And now with the 3D membranes it can be assumed that concave membranes won’t be ever coming to Thrive, unless there’s a huge push for it at some point much later in time.
1 Like
i personally would very much prefer a frequency limit over a ban on concavity. concave cells exist, for example, red blood cells, though that is in 3d. They are usually larger cells. The extremes, like amoebas, also are very non-stiff. if we were to start over making cell stage, i’d love flexible physics-based concave cells, but honestly the idea of physics-based cells is so much more than we could easily accomplish i totally never see that happening (and properly flexible cells are silly without that).
4 Likes
And Dinoflagellates, which have to cones sticking out of them that would just goop together with the current concavity handling.
1 Like
Pretty sure physics-simulated cells are completely out of question now.
Also JaDT are you sure the cones are good enough of a feature to be added to the rather complete roadmap?
2 Likes
What is the planned frequency for Meteor Impact Events?
No idea, I can assume this will be a random surface patch event like vent eruptions but instead can either be for a patch, a region or the whole planet.
1 Like
I was more giving an example.
1 Like
I don’t think we will be seeing much more organelles being added to microbe now besides the bioluminescent vacuole.
1 Like
It’s a technical limitation because doing concave shapes is going to be multiple times harder (in terms of collision shape generation for the physics engine and the visuals with 3D membranes making adapting this system even a bit harder than before). So it is kind of a moot point to discuss lifting the limitation without someone who would be able to program the change.
5 Likes
And I’m not sure there’s actually that large of a movement for adding the ability of making microbe membranes concave. Besides us obviously not having the person necessary to program this in, it could also be that people would like to see effort being poured into different aspects of the game.
2 Likes
i love godot sometimes…
(honestly it’s genuinely weird how easy concave collision meshes are in unity sometimes, i wonder if that has weird consequences)
1 Like
This is a rare case where this is 0% Godot’s fault. Ever since the ECS refactoring we have a custom C++ module to interact with the Jolt Physics engine directly. So no Godot is involved in our physics at all. Physics engines only support concave shapes when they are either mesh type collisions or made up of convex parts. These are both obviously less performant than a simple convex shape (so this would make the game even slower on bad laptops). The actual problem is just that: either generating a mesh collision shape (which needs to have low enough point count to not destroy performance) or write the code to create the cell collision shape up from simple parts. Nobody has offered to write the code to do that so it is simply not possible for such a thing to manifest without someone putting serious work hours into it.
5 Likes
How is the macroscopic+ physics system planned to work like?
3 Likes
huh, interesting, that’s extremely cool…
(likely irrelevant information: godot recently added native support for jolt so it might be getting esier to work with and i might try learning how it works some time :>)
i’d love to know about this too, handling loads of collisions with procedural mesh’s doesn’t sound fun at all.
3 Likes
Yeah, I think this is pretty much irrelevant as our core simulation as an ECS system written in C# that is fully decoupled from Godot. There’s just a few systems that use Godot for basically rendering the simulation state, everything else is mostly engine-independent. This is what allowed the ECS refactoring to basically double the game performance.
Controlled ragdolls most likely. With probably simplified collision models for each limb to have a reasonable collision accuracy but still be performance-friendly.
3 Likes
I can assume making the ragdolls be very efficient performance-wise will take a good while to implement. It’s probably going to be not much less difficult than the planet generator for example.
1 Like
What happened to the art competition that supposed to occur a month after the previous one?
1 Like
I suppose not enough time has passed yet.
1 Like
The person who was behind bringing back the art competition hasn’t made a new one yet.
Sadly I don’t think that is the case.
When there was talk of the art competition being revived, I brought up my concern that whoever is going to try to do that is going to last for just a little bit before running out of steam, and the competition stopping again. Running a monthly competition requires a lot of energy. That is why I didn’t want to be super involved with it as I suspected the competition would fizzle out again quickly, so any big effort like very custom rewards from my side would go pretty much to waste.
4 Likes
Hopefully the competition can be revived once more like how it was by the first land critter contest…
2 Likes