*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
I've posted this before on a forum that is now closed and thought I would try again.

The 3D engines that the gaming industry uses to create games using a first person perspective have all used a mapping engine that produces flat maps with the a flat horizon.

Use of a 3D engine to create spheres representing planets in space with the surface interaction visible and interacting with the space between other planets are all out of scale.

Use of a 3D engine to create spheres representing planets in space with no surface interaction visible are actually representations of an in-engine planet but upon approaching close proximity of this representation a transition occurs in which you exit the "space map" and load a "planet surface map" and this transition can be obscured by thick cloud layers, motion blur, a cut-scene or any number of other methods to provide the sensation of going through an atmosphere of sorts.

I've seen every game up to Star Citizen which has the most impressive presentation yet, but still falls in the later category in which the transition is just that.

A game such as Minecraft, has a finite limit to the depths one may dig down and ascend to the skies limit. However, there is an "infinitely" procedurally generated terrain for the players moving along the X axis. The player will never circumnavigate their world. This however is by design, as the game doesn't intend to ever wrap around because it isn't spherical and this is geometrically impossible. This example is more of an aside.

I feel that it is peculiar that we may generate such surreal first person environments in the computer, but fail to reproduce a, to-scale reproduction of a spherical earth.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2016, 05:48:30 AM »
I've posted this before on a forum that is now closed and thought I would try again.

The 3D engines that the gaming industry uses to create games using a first person perspective have all used a mapping engine that produces flat maps with the a flat horizon.

Use of a 3D engine to create spheres representing planets in space with the surface interaction visible and interacting with the space between other planets are all out of scale.

Use of a 3D engine to create spheres representing planets in space with no surface interaction visible are actually representations of an in-engine planet but upon approaching close proximity of this representation a transition occurs in which you exit the "space map" and load a "planet surface map" and this transition can be obscured by thick cloud layers, motion blur, a cut-scene or any number of other methods to provide the sensation of going through an atmosphere of sorts.

I've seen every game up to Star Citizen which has the most impressive presentation yet, but still falls in the later category in which the transition is just that.

A game such as Minecraft, has a finite limit to the depths one may dig down and ascend to the skies limit. However, there is an "infinitely" procedurally generated terrain for the players moving along the X axis. The player will never circumnavigate their world. This however is by design, as the game doesn't intend to ever wrap around because it isn't spherical and this is geometrically impossible. This example is more of an aside.

I feel that it is peculiar that we may generate such surreal first person environments in the computer, but fail to reproduce a, to-scale reproduction of a spherical earth.

Not only that, engineering programs like autocad only operate on xyz coordinates on a flat plane.

No engineering project, no matter how big or small, is designed with a spherical earth in mind.

You would think that would be a rather important consideration when designing long bridges or extremely tall buildings.

*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2016, 06:15:47 AM »
TheTruthIsOnHere,
I've had the same results of your findings stated in your response.

This is significant in that if a program such as CAD produces "digital" designs that are then implemented in a "non-digital" environment governed apparently by the same limitations of the software.

This would presumably lead to our environment having a 3 axis orientation and would be subject to the same restraints as the purely digital environment, CAD. Plank Length comes to mind immediately and may be relevant as a 3 axis environment is would be based on a flat plane.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2016, 06:44:04 AM »
The 3D engines that the gaming industry uses to create games using a first person perspective have all used a mapping engine that produces flat maps with the a flat horizon....Use of a 3D engine to create spheres representing planets in space with the surface interaction visible and interacting with the space between other planets are all out of scale....I feel that it is peculiar that we may generate such surreal first person environments in the computer, but fail to reproduce a, to-scale reproduction of a spherical earth.
I suspect the reasons have to do with doing only as much calculation and rendering as is needed for good gameplay.  And at least one game I play does bother with rendering spherical worlds in-game: Kerbal Space Program.  Of course, putting ships in orbit around spherical objects is kinda the point of that game, making that level of rendering a part of the gameplay.

Not only that, engineering programs like autocad only operate on xyz coordinates on a flat plane.
Incorrect.  Autocad USUALLY operates on xyz flat planes, but on those rare occasions where it is needed you can get GIS support: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/AutoCAD-Core/files/GUID-14B82899-9C2D-4A34-8A02-49319C6FB38C-htm.html

No engineering project, no matter how big or small, is designed with a spherical earth in mind.
Incorrect.  Small projects, sure.  MOST projects, in fact.  Big projects like you mentioned in your next sentence, they DO take it into account. The web is full of references to bridge pillars being slightly farther apart at the top than at their base.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2016, 07:52:59 AM »
Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2016, 02:19:14 AM »
Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2016, 08:05:50 AM »


Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

Yes it did. Only thing it doesn't model is atmospheric refraction, from a perspective relevant to this debate. Check the SDK.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4766
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2016, 09:52:59 PM »
Ahem.
http://www.virtualglobebook.com/


Did you actually read any of that? It's about modeling a globe, in particular like the one used by Google Earth.

Not at all the same as designing a game that accurately adheres to physics on an enormous curved plane.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4766
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2016, 01:38:46 AM »
Ahem.
http://www.virtualglobebook.com/


Did you actually read any of that? It's about modeling a globe, in particular like the one used by Google Earth.

Not at all the same as designing a game that accurately adheres to physics on an enormous curved plane.
First of all, the OP didn't say anything about accurate spherical physics, just accurate spherical rendering.

Secondly. just because gaming physics engines don't use accurate globe models, that doesn't mean that physics engines can't be added to accurate globe models.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 01:41:44 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2016, 02:50:27 AM »
"Gravity" is fairly easy to program on a flat plane... Just a downward force on the z axis. I can imagine it can get a lot more complicated when it goes from a simple downward force to instead some kind of complex geodesic magnetic force. Not saying it's impossible to program, but no game I've ever played does that

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2016, 06:11:13 AM »
"Gravity" is fairly easy to program on a flat plane... Just a downward force on the z axis. I can imagine it can get a lot more complicated when it goes from a simple downward force to instead some kind of complex geodesic magnetic force. Not saying it's impossible to program, but no game I've ever played does that
Hey, something must be wrong.  Yes, I quite agree that you have hit the nail on the head! It's a lot easier.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2016, 10:09:11 AM »
"Gravity" is fairly easy to program on a flat plane... Just a downward force on the z axis. I can imagine it can get a lot more complicated when it goes from a simple downward force to instead some kind of complex geodesic magnetic force. Not saying it's impossible to program, but no game I've ever played does that

Own goal really.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2016, 04:44:14 PM »
"Gravity" is fairly easy to program on a flat plane... Just a downward force on the z axis. I can imagine it can get a lot more complicated when it goes from a simple downward force to instead some kind of complex geodesic magnetic force. Not saying it's impossible to program, but no game I've ever played does that

Own goal really.

What the hell does that even mean? Lol sorry I dont follow non American football

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2016, 04:52:41 PM »
"Gravity" is fairly easy to program on a flat plane... Just a downward force on the z axis. I can imagine it can get a lot more complicated when it goes from a simple downward force to instead some kind of complex geodesic magnetic force. Not saying it's impossible to program, but no game I've ever played does that

Own goal really.

What the hell does that even mean? Lol sorry I dont follow non American football
I'm not surprised :)
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2016, 05:16:20 AM »


Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

Yes it did. Only thing it doesn't model is atmospheric refraction, from a perspective relevant to this debate. Check the SDK.

It doesn't, there is still a transition between planetside and space. This is currently unachievable or impossible.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2016, 08:26:33 AM »


Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

Yes it did. Only thing it doesn't model is atmospheric refraction, from a perspective relevant to this debate. Check the SDK.

It doesn't, there is still a transition between planetside and space. This is currently unachievable or impossible.
I doubt that "atmospheric refraction" would matter much, it's not more than 0.5° and since the transition is gradual it would hardly be missed.

"This is currently unachievable or impossible" Really?
According to you! But, surely a bit of "magic" is all it would take.

Re: 3D engines fails to reproduce round earth as we experience it
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2016, 04:24:13 PM »
If the real world were anything like a video game, I would put in the 'all guns' cheat code and blow you away right now.