Terrestrial Communication
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Well, it will never actually get that big. Compression and procedural generation go really long way, especially since natural terrain is decidedly non-random. But the hundreds of MB range may not be terribly unreasonable for a well-explored planet.
- Tau
- Admin
- Posts:750
- Joined:Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:58 am
- Affiliation:Futureville Mafia
- IGN:TehPwnzor7306
- Location:Ancapistan
Re: Terrestrial Communication
But there's still 2 problems:
1. The shortest range possible for a portable radio (with the current ratings) is almost interstellar.
2. If I shortened the ranges to distances on-scale with the planets, it would be too boring / unrealistic.
1. The shortest range possible for a portable radio (with the current ratings) is almost interstellar.
2. If I shortened the ranges to distances on-scale with the planets, it would be too boring / unrealistic.
Vinyl wrote:"RP" and gaming and homosexuality is what's keeping [the forum] afloat.
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts:2312
- Joined:Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:21 pm
- Affiliation:Strigiforme
- IGN:ACH0225
- Location:Cuuyth
Re: Terrestrial Communication
Deal with it? This is hard limits vs creative sensibilities. Which do you think is more important to avoid hitting?
mfw brony imagesfr0stbyte124 wrote:5 months from now, I will publish a paper on an efficient method for rendering millions of owls to a screen.
Spoiler:
- Tau
- Admin
- Posts:750
- Joined:Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:58 am
- Affiliation:Futureville Mafia
- IGN:TehPwnzor7306
- Location:Ancapistan
Re: Terrestrial Communication
Well, I posted this (with extensive modification) to the MC Forums mod suggestion thingy. It's here.
Vinyl wrote:"RP" and gaming and homosexuality is what's keeping [the forum] afloat.
Re: Terrestrial Communication
I wouldn't really like this suggestion personally.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts:3217
- Joined:Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:54 pm
- Affiliation:Hexalan
- IGN:PCaptainRexK
- Location:Hexalan
Re: Terrestrial Communication
Do you honestly think a vague opinion like that is useful to a discussion that ended 10 days ago?
cats wrote:I literally cannot be wrong about this fictional universe
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Re: Terrestrial Communication
I don't think it hurts. Especially since there hasn't been any discussion here in the past 10 days.
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts:2312
- Joined:Sun Dec 09, 2012 10:21 pm
- Affiliation:Strigiforme
- IGN:ACH0225
- Location:Cuuyth
Re: Terrestrial Communication
Think tank is slowing.
mfw brony imagesfr0stbyte124 wrote:5 months from now, I will publish a paper on an efficient method for rendering millions of owls to a screen.
Spoiler:
Re: Terrestrial Communication
I've seen a server plugin that did this, it can't be too hard.Tau wrote:It wouldn't block normal sound, it would just impede the range of the normal MC chat (the text thingy).Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:Making opaque blocks block sound sounds really hard.
Sorry, didn't mean to Necro, this showed as having a new post for some reason.
"Being a christian democrat is like being a christian satanist" - Adam Berces
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts:3021
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:10 pm
- Affiliation:[redacted]
- IGN:Ivan2006
- Location:In a universe.
- Contact:
Re: Terrestrial Communication
The point is that (populated) cities tend to be smaller in MC than in real life due to lower populations.
The same goes for farms, as well as basically everything else.
Therefore it would not make sense for radios to have the same range as IRL either, otherwise range limitations would be pretty pointless.
The same goes for farms, as well as basically everything else.
Therefore it would not make sense for radios to have the same range as IRL either, otherwise range limitations would be pretty pointless.
Quotes:
Spoiler:
Re: Terrestrial Communication
^Ivan2006 wrote:The point is that (populated) cities tend to be smaller in MC than in real life due to lower populations.
The same goes for farms, as well as basically everything else.
Therefore it would not make sense for radios to have the same range as IRL either, otherwise range limitations would be pretty pointless.
I think that if voice was 50 m or so, walkie talkies 1 km, and small, 1 block radio stations planetary, you would have a purpose for big antennas and uplink facilities.
- I can be reached as ducky215 on minecraft forums -
Re: Terrestrial Communication
One-block radio stations covering a planet? I think those one block radios themselves should need a radio tower or something to be able being used properly, and vice versa (And then communication "through" the planet should be impossible with only one tower (and no satellites), that is, with the other side of the world-cube if there isn't another radio tower on the bordering face of it). Communication across space should have even bigger antennas, then, or need a network of several big antennas across the planet's surface, working cumulative with each other and perhaps satellites.
I agree about the range limitations, but as for cities, we should try hard and find a way to make npc-ish populations possible on a rather economic scale. I thought of something less like permanently present entities, but more like npcs going back and forth every now and then between their assigned "home" and working place/s they are attending for doing different kinds of stuff, where they while doing so are replaced with some kind of animated "ghost" for not using too much memory or whatever it is making entities so limited in numbers. Farms could generate food for them, if they require it, which can be stored at some kind of distribution centres that feed them or something... This needs a seperate thread, doesn't it?The point is that (populated) cities tend to be smaller in MC than in real life due to lower populations.
The same goes for farms, as well as basically everything else.
Therefore it would not make sense for radios to have the same range as IRL either, otherwise range limitations would be pretty pointless.
Last edited by Saravanth on Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
5241
"When I get a hold of a Boeing 777 I will stuff it in the cargo bay my freighter and when I find you I will engage in an invasion of your butt that will make 9/11 look like a picnic, Hexalani swine." -Kobialka, 0531015.M3
"Hyperlite, you *." -Tau, 0446015.M3
"When I get a hold of a Boeing 777 I will stuff it in the cargo bay my freighter and when I find you I will engage in an invasion of your butt that will make 9/11 look like a picnic, Hexalani swine." -Kobialka, 0531015.M3
"Hyperlite, you *." -Tau, 0446015.M3
Don't tell anybody, but to this day I have a faint hope for Futurecraft, or something similar to it, to happen. Within my lifetime.
Re: Terrestrial Communication
IIRC broadcasting into space is much easier than broadcasting over the horizon, you basically just point to the patch of sky you want to communicate with and blast it as hard as you can. Of course, that does require significantly more power, but it's still... simpler.Saravanth wrote:One-block radio stations covering a planet? I think those one block radios themselves should need a radio tower or something to be able being used properly, and vice versa (And then communication "through" the planet should be impossible with only one tower (and no satellites), that is, with the other side of the world-cube if there isn't another radio tower on the bordering face of it). Communication across space should have even bigger antennas, then, or need a network of several big antennas across the planet's surface, working cumulative with each other and perhaps satellites.
"Being a christian democrat is like being a christian satanist" - Adam Berces
Re: Terrestrial Communication
Should we make it so realistic that you have to face the face with the communication tower? So, if you want permanent communications with spacecraft you'd need three of the six faces given a communication tower, as they could legitimately cover the bordering faces? Or maybe, we could make it possible to communicate with planets farther away the more of the interplanetar com towers you group?CMA wrote:IIRC broadcasting into space is much easier than broadcasting over the horizon, you basically just point to the patch of sky you want to communicate with and blast it as hard as you can. Of course, that does require significantly more power, but it's still... simpler.Saravanth wrote:One-block radio stations covering a planet? I think those one block radios themselves should need a radio tower or something to be able being used properly, and vice versa (And then communication "through" the planet should be impossible with only one tower (and no satellites), that is, with the other side of the world-cube if there isn't another radio tower on the bordering face of it). Communication across space should have even bigger antennas, then, or need a network of several big antennas across the planet's surface, working cumulative with each other and perhaps satellites.
5241
"When I get a hold of a Boeing 777 I will stuff it in the cargo bay my freighter and when I find you I will engage in an invasion of your butt that will make 9/11 look like a picnic, Hexalani swine." -Kobialka, 0531015.M3
"Hyperlite, you *." -Tau, 0446015.M3
"When I get a hold of a Boeing 777 I will stuff it in the cargo bay my freighter and when I find you I will engage in an invasion of your butt that will make 9/11 look like a picnic, Hexalani swine." -Kobialka, 0531015.M3
"Hyperlite, you *." -Tau, 0446015.M3
Don't tell anybody, but to this day I have a faint hope for Futurecraft, or something similar to it, to happen. Within my lifetime.
Re: Terrestrial Communication
I suppose we could simulate different antenna... whatever things, they're almost all deformed spheres IIRC. Tau probably knows a lot about this. Although I just thought we make a sphere with the antenna at the origin, set the radius to the range of the radio, and then deform the sphere... well, that's basically simulating radios. It'd be easiest just to 'find' the radio you're trying to reach, and then see if it's too far away, but that remove the element of someone overhearing you, or detecting your transmitter. I suppose we could 'fake' that effect, but it would be cool to have realistic radios.Saravanth wrote:Should we make it so realistic that you have to face the face with the communication tower? So, if you want permanent communications with spacecraft you'd need three of the six faces given a communication tower, as they could legitimately cover the bordering faces? Or maybe, we could make it possible to communicate with planets farther away the more of the interplanetar com towers you group?CMA wrote:IIRC broadcasting into space is much easier than broadcasting over the horizon, you basically just point to the patch of sky you want to communicate with and blast it as hard as you can. Of course, that does require significantly more power, but it's still... simpler.Saravanth wrote:One-block radio stations covering a planet? I think those one block radios themselves should need a radio tower or something to be able being used properly, and vice versa (And then communication "through" the planet should be impossible with only one tower (and no satellites), that is, with the other side of the world-cube if there isn't another radio tower on the bordering face of it). Communication across space should have even bigger antennas, then, or need a network of several big antennas across the planet's surface, working cumulative with each other and perhaps satellites.
"Being a christian democrat is like being a christian satanist" - Adam Berces