Planets in EE

Some screenshots of planets I added to EmptyEpsilon. It's a work-in-progress. I used the VisualAsteroid code and tweaked it a bit.

It needs a new texture, and probably a new model. It was just something I whipped up real quick in MisfitModel3D.

The planets will show up below the ship and it needs some more adjustments to keep from clipping it with bigger ships and stations. It shows up on the radar along with science & relay. At the moment it can not be targeted or named.




  • How big can the model reasonably be scaled? Can you control how deep below the playing field it is, or does it automatically adjust itself based on size?

    Do the textures in this engine need normal/specular maps? I can throw together a few planet textures, this is exactly what I was hoping for.
  • Right now it just uses one texture, so no normal/spec. Currently it is one size and not adjustable. I'll see what I can do to maybe add these features to hopefully get added to the main branch. Be aware, I'm not much of a C++ programmer. What I've done so far is copy & paste code.
  • The game itself does support normal/specular images, just not asteroids (and this modification).
  • How is that sphere mapped? Cylindrical?
  • Excellent work, an option to have them above would be nice too! But for now, that's a wonderful moon ;).

    I'm happy to have a space station nearby in order to interact with the planet in the mean time. I am definitely looking forwards to the next release...
  • Feel free to use cubemap planet textures from here if you like:

    (or make your own new ones with gaseous-giganticus or earthlike from SNIS.)
  • @TrevorHillHand, honestly it was just a quick and dirty texturing job. I need to figure out how to texture a sphere better.

    @Feralmouse, I doubt it will be in the next release, unless I get things working how I want, upload it to GitHub and do a pull request. (Or Daid implements something similar himself :) )

    @smcameron, Thanks, will have to figure out how to get the textures onto a sphere properly. Spaceships are much easier for me to texture than planets.
  • Why not use an artifact to represent planets ? They can have a custom description, can be scanned and can have a custom model.
  • I think the idea is to have them be below the field, so they can be much much larger without having to worry about colliding with them properly. So they're more like background elements.
  • I just added some artifact features to the planets. For instance they should (hopefully) be able to be destroyed. The models and textures can be specified similarly to the way artifacts are now. Still working on targeting and setting callsigns/names.
  • Will they be able to be used in the GM screen? O.o;

    Mid Game: Suddenly a wild planet appears
    Fight Item
    PkMn Run
  • Will they be able to be used in the GM screen? O.o;

    That's one of the things I want to get working.

  • Planets will most likely use a custom renderer at some point. As I do have code laying around somewhere which dynamically renders a lower or higher poly model depending on the distance from the planet.
  • O_o, planet first, custom renderer later! :)
  • Landing on planets much later :P
  • I was planning on using something third party for that aspect. If that ever gets thought about (second project?) gimme a shout.
  • Any news on this matter ? :)

    A planet (or moon) could be implemented at first simply as a big station, equivalent in functionality (except maybe they could be invincible).

    Adding stars and planet will definitely enhance the immersion !

    I found those that are not expensive for a first try.
  • That can be done a whole lot cheaper:

    The problem here is, I play way too much Kerbal Space Program. Even the smallest moon in KSP is 13km in radius. Which makes it twice as big as our short range radar.

    As for stars (sun), the smallest known star has about a radius of 100.000km. So relay might just see the curvature.

    So the real question is, how big do we want planets to look? And how close should we be allowed to get?
  • Also, stationary planets or moving planets? (Orbits)
    Stars (sun)?
  • Any news on this matter ? :)

    I ran into an issue being able to name Planets, and haven't had a chance to get back to it. I've got a convention this weekend. After I get done with that I'll see what I can do with what I've got so far.
  • The latest code should allow you to set a description on any object, and then science can select those objects.

    Rendering of callsigns is a bit of a mess right now.
  • If it is to be implemented, I'm rather leaning on the "simple planet" side, as I see them as a break from "deep space" stuff. Suns may be a no-go for previously mentioned reasons.

    So to summarize, I'd see static, very big planets, placed below the ship's height.
  • Fouindor said:

    So to summarize, I'd see static, very big planets, placed below the ship's height.

    That's my plan.

  • Yeah I agree, if they are below the playing field, they become more like islands. They can be pretty big; but realistic scale is not as important as them just "feeling" big.

    I also think it's fine if it's impossible to interact with them; if a mission wants you to go to a planet and dock there, you would dock with an "orbiting" space station that sits above the planet.
  • edited March 2016
    Well, I was going to wait, but I think I have it in sync with the current commits from daid's Github repo.
    I'll push it up tonight to my repo. Going to hold off on the pull request until I can get it looking & working a little better.
  • You could always 'scale up' the ships if you want to scale down moons, planets, and stars. The cruiser model looks like it could be 20 meters long, or the size of a star destroyer.
  • John Bono said:

    You could always 'scale up' the ships if you want to scale down moons, planets, and stars. The cruiser model looks like it could be 20 meters long, or the size of a star destroyer.

    Fighters throw that off some :)
    Actually, I think they are a little off scale now with the other ships.

  • As we speak of size, I'll take this opportunity to talk about the distances in EE.

    "Kilometers" - The actual increment in the game.
    We can make "jumps" up to 50 km.

    As we all know, a kilometre is incredibly small in space. Of course the game has to serve the gameplay experience more than the scientific reality... but I guess we can get a compromise that would feel more right for the experience.

    Just a few references to start with :

    The size of stations :
    - ISS (nasa) : 109m
    - Trade federation (Starwars) : 3km diametre
    - Borgh Cube : 3km
    - Citadel (mass effect) : 45km
    - mass relay (mass effect) : 15km

    The size of ships :
    - Space shuttle (nasa) : 60m
    - Normandy s02 : 250m
    - USS Entreprise : 725m
    - Battlestar Galactica : 1.2 km
    - USS Entreprise dreadnought class : up to 1.5 km

    Speed :

    G (gravitation - earth) = 127 137 km/h
    C (light speed) = 1.079e+9 km/h

    Supersonic Jet : 1235 km/h
    ISS in orbit : 27 600 km/sec
    Apollo 11 : 3.3G
    Viper (BSG) : 1 144 238 km/h (or 9G)
    Tie Fighters : 4 100 G
    USS Enterprise : 512C to 1 649C

    Distance :
    1 Astronomical Unit (AU) = the distance between earth and the sun = 150 million kilometers
    (For exemple, a nebulae range from 1 to 10 AU. Pluto is 40 A.U from the sun)

    I would suggest to change the distance increments in EE to something that would suit more the space ambiance (Since most of the ships in the game should fill completely the 1km radius).

    A few options to help the discussion :

    A.Change the “km” to something that would reflect a larger range :
    (Megametre) Mm = 1 000 000 km
    (Astronomical Unit) Au = 150 000 000 km

    B. Invent a new distance increment that would fit the lore and purpose of EE.
    (Cardinal) 1Ca = 10 000 km [Cardinal means Ten thousand]
    1Xm = 10 000 km [X (with a bar over it) is the roman symbol for 10k]
    Myriameter 1Myr = 10 000 km [ Myria- is the greek prefix for 10 000 ]

    B. Simply add a “0” to the km numbers


    It may then help deciding the size of the planets accordingly.

  • The "km" naming and actual sizes are just a shameless copy from Artemis.

    We could rename "km" to anything else to fix this.
    Not a fan of Au. As realism wise, you get near light speeds, which in real life adds a whole extra range of physical oddities.

    We could just pick a "size neutral" name. Something like "ticks"/"units". Then you no longer have real scaling problems as you cannot relate to the distance name. However, it does take away some immersion I think.
  • can we go for parsec?
    and for smaller distans "clicks"
Sign In or Register to comment.