Planets: square or spherical?

For me it's an easy decision: True sphere planets all the way. I also have a little to contribute here...

There are things that we know as cold hard facts & others that Uber are at least looking in to (because they have said as much):

1. The game will support at least 2 displays.
2. The game will be able to run in windowed mode.
3. Multiple windows within the displays will be possible (& hopefully configurable).
4. A 2D minimap does not give an accurate representation of a true 3D sphere.
5. If a wrapped rectangle is used then a 2D minimap is still feasible.
6. Wrapped rectangles work differently to true spheres and may cause issues with orbital layer and beyond.

There are also some things that I would add under assumptions:

A. At ground level units will be displayed as per the concept video.
B. When strat zoom is used and units become too small, they will be viewed as tac icons.
C. When strat zoom is at planetary level, icons will be used to represent groups of units/structures.
D. At system wide strat zoom level planets will have minimal detail. Icons will represent locations of groups of structures. The rest of the information may be in the form of statistics.

With all that said, I would like to repost something I said in another topic when someone asked a similar question.

Based on this, I would like to flesh it out a little more:
For example, I would like to see real sphere planets on a planetary scale rotate on it's axis at a reasonable speed so that I can see the whole surface over a period of say, 10 seconds.
I would suggest anything below that level of zoom, for example, tactical level and below to remain stationary over the point I left it. I would at this point say that at system wide level rotation becomes irrelevant. Things are just too small to see and that is why all you really need to know is statistics. Stuff like number of units and structures, number of factories and a ration of busy:idle, number of engineers and a similar ratio of busy:idle. The location of my commander and any other significant units and maybe the rate of resources being produced on that planet, that sort of thing.

While I'm thinking about it, that's not bad information to have to hand at any time. And possibly at system wide level it would be nice to see totals as well as individual planet stats.

A nice feature would be to have a way of managing your windows, in game, with minimal input:
A single display example could be something like; you start off with one screen and that is focused on your commander. There is a button that you can click to create a new window that will automatically clip to the side of the screen, maybe in a preconfigurable position. Every click of the new window button creates a new window that clips into the next position until there are the maximum number of windows open.

Each time the player clicks on a window's button or performs a combination click (for example: shift+LMB), that one becomes the current main window and is replaced by the previous main window. If they do not click the button or use the combination, then the window remains in it's current size and position but is still interactive and can be used to pan or strat zoom and perform all the other functions of the main display. Switching between active windows would be done in the normal way you would in windows by clicking LMB on a window to activate it.

It's a simple interface that provides a lot of power for the player. Over two displays this could work differently again, using one display for the main view and the other display for the smaller ones.

EDITED: I forgot to mention that when observing a planet at planetary zoom level it would be nice to be able to rotate the plant manually. This could be done by simply activating the window and using the arrow keys. Maybe you could even have set points on a map that you could give a control group. Just thinking aloud.

Guess i missed that

Could you explain your sig to me, or where you got the quote from?

Try clicking the link that's also in his sig... There you'll see ayceeem telling the developers to refute what neutrino (one of the project leads) said.

Yeah, it was just a hilarious moment when ACM derped and went off half-cocked. Neutrino was making claims about discussion on the PA forums (because he can, he's a developer), ACM both 1) didn't like people arguing against him, and 2) didn't realise who Neutrino is, and wanted someone to step in and bat for him.

Thanks for the explanation

Only that was totally the wrong context people got from it.

Care to give us context?

At the moment, you're not doing anything to correct us.

I thought I had already clarified myself in a post after that one.

But the context was unless the developer lead changed his mind on his statement then chronoblip was a liar.

Is it just Poe's Law in action? I re-read your comment in that thread, and I still don't understand what the hell you were doing.

Ack! You responded before I tidied mine. You might want to check it again.

lots to be done with this, I think it should be implemented

Nice necro, Tatsu

worth it. this is a genius idea, can't believe it's not big news. We should suggest it to the devs.