Thrive Game Development

Development of the evolution game Thrive.
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Welcome new and returning members!
If you're new, read around a bit before you post: the odds are we've already covered your suggestion.
If you want to join the development team, sign up and tell us why.
ADMIN is pleased to note that this marquee has finally been updated.
ADMIN reminds you that the Devblog is REQUIRED reading.
Currently: The Microbe Stage GUI is under heavy development
Log in
Username:
Password:
Log in automatically: 
:: I forgot my password
Quick Links
Website
/r/thrive
GitHub
FAQs
Wiki
New Posts
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Statistics
We have 1675 registered users
The newest registered user is dejo123

Our users have posted a total of 30851 messages in 1411 subjects
Who is online?
In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests

None

Most users ever online was 443 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:41 pm
Latest topics
» THIS FORUM IS NOW OBSOLETE
by NickTheNick Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:26 pm

» To all the people who come here looking for thrive.
by NickTheNick Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:22 pm

» Build Error Code::Blocks / CMake
by crovea Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:28 pm

» Hello! I can translate in japanese
by tjwhale Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:23 pm

» On Leave (Offline thread)
by NickTheNick Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:20 am

» Devblog #14: A Brave New Forum
by NickTheNick Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:49 am

» Application for Programmer
by crovea Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:14 am

» Re-Reapplication
by The Creator Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:57 pm

» Application (programming)
by crovea Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:00 am

» Achieving Sapience
by MitochondriaBox Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:03 pm

» Microbe Stage GDD
by tjwhale Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:44 pm

» Application for Programmer/ Theorist
by tjwhale Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:56 am

» Application for a 3D Modeler.
by Kaiju4u Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:16 am

» Translator to Serbian here
by Simeartherist Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:36 am

» Presentation
by Othithu Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:38 am

» Application of Sorts
by crovea Sun May 31, 2015 5:06 pm

» want to contribute
by Renzope Sun May 31, 2015 12:58 pm

» Music List Thread (Post New Themes Here)
by Oliveriver Thu May 28, 2015 1:06 pm

» Application: English-Spanish translator
by Renzope Tue May 26, 2015 1:53 pm

» Want to be promoter or project manager
by TheBudderBros Sun May 24, 2015 9:00 pm


Share | 
 

 Size vs. Processing Power

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Tenebrarum
Society Team Lead


Posts : 1179
Reputation : 32
Join date : 2010-10-01
Age : 23
Location : ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

PostSubject: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:15 pm

As in the title, I recently realized we have a big problem. How big are our planets gonna be? Because if we have a truely realistic scale, our systems will have to save HUGE amounts of info. Once we hit sapience, and have huge bustling cities covering the surface of the world, that becomes unbeleivably large amounts of stuff to record, even just the city layouts would be difficult to hold.

So now what?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
GamerXA
Regular


Posts : 285
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2010-07-06
Age : 28
Location : Australia, Queensland

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:31 pm

I don't believe that the city layouts will actually be huge. In another section I think I calculated that it would take around 10GB of data to store an entire, fully-formed galaxy with everything in it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Commander Keen
Industrial Team Lead


Posts : 1123
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : Czech Republic (not that anyone would know where it is...)

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:21 am

Yes. And that 10GB would only be if the galaxy was fully explored, wich is nearly impossible to do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
fredpie
Newcomer


Posts : 27
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-17
Age : 20
Location : The Great British Isles, home of rainy weather and afternoon tea.

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:32 pm

We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Waap
Newcomer


Posts : 77
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-07-20
Age : 18
Location : Waap. HQ

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:28 am

At the speed Thrive is being made, computer development should easily keep up with the development of this game. Imean, how can one keep up with all the new technology these days? You can't! The moment you get something new, it becomes obsolete. It is reather sad. We get a new TV, so they make 3D TV. Thanks, world. Keep me behind in the tech.
Anyways, we should be fine.
-Waap.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
~sciocont
Overall Team Lead


Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:09 pm

We're loading planets using a lot of LOD discretion. Basically we're only loading the sections of planet nearest to you, the organisms near to you, and their models will be simplified according to their distance.

_________________
Remember our goals: simplicity, science, and playability. Keep them in mind always.
[OE]|[FAQ]|[Wiki]|[My Blog]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Theslimy
Newcomer


Posts : 31
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-26

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:55 pm

~sciocont wrote:
We're loading planets using a lot of LOD discretion. Basically we're only loading the sections of planet nearest to you, the organisms near to you, and their models will be simplified according to their distance.

Cool deal!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
~sciocont
Overall Team Lead


Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:00 pm

Theslimy wrote:
~sciocont wrote:
We're loading planets using a lot of LOD discretion. Basically we're only loading the sections of planet nearest to you, the organisms near to you, and their models will be simplified according to their distance.

Cool deal!
It's not as if it's our idea. Everything uses LOD simplification.

_________________
Remember our goals: simplicity, science, and playability. Keep them in mind always.
[OE]|[FAQ]|[Wiki]|[My Blog]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
roadkillguy
Experienced


Posts : 528
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2010-08-25
Age : 23
Location : Rhode Island

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:55 pm

fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.

Thank you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
~sciocont
Overall Team Lead


Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:16 pm

roadkillguy wrote:
fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.

Thank you.
Remember that the planet size estimate I came up with a few months ago was 474.36 km2 with a 4096x4096x6 grid and 3m terrain tiles. That's a lot smaller than our moon, but about 3.5 times the size of a spore planet. However, we could keep upping the size by doubling the terrain tiles again.

_________________
Remember our goals: simplicity, science, and playability. Keep them in mind always.
[OE]|[FAQ]|[Wiki]|[My Blog]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
tklarenb
Learner


Posts : 109
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03
Age : 24
Location : Planet Earth, North American continent, U.S.A.

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:22 am

~sciocont wrote:
roadkillguy wrote:
fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.

Thank you.
Remember that the planet size estimate I came up with a few months ago was 474.36 km2 with a 4096x4096x6 grid and 3m terrain tiles. That's a lot smaller than our moon, but about 3.5 times the size of a spore planet. However, we could keep upping the size by doubling the terrain tiles again.

Uh, you might want to look at the planetary scales topic again. I was the one who figured out the ratio between Spore and Thrive planets based off the 474.36 km2 scale, and it's not 3.5. Here's the actual math (which you approved when I wrote it):

Quote :
ido66667 wrote:
This can Help: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/46894.page

I used the method described in that forum, and I've come to an estimate on the circumference of a Spore planet: roughly 2.2 km with a surface area of about 1.5 square km. This means, using scio's Brooklyn sized planet, Thrive planets would have a surface area 316.24 times larger than Spore planets, if I did the math right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tenebrarum
Society Team Lead


Posts : 1179
Reputation : 32
Join date : 2010-10-01
Age : 23
Location : ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:18 pm

Regardless of the specifics, I would like to note that given the apparent sizes we'll be dealing with, we might need to use some sort of barriers to prevent extreme expansion early on in the game. When we have a prototype sophisticated enough that we can just walk on the surface of a prototype planet, I should be able to test my theory and get back to you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
~sciocont
Overall Team Lead


Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:50 pm

tklarenb wrote:
~sciocont wrote:
roadkillguy wrote:
fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.

Thank you.
Remember that the planet size estimate I came up with a few months ago was 474.36 km2 with a 4096x4096x6 grid and 3m terrain tiles. That's a lot smaller than our moon, but about 3.5 times the size of a spore planet. However, we could keep upping the size by doubling the terrain tiles again.

Uh, you might want to look at the planetary scales topic again. I was the one who figured out the ratio between Spore and Thrive planets based off the 474.36 km2 scale, and it's not 3.5. Here's the actual math (which you approved when I wrote it):

Quote :
ido66667 wrote:
This can Help: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/46894.page

I used the method described in that forum, and I've come to an estimate on the circumference of a Spore planet: roughly 2.2 km with a surface area of about 1.5 square km. This means, using scio's Brooklyn sized planet, Thrive planets would have a surface area 316.24 times larger than Spore planets, if I did the math right.
My bad, I read a different post on the same topic that gave a much larger measurement for spore planets and reworked that. You would be correct. Even if our terrain tiles are 1m wide, in a 4096x4096x6 setup we still have a planet 35 times bigger than spore's.

Tenebrarum wrote:
Regardless of the specifics, I would like to note that given the apparent sizes we'll be dealing with, we might need to use some sort of barriers to prevent extreme expansion early on in the game. When we have a prototype sophisticated enough that we can just walk on the surface of a prototype planet, I should be able to test my theory and get back to you.
Yes, we need some way to keep players in their biome. There has to be some incentive for them not to explore, as horribly backwards as that sounds.

_________________
Remember our goals: simplicity, science, and playability. Keep them in mind always.
[OE]|[FAQ]|[Wiki]|[My Blog]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezzalis
Regular


Posts : 260
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2010-08-07

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:34 am

~sciocont wrote:

Yes, we need some way to keep players in their biome. There has to be some incentive for them not to explore, as horribly backwards as that sounds.

Easy. Creatures have a preferred tolerance range right? Specifics such as heat, altitude, food presence, mate presence, predator presence, etc
Creature leaves tolerable zone - Creature dies/can not reproduce.

However this does raise another issue; how will evolution be able to occur if the creature is stuck in the same biome? We could have automatic migration taking place, or perhaps the biome itself changes over millions of years to which the species will have to adapt.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tenebrarum
Society Team Lead


Posts : 1179
Reputation : 32
Join date : 2010-10-01
Age : 23
Location : ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:23 am

Pezzalis wrote:
~sciocont wrote:

Yes, we need some way to keep players in their biome. There has to be some incentive for them not to explore, as horribly backwards as that sounds.

Easy. Creatures have a preferred tolerance range right? Specifics such as heat, altitude, food presence, mate presence, predator presence, etc
Creature leaves tolerable zone - Creature dies/can not reproduce.

However this does raise another issue; how will evolution be able to occur if the creature is stuck in the same biome? We could have automatic migration taking place, or perhaps the biome itself changes over millions of years to which the species will have to adapt.
We should discuss this when we have a prototype to observe and analyze.

When we can observe whether or not natural barriers are sufficient, then we can make a descision.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
~sciocont
Overall Team Lead


Posts : 3406
Reputation : 138
Join date : 2010-07-06

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:26 pm

Tenebrarum wrote:
Pezzalis wrote:
~sciocont wrote:

Yes, we need some way to keep players in their biome. There has to be some incentive for them not to explore, as horribly backwards as that sounds.

Easy. Creatures have a preferred tolerance range right? Specifics such as heat, altitude, food presence, mate presence, predator presence, etc
Creature leaves tolerable zone - Creature dies/can not reproduce.

However this does raise another issue; how will evolution be able to occur if the creature is stuck in the same biome? We could have automatic migration taking place, or perhaps the biome itself changes over millions of years to which the species will have to adapt.
We should discuss this when we have a prototype to observe and analyze.

When we can observe whether or not natural barriers are sufficient, then we can make a descision.
We still haven't ironed out how ETO (environmentally transient organisms) will work. We have to do that.

_________________
Remember our goals: simplicity, science, and playability. Keep them in mind always.
[OE]|[FAQ]|[Wiki]|[My Blog]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Deathbite42
Regular


Posts : 212
Reputation : -3
Join date : 2012-07-27

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:32 am

fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.
Yes, we do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Deathbite42
Regular


Posts : 212
Reputation : -3
Join date : 2012-07-27

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:34 am

~sciocont wrote:
tklarenb wrote:
~sciocont wrote:
roadkillguy wrote:
fredpie wrote:
We don't need to be uber-realistic. I think planets around half the size of the moon would be plenty.

Thank you.
Remember that the planet size estimate I came up with a few months ago was 474.36 km2 with a 4096x4096x6 grid and 3m terrain tiles. That's a lot smaller than our moon, but about 3.5 times the size of a spore planet. However, we could keep upping the size by doubling the terrain tiles again.

Uh, you might want to look at the planetary scales topic again. I was the one who figured out the ratio between Spore and Thrive planets based off the 474.36 km2 scale, and it's not 3.5. Here's the actual math (which you approved when I wrote it):

Quote :
ido66667 wrote:
This can Help: http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/46894.page

I used the method described in that forum, and I've come to an estimate on the circumference of a Spore planet: roughly 2.2 km with a surface area of about 1.5 square km. This means, using scio's Brooklyn sized planet, Thrive planets would have a surface area 316.24 times larger than Spore planets, if I did the math right.
My bad, I read a different post on the same topic that gave a much larger measurement for spore planets and reworked that. You would be correct. Even if our terrain tiles are 1m wide, in a 4096x4096x6 setup we still have a planet 35 times bigger than spore's.

Tenebrarum wrote:
Regardless of the specifics, I would like to note that given the apparent sizes we'll be dealing with, we might need to use some sort of barriers to prevent extreme expansion early on in the game. When we have a prototype sophisticated enough that we can just walk on the surface of a prototype planet, I should be able to test my theory and get back to you.
Yes, we need some way to keep players in their biome. There has to be some incentive for them not to explore, as horribly backwards as that sounds.
ETO's could be more expensive.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Xazo-Tak
Newcomer


Posts : 31
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-05-03
Age : 19
Location : New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sat May 04, 2013 2:15 am

An extremely cheap storage method for planets generated from seeds would be to have only changes to a planet recorded, and so when the player loads an area of a planet for the nth time, all that is being loaded from the hard drive is the seed and other parameters for that area; and changes that have been made to the newly-generated state. However, I expect that it would be far more taxing on CPUs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://xazo-tak.deviantart.com/
untrustedlife
Regular


Posts : 252
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2013-03-26
Location : [Classified]

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sat May 04, 2013 11:44 am

I have tried that before, the changes will not be easy to load. (even in a 2d planet (which is what I did a while back in my spare time before I learned of this project))

based on the thing I made a while back:

You can load planets based on seed the first time however you have to somehow make sure changes are kept persistent (I used an array that held data about what has changed (asteroid strike etc) and once the player enters the planet I change it for it, save it in a data file and remove the change from the array, and the next time the person enters it loads the data file (which has all the data saved (and all the changes from the previous loads are already done)), and changes up the planet a little (based on the array (which is constantly changed)) and I rinse and repeat

It works well until you start calculating anything more complex then a volcano (with lava that spreads) however it works for everything except things that spread (It is not taxing on the cpu unless it has been forever since you have last entered the planet and many many things have changed (or if you want to keep track of lava spread which is what I did (big mistake))


By the way this topic is somewhat old (don't necro-post), but it's fine since this is technically still something for us to worry about (sci please correct me if I'm wrong)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Xazo-Tak
Newcomer


Posts : 31
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-05-03
Age : 19
Location : New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sat May 04, 2013 5:02 pm

untrustedlife wrote:
I have tried that before, the changes will not be easy to load. (even in a 2d planet (which is what I did a while back in my spare time before I learned of this project))

based on the thing I made a while back:

You can load planets based on seed the first time however you have to somehow make sure changes are kept persistent (I used an array that held data about what has changed (asteroid strike etc) and once the player enters the planet I change it for it, save it in a data file and remove the change from the array, and the next time the person enters it loads the data file (which has all the data saved (and all the changes from the previous loads are already done)), and changes up the planet a little (based on the array (which is constantly changed)) and I rinse and repeat

It works well until you start calculating anything more complex then a volcano (with lava that spreads) however it works for everything except things that spread (It is not taxing on the cpu unless it has been forever since you have last entered the planet and many many things have changed (or if you want to keep track of lava spread which is what I did (big mistake))


By the way this topic is somewhat old (don't necro-post), but it's fine since this is technically still something for us to worry about (sci please correct me if I'm wrong)
I think there may be a few things to correct, yes.
You state that CPU usage with this system depends on how long it has been since the player entered the planet. CPU usage for loading areas of a planet should hardly vary, as with each loading the CPU regenerates the terrain anew and then the hard drive loads the changes, and I'm sure merging the terrain with the saved data is light work.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://xazo-tak.deviantart.com/
untrustedlife
Regular


Posts : 252
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2013-03-26
Location : [Classified]

PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Sat May 04, 2013 7:03 pm

Actually with MY system, it does in fact affect it. (Like I said I have programmed this)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Size vs. Processing Power   Today at 10:02 am

Back to top Go down
 
Size vs. Processing Power
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Thrive Game Development :: Development :: Design :: Editors :: Planet-
Jump to: