How do you understand the "heatmap" for planet exploration?
- Thread starter Trowa Deathwind
- Start date
Going back to the OP's original question...
On a different thread, fdev Zac Cocken replied to a question very similar to this yesterday where he stated :-
"Hey all, blue areas basically mean the organics can be found in those areas as they meet the conditions. It doesn't mean that every part of that blue area will contain the organics though. The slight shading is just the planet topography underneath."
This cannot be overstated when it concerns the so-called 'heatmap' which is produced from the Detailed Surface Scanner.
To put any, and all misconceptions to rest regarding the results from the Detailed Surface Scanner, ignore ALL the different shadings of blue shown, it means NOTHING, it's either blue or it's not. My previous post on this matter sums it better here.
While on this subject, while this mapping tool is actually very useful once you understand it's simplicity and that it's NOT a heatmap, it is still lacking the ability to tell the player which Geo / Bio's the player has already found each time they use this feature.
For example, when I use the Detailed Surface Scanner on planets/moons with 3 or more Biological sites and I go back into orbit to change the filter tool to see the locations of the next Biological site, there is no indication that I may have already found 1 or more type of Biological lifeforms and often waste time going back to land on the planet searching for stuff I have already found/identified. So in this example, the Biological Specie already identified are not updated in the results from the Detailed Surface Scanner.
On a different thread, fdev Zac Cocken replied to a question very similar to this yesterday where he stated :-
"Hey all, blue areas basically mean the organics can be found in those areas as they meet the conditions. It doesn't mean that every part of that blue area will contain the organics though. The slight shading is just the planet topography underneath."
This cannot be overstated when it concerns the so-called 'heatmap' which is produced from the Detailed Surface Scanner.
To put any, and all misconceptions to rest regarding the results from the Detailed Surface Scanner, ignore ALL the different shadings of blue shown, it means NOTHING, it's either blue or it's not. My previous post on this matter sums it better here.
While on this subject, while this mapping tool is actually very useful once you understand it's simplicity and that it's NOT a heatmap, it is still lacking the ability to tell the player which Geo / Bio's the player has already found each time they use this feature.
For example, when I use the Detailed Surface Scanner on planets/moons with 3 or more Biological sites and I go back into orbit to change the filter tool to see the locations of the next Biological site, there is no indication that I may have already found 1 or more type of Biological lifeforms and often waste time going back to land on the planet searching for stuff I have already found/identified. So in this example, the Biological Specie already identified are not updated in the results from the Detailed Surface Scanner.
Last edited:
"The slight shading is just the planet topography underneath."
Nonsense. You can clearly see the same terrain is giving different shading for the different types of life that are in the same area:
Having done lots of vision image inspection with filters etc. I suspect the shades are a result of the filtering tools they are using. Without being an FDev programmer and based on my experience this is how I suspect it works:
Various shades of blue represents regions of the planet that meets requirements for the selected bio to exist. Not that it will exist there. The different shades represent areas that meet certain criteria, but their aren't many shades assigned and their characteristics overlap so it is difficult to make a strong correlation. The various characteristics evaluated likely include:
- temperature
- variation of temperature(?)
- amount of light and/or dark
- elevation (atmospheric pressure?)
- surface material composition
- atmospheric conditions(?)
Depending on the bio filter selected the blue shading is different, but still roughly shows the terrain underneath. Generally because the various characteristics often correspond to geographic differences. The shading will be different for each bio because the characteristics being searched for have different results.
Why would FDev include shading that can't be relied on? Because it does show geographic features underneath and looks waaaay better than just solid blue. But the method does not allow them to reliably say different shades mean anything regarding bio locations.
Supporting Observations:
- A specific bio might be found in a certain shade of blue, but never in another. That's because all the criteria aren't met.
- Certain shades of blue are more reliable for some bio, but not others.
That is absolutely not true.
Exactly. The most greenish (well visible on the bottom pic) hue is what you should look for (except for Osseus, probably). Sometimes it's a multitude of small spots of that hue in a field of a darker blue, giving an overall different hue from a distance, but resolving at closer range.
Now Osseus is weird, especially if you get a proper greenish hue over almost entire planet... And Osseus is just not there. You need to check rocky outcrops in those areas, and still it can be damn rare.
Last edited:
here is nice fdev official telling you something about the blue shades. again.
"The slight shading" (darker/lighter) - yes, but different hues of blue/cyan mean different levels of "suitability" for the organic, and different chances of finding it. It's just what I see from doing a lot of exobiology. Sometimes it's worth circling the planet to find a small area of that greenish cyan in the ocean of blue to find something quickly instead of long long searching.
Fungi & bact can be hard to find too (probably all types can be hard sometimes), but I believe the same rules apply as for the rest; look in the greeny-blue patches for an improved chance of finding them.
Thanks for digging out the community manager quote Shadowsnog.
Look at the first of my two pictures. There is a kind of "ring around the bath" of a darker shade for one bio type. For the other, that darker shade is not there. It's not underlying topography - it is different shading, even though it's still a blue area and still the same terrain. In the second picture that area is lighter in shade by far, and greener.
I understand it as blue means there is some of whatever the filter is set to in that area.
So to maximise my chances of finding that bio I select the smallest patch of blue as that will give it fewer places to hide. If some other bios blue zone overlaps then all the better.
I am aware that there are different shades/tints/hues/sorts of blue showing but I have never found a consistent correlation between that and my chances of finding stuff. I suspect if it is there it is like the preferred habitat of some of the bios which is slightly different in different regions of the galaxy.
So it is sort of like the old rule in English about ie or ei, which can be summed up as i before e except when it isn’t.
So to maximise my chances of finding that bio I select the smallest patch of blue as that will give it fewer places to hide. If some other bios blue zone overlaps then all the better.
I am aware that there are different shades/tints/hues/sorts of blue showing but I have never found a consistent correlation between that and my chances of finding stuff. I suspect if it is there it is like the preferred habitat of some of the bios which is slightly different in different regions of the galaxy.
So it is sort of like the old rule in English about ie or ei, which can be summed up as i before e except when it isn’t.
iirc actual heatmap was the original design which was later ditched, so id guess those are artefacts of previous versions. maybe there are some environmental indicators that affect the map for each plant differently.
one way or the other i think ill go with the actual official explanation rather than spin some fairy tales about how i feel how something should work...
"I before E except after C, when the sound is 'ee'" works.
I'm intrigued by the level of elevation idea, and also the greenish-more-likely idea. I'll have a look into both.
I still wish they changed that horrendous cyan that makes me want to rip my eyes off. It's extremely ugly, and makes otherwise stunning beautiful planets look extremely ugly, plus it removes any possible atmosphere from the visuals, making thin-atmosphered planets even uglier. Eg. landing on such a thin-atmosphered planet can look stunning, especially if the planet is being illuminated from certain angles... except if you have scanned the planet and the ugly-ass cyan map has removed the atmosphere completely.
Yes, I know that I can switch the cockpit mode to combat and that makes the planet look normal, but it's annoying to have to do that in an exploration ship. I usually do that, just for the visuals, but I wish I didn't have to. (After all, if I'm intending on landing on a blue spot, I then need to be switching between the two modes. Or just keep the exploration mode on, making everything look really ugly.)
It wasn't always like that. I understand that the original heatmap confused players, but I don't really care. At least it looked more decent. Bring it back. And keep the atmosphere on even when the heatmap is visible.
Yes, I know that I can switch the cockpit mode to combat and that makes the planet look normal, but it's annoying to have to do that in an exploration ship. I usually do that, just for the visuals, but I wish I didn't have to. (After all, if I'm intending on landing on a blue spot, I then need to be switching between the two modes. Or just keep the exploration mode on, making everything look really ugly.)
It wasn't always like that. I understand that the original heatmap confused players, but I don't really care. At least it looked more decent. Bring it back. And keep the atmosphere on even when the heatmap is visible.
If it was just a simple tint overlay, the underlying terrain would be virtually unchanged. just coloured. There is probably some additional processing that modifies the ground colours into shades of blue that mean little or nothing.
I also keep in mind the PWA and cores where what colours seemed to be heavily dependent on your machines graphics settings etc whereby many of the guides published looked nothing like what could be seen in game.
As I said above, the planet surface is being examined based on a set of criteria.
The shading of the color map will be different for each bio because the characteristics being searched for have different results.
The blue shading is artifacts of the image filtering tools they are using. Think of it as a complicated ven diagram with a large set of criteria and using only 3 overlapping shades to represent the regions.
So of course your two pictures have different shading results. They both generally follow geographical features, but that's because much of the criteria being examined correlates to geographical features. Elevation, surface material, temperature differences, etc. And this does often correlate to where bio might be found and might be a good starting point to look for stuff. But not reliably. Not nearly as reliable as visually looking at the surface conditions and making a suitable judgement based on experience.
Last edited:
I suspect they chose a color that is not a naturally occurring planetary color. Of course we can't land on water-worlds so blue isn't an issue.
My wish is the overlay map could be toggled on/off regardless of cockpit mode, supercruise, or altitude. Why do we need to be in supercruise to see the map??? And why do we need to be in outer space to change the filter? And I agree, why can't it be toggled off when we are flying around in supercruise and don't want to see it?
No, they don't. There is no heatmap. Heatmap was recalled and never came back. It's just underlying terrain shining through. What you see is likely just having a dark patch coinciding with a terrain feature that prefers to spawn something. The conclusion that this is the same for all these hues is a fallacy.