That is my concern as well. In several of my mods I hash the position of nodes to be able to store them efficiently into a table. This would no longer be possible if any or all of the axes were 32 bits as the hash would overflow. The only sensible workaround might be to create a paging system for the hashes, possibly using mapblocks as "pages".Byakuren wrote: Another option would be to change the y coordinate to be 32-bits (~4 billion nodes). This would allow for around a million dimensions at 4096 nodes high, which should be plenty. The main problem with this approach is that the "node index" would no longer be representable in Lua, because the index will be a 64-bit integer that cannot be represented exactly by a double (Lua's number type). Lua 5.3 and LuaJIT have support for integers, but in the case of 5.3 the width of the integer is machine-dependent. In LuaJIT you can specify having a 64-bit integer, but you cannot use it to index into a table.
What map height is really needed?
- sorcerykid
- Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 15:36
- GitHub: sorcerykid
- In-game: Nemo
- Location: Illinois, USA
Re: What map height is really needed?
- Linuxdirk
- Member
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
- In-game: Linuxdirk
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: What map height is really needed?
If the devs weren’t so uber scared about breaking backwards compatibility Minetest could have an actually unlimited world size.sorcerykid wrote:That is my concern as well. In several of my mods I hash the position of nodes to be able to store them efficiently into a table. This would no longer be possible if any or all of the axes were 32 bits as the hash would overflow. The only sensible workaround might be to create a paging system for the hashes, possibly using mapblocks as "pages".
- sorcerykid
- Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 15:36
- GitHub: sorcerykid
- In-game: Nemo
- Location: Illinois, USA
Re: What map height is really needed?
Minetest could have a lot of things :P
I can't tell you how many cool new features have been incorporated into the Minetest S3 engine that I'm certain would never be approved (or else were proposed and disapproved) in the official branch. I'm able to do so many things on my server that ordinary servers still can't do, or at least not easily.
I can't tell you how many cool new features have been incorporated into the Minetest S3 engine that I'm certain would never be approved (or else were proposed and disapproved) in the official branch. I'm able to do so many things on my server that ordinary servers still can't do, or at least not easily.
- rubenwardy
- Moderator
- Posts: 6978
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
- GitHub: rubenwardy
- IRC: rubenwardy
- In-game: rubenwardy
- Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: What map height is really needed?
If we break compatibility, users complain
If we don't break compatibility, users complain
If we don't break compatibility, users complain
Re: What map height is really needed?
To me, 65 x 65 km size is more or less enough, since most of server population occupies 2 x 2 km at most, BUT what is worrying me is this wasted vertical space, 256 blocks of height in minecraft is pretty much enough for most folks, in minetest we can slice this 65 kms of vertical space into 10-20-30-40-50-60 realms with different biomes and terrain, skyboxes, rules, physics, different mobs, bosses, ores, with a lot of creativity, yet we are stuck with this "stupid as brick half-dead MTG" on life support provided by paramat with nothing except blocks, simple smelting, storage and farming, there is so much potential.
Re: What map height is really needed?
256 Blocks of height is not much. Especially 64 Blocks of depth is ridiculous. But I think 30km of air and 30km of stone is also ridiculous. A hight above ground of about 2048 blocks and a depth of 6144 (total of 8192) would be a size I would say it makes sense. You have enough space for floating islands above the ground and a lot of space for giant caves and you can create 8 Dimensions. Not very much, but a start. But some people like to dig down 30km, for whatever reason.Fixerol wrote: BUT what is worrying me is this wasted vertical space, 256 blocks of height in minecraft is pretty much enough for most folks, in minetest we can slice this 65 kms of vertical space into 10-20-30-40-50-60 realms with different biomes and terrain, skyboxes, rules, physics, different mobs, bosses, ores, with a lot of creativity
- voxelproof
- Member
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 08:13
- Location: Europe
Re: What map height is really needed?
I see this problem this way: both Minecraft and Minetest committed a fault of incostistency as far as the proportion height/plane is concerned. The usable height in Minecraft above the sea level is only 192 and it is really absurd if you expect the worlds to be really interesting for exploration. On the other hand the height of over 30 km in Minetest is just as absurdly exaggerrated as absurdly the airspace of Minecraft is flattened.Fixerol wrote:To me, 65 x 65 km size is more or less enough, since most of server population occupies 2 x 2 km at most, BUT what is worrying me is this wasted vertical space, 256 blocks of height in minecraft is pretty much enough for most folks
The advantage of a smaller base in MT is that it makes worlds feel more 'cosy', explorable in the sense that if you want you can see almost everything in a few days/weeks time. This is utterly impossible in huge swathes of Minecraft realms were a player sometimes experiences sorta "open worlds overwhelming solitude". It is not very likely to have such a feel in relatively small MT worlds were you can pass from one edge to another in a matter of minutes and not years.
I think that to make this hight of Minetest sensible, the vertical dimension should be somehow 'opened' via introducing a game were climbing is an important and rewarding activity, were some resources are found only in higher altitudes and montainous areas, were high peaks offer opportunity of evading aggresive mobs etc. Now in singleplayer nobody bothers to find a path uphill when it's always possible to switch "fly mode".
And as to the backwards compatibility - well, progress sometimes requires hard choices. Maybe widening the horizontal size of the world isn't worth the backlash it could probably provoke, I don't know. And certainly it's something that can be done only if developers have good ideas for improved map generators to fill such gigantic space with believable, explorable and diversified biomes and terrain formations. I am not sure whether this can be done with the present (however quite agreeable) mapgens.
,
To miss the joy is to miss all. Robert Louis Stevenson
- Linuxdirk
- Member
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
- In-game: Linuxdirk
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: What map height is really needed?
FTFYvoxelproof wrote:The disadvantage of a smaller base in MT is that it makes worlds feel more 'cosy',
Great, isn’t it? I wish Minetest would be that large. As said: unlimited world sizes (theoretically unlimited, not technically unlimited - you are still limited by system capacity) are absolutely possible.voxelproof wrote:This is utterly impossible in huge swathes of Minecraft realms were a player sometimes experiences sorta "open worlds overwhelming solitude".
Lets take the size of Minecraft and add the same height, so you get a cube 60000000*60000000*60000000. It ranges from -30000000,-30000000,-30000000 to +30000000,+30000000,+30000000. Now let’s define this cube as 0 and place it on a coordinate system ranging from -30000000,-30000000,-30000000 to +30000000,+30000000,+30000000, too. This allows placing 60000000*60000000*60000000 of said cubes on a coordinate system.
A node address would look like 0,0,0:0,0,0 where 0,0,0 defines what cube to use and 0,0,0 what node to use in the addressed cube.
This would allow 3600000000000000*3600000000000000*3600000000000000 nodes large worlds. (3.6 quadrillion nodes in each direction!)
… and I just made this up in my mind by thinking about it a few minutes. It is totally not a matter of concept but only a matter of how to implement this concept. And I am pretty sure there are better ways to address nodes. I just used the system we already have and extended it.
Old worlds wouldn’t break, they just have to be converted to the new format by adding the cube address part to all node addresses.
Yes, and that is what major releases and Git tags are for. Unfortunately both aren’t used as much as they should be in the Minetest scene.voxelproof wrote:And as to the backwards compatibility - well, progress sometimes requires hard choices.
- voxelproof
- Member
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 08:13
- Location: Europe
Re: What map height is really needed?
Well. er... don't bother.... ;)Linuxdirk wrote:FTFYvoxelproof wrote:The disadvantage of a smaller base in MT is that it makes worlds feel more 'cosy',
No Man's Sky was hyped by a prospect of 18 quintillion planets and Hello Games unfortunately did implement it. Space Engine, a Russian enterprise to send humans into virtual outer space, allows even larger number of realistic celestial bodies, including full-scale galaxies. And, what's the best, it runs quite well on my low-end laptop without gfx card.This would allow 3600000000000000*3600000000000000*3600000000000000 nodes large worlds. (3.6 quadrillion nodes in each direction!)
… and I just made this up in my mind by thinking about it a few minutes. It is totally not a matter of concept but only a matter of how to implement this concept. And I am pretty sure there are better ways to address nodes. I just used the system we already have and extended it.
So, well...
To miss the joy is to miss all. Robert Louis Stevenson
- Linuxdirk
- Member
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
- In-game: Linuxdirk
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: What map height is really needed?
As research showed the number is lower than that. Plus: They were not able to implement even half of what they announced. NMS is the epitome of how not to develop a game. They failed miserably on all levels. NMS should not be used as an example for anything.voxelproof wrote:No Man's Sky was hyped by a prospect of 18 quintillion planets
It’s not about filling the space. World generation could still be done around -1024 and +2000 and it would be absolutely fine. It’s about not having to worry about running into a barrier on horizontal level and about the option to add multiple million “dimensions” each mulltiple million nodes high.voxelproof wrote:So, well...
- voxelproof
- Member
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 08:13
- Location: Europe
Re: What map height is really needed?
Yes, I know all this - I was hyped too and that's why I wrote "unfortunately". Immense universe with the depth of a puddle. Thank heavens I waited until the release and finally didn't have to regret money thrown into mud.Linuxdirk wrote:As research showed the number is lower than that. Plus: They were not able to implement even half of what they announced. NMS is the epitome of how not to develop a game.voxelproof wrote:No Man's Sky was hyped by a prospect of 18 quintillion planets
I strongly disagree. AFAIK NMS is used as an example for marketers of a perfect marketing campaign.They failed miserably on all levels. NMS should not be used as an example for anything.
I think sometimes 'less' means 'more'. I'd be glad if the present height of the worlds in MT was utilised at least in 10%, making hiking, walking or searching for resources a real challenge.It’s not about filling the space. World generation could still be done around -1024 and +2000 and it would be absolutely fine. It’s about not having to worry about running into a barrier on horizontal level and about the option to add multiple million “dimensions” each mulltiple million nodes high.voxelproof wrote:So, well...
Last edited by voxelproof on Sun Jan 14, 2018 22:00, edited 1 time in total.
To miss the joy is to miss all. Robert Louis Stevenson
- sorcerykid
- Member
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 15:36
- GitHub: sorcerykid
- In-game: Nemo
- Location: Illinois, USA
Re: What map height is really needed?
I see, you made it up in your mind. Yet at the top of this page I had already suggested such a method, and you even replied to that post :PLinuxdirk wrote: … and I just made this up in my mind by thinking about it a few minutes. It is totally not a matter of concept but only a matter of how to implement this concept. And I am pretty sure there are better ways to address nodes. I just used the system we already have and extended it.
viewtopic.php?p=308044#p308044
- Linuxdirk
- Member
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
- In-game: Linuxdirk
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: What map height is really needed?
So this is where I got the idea from :)sorcerykid wrote:Yet at the top of this page I had already suggested such a method, and you even replied to that post :P
Re: What map height is really needed?
Wondering why people want less height. It’s not as if god will strike you down where you stand if you don’t digg to -66.000, is it?
„Less height“ is not really advantageous.
Minecraft has limited height due to technical issues, mostly because of light calculations.
„Less height“ is not really advantageous.
Minecraft has limited height due to technical issues, mostly because of light calculations.
A man much wiser than me once said: "go away, you are bothering me"
Re: What map height is really needed?
If it was possible to register a biome in the sky (not floatlands) and have it generate a new base (specific biome definition flag) we could build create a new base level from the the higher limits of the mapgen that could be put to good use without having to resort to slower voxelmanip mapgens.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests