Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | RA2lover's commentslogin

Only if WW3 happens during a transfer window.


True, the flight duration will vary depending on conditions. :)


How could this be extended to a negative bomb space like in Bombe (https://store.steampowered.com/app/2262930/Bombe/)?


My understanding is Space Engineers takes the "blocky sphere" approach mentioned early in the post, works around the "walk along its surface" part of the problem by making gravity direction point towards a fixed point, and bypasses the "trying to build 'upward'" part of it by not allowing voxel construction. It doesn't use a quad-sphere at all.


Correct, which is why I said they didn’t go half as far as the OP did. Most stop at quadsphere after realizing their blocks are no longer square.


Eco: Global Survival (https://play.eco/) bypassed the distortion problem entirely by using an undistorted flat voxel grid, but rendering the globe view as a torisphere.

It still has the tradeoff of making travel close to the center take longer than it should on a sphere (worked around by limiting diggable height), but i find it a more elegant solution.


It's an elegant rendering trick, but if their worlds are represented as a torus, then I expect this would make rotation on a spherical globe view unintuitive.

One example of this: I would expect each location would not have a single antipode (opposite coordinate) but would instead have three. If you were to start at location A, rotate travel 180 degrees along the latitudinal axis to location B, then 180 degrees around the longitudinal axis... on a sphere you would expect to be back at location A, albeit upside down. But on a torus, you are in a completely different location, which is the 'C' antipode. Rotating 180 degrees latitudinally from here will bring you to point D, the last of the antipode set.


I don't find it to be a problem as planning a route from A to B isn't done by looking directly for it, but by subconsciously referring to and plotting a path through landmarks along the way that aren't close to antipodal.

One of the worlds i played on had road planning from the start and a set of roadways covering the entire world in a 4x4 square grid. Pathing to point D was just a matter of going 2 blocks in one direction, and 2 blocks in an orthogonal to it.

In a world without such roadways, you'd look for landmarks such as oceans and continents instead.

Ultimately, you don't care if somewhere is antipodal or not because you never see the antipodes to where the globe is currently looking at without rotating the globe.


I had a similar idea while reading this article, it’s very cool to see someone implemented it!


It's 10% of natural mercury. you're looking into separating it cheaply instead, or at least hope the other naturally occuring isotopes don't cause too many problems.


If it's that easy to separate from natural mercury then it seems like they could make a fortune just separating it and selling the separated mercury.

Something isn't adding up


Maybe there is not a huge need for isotopically pure mercury so the current price is not reflective of acquisition/manufacturing costs?


Yeah, it’s expensive because nobody needs it so the process is very small scale and essentially a bespoke isotope separation service.


What are the banksy-equivalents of other worlds?


as someone with little knowledge on materials science, what managed to convince apple this wasn't feasible the first time around?


What's with the 12-34-21-33 loop shown on Concorde's st70 path as shown on OP's article? You'd expect it to avoid intersecting routes in a final answer to a given problem.




That research is linked in this article


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: