well , to be clear I am advocating the RA/Dec/Dist method for the sky box, not for everything. meshs have to have cordinates. as stuff on the sky box not likley to move much we dont realy have to worry much about those calcualtions. I will know more in a week or so.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version