Indeed, Horizons never, ever had any issues with surface generation...
Did it...
Please commit to rerolling the planets...
- Thread starter Aashenfox
- Start date
2 wrongs doesn't make a right.
And they were nowhere near visible or common in horizon than in odyssey.
Not really, when it came to terrain complexity, no. Sometimes the terrain would go a bit triangular, but you could move a bit to a different location within a few km and it'd be fine again
I bet i know how this discussion (again) will end...
all that I feel can be fixed and complained about but re rolling because you dont like the out come of how something looks well we all know that wont happen
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
I can only speak for my own experience but never like this before Odyssey that I've seen personally. I'm sure there are others with different experience and I respect that. I haven't been everywhere ovbiously
Reroll need to happen when it's the terrain itself which is borked, not just the texture.
Stuff like the "flat" terrain, or the "jagged fake mountain" can't be changed without rerolling.
I know, it's still very important to me, so I'll keep on anyway. It's just sad that so many people who claim to be "fan of the game" will defend bugs and issues in their supposedly loved game, for some unfathomable reason.
I'm not out exploring BECAUSE of the terrain gen. It hurts to see all those bad planet. For me.
I sure as crap ain't buying with what I've seen posted regardless of what looks good. What doesn't looks worse than what does justifies.
They wanted to implement PBR shaders, which can improve the visual quality of the materials. They just messed up something and basically have a broken shader pipeline in the rendering engine. While they were doing shader improvements, and believe you me PBR shaders are an improvement if used right, they wanted to tweak the height maps as well, but messed up something there as well.I fell like, why didn't fdev just use the surface assets already available? All those non station surface installations were already placed and not needed new planetary pooch screwing
they could have done something that doesn't change all the established planetary surfaces in a 7 year old game.
Perhaps only newly added atmospheric worlds would have been needed to accommodate their lack of ingenuity but NOT at the cost of THE ENTIRE GALAXY.
At least now I have a literal comparable reference when saying something is a galactic f@#$ up
Basically, I can understand their intentions, it was all about future-proofing the engine. What ended up happing is, that their intentions ended up in an entirely wrong direction, which has been a huge dent on Elite as well as Frontier.
Ah yes but the odyssey terrain is just more realistic you see?! It may look bad to you because its not as fantasy as it used to be in that old Horizons planet tech. This is what mountains really look like.
Attachments
400 billion systems I have seen perhaps ten examples to both side the test bed is to small to come to any conclusions yet
PBR = Pabst Blue Ribbon in the USA. So I have to assume PBR shaders to be...
Not sure how it will help, but I'd have a beer with ya
Yeah, a few "better looking than horizon" planet (already debatable) doesn't hide the fact I have to go through dozen of donwgraded planet.
I don't ask to have only "better planet". I'd settle with having planets that are on the same level of quality than Horizon. Really. I guess I'm very demanding.
I wouldn't be surprised someone uses Ayer's rock to prove you wrong (IE anomaly is the norm). Or some 1960 moon picture, blurrier than a sasquatch picture.Ah yes but the odyssey terrain is just more realistic you see?! It may look bad to you because its not as fantasy as it used to be in that old Horizons planet tech. This is what mountains really look like.
I stopped exploring 2h into the expansion because it was terrible. Eventually, you only have one side that will continue posting. The one that is not bothered by the terrible stuff.
Also, we are not speaking of the galaxy in its entirety. We are speaking of the planet we visit and how we feel.
Deleted member 38366
D
What often bugs me is approaching ~10km Altitude and less.
The Surface on Rocky/HMC Planets then often shows clear linear patterns, like pearl strings.
Getting closer, for a certain phase of the approach it can look like LowRes Perlin Noise that's missing precision (like a critical part is using fast FP16 instead of FP64).
The results vary depending on surface - but more often than not it's super obvious and can look extremely ugly.
The Hills I'm seeing can at times remind me of very old 16bit Versions of Bryce, with the Heightmap being visibly "pulled" up into Altitude per Tile, which together with the excessive rounding currently often looks very artificial and unnatural.
btw. I'm experimenting with "UltraForCapture" Terrain Detail Setting - and at Altitude or at a Distance it about looks like what I'd expect it to look at Very High or Ultra Setting in terms of Detail.
For what it's worth, it could still be caused by the Alpha State of the Renderer, but with vertical lighting conditions, Rocky/HMC Surfaces can still look like they're completely missing an entire LOD layer or even two.
Up-close, the Tiling on the Surface (~ 10x10m or so) then is additionally very obvious (square elevation/tilting per tile), which at its worst almost looks like old DirectX 5 Surface Geometry., since it's so obvious and artificial.
That looks like it would need that missing LOD layer plus a very healthy amount of Tesselation or something to give it structure.
-----------------------
So all in all, I think the Icy Planets currently do best, while Rocky/HMC (presumably Metal-rich as well) requiring alot of love.
I'd agree that Planet Generation for the latter of those body types would benefit from a mathematical rework.
Although not part of the current generation, some more (careful) artistic freedom might be needed to "spice" them if required.
Unsure what else one could do about that "low precision perlin noise-type FX" of the heightmaps and the results, that requires one of the "ProcGen Engine Coneheads" to burn a few braincellls on
The Surface on Rocky/HMC Planets then often shows clear linear patterns, like pearl strings.
Getting closer, for a certain phase of the approach it can look like LowRes Perlin Noise that's missing precision (like a critical part is using fast FP16 instead of FP64).
The results vary depending on surface - but more often than not it's super obvious and can look extremely ugly.
The Hills I'm seeing can at times remind me of very old 16bit Versions of Bryce, with the Heightmap being visibly "pulled" up into Altitude per Tile, which together with the excessive rounding currently often looks very artificial and unnatural.
btw. I'm experimenting with "UltraForCapture" Terrain Detail Setting - and at Altitude or at a Distance it about looks like what I'd expect it to look at Very High or Ultra Setting in terms of Detail.
For what it's worth, it could still be caused by the Alpha State of the Renderer, but with vertical lighting conditions, Rocky/HMC Surfaces can still look like they're completely missing an entire LOD layer or even two.
Up-close, the Tiling on the Surface (~ 10x10m or so) then is additionally very obvious (square elevation/tilting per tile), which at its worst almost looks like old DirectX 5 Surface Geometry., since it's so obvious and artificial.
That looks like it would need that missing LOD layer plus a very healthy amount of Tesselation or something to give it structure.
-----------------------
So all in all, I think the Icy Planets currently do best, while Rocky/HMC (presumably Metal-rich as well) requiring alot of love.
I'd agree that Planet Generation for the latter of those body types would benefit from a mathematical rework.
Although not part of the current generation, some more (careful) artistic freedom might be needed to "spice" them if required.
Unsure what else one could do about that "low precision perlin noise-type FX" of the heightmaps and the results, that requires one of the "ProcGen Engine Coneheads" to burn a few braincellls on
Last edited by a moderator:
We've seen enough to understand the generation differences between models. It's not without the realms of possibility that something might emerge that breaks the EDO model a bit and provides something good, but there were many in Horizons, so the model has clearly been significantly downgraded in terms of this thread's topic.
Again; it's not replace the nice new flatter style stuff - it's include both - because people had a game built around that, and it's been thrown away.
Edit: I'll stress this point again. Despite the view of some that things might look more 'realistic' in EDO (which is arguable), the fact is it destroyed an entire way of playing the game for lots of people. This is why we see threads like this....and they could have done both
Planets made from Ghostbusters 2 pink slime confirmedAh yes but the odyssey terrain is just more realistic you see?! It may look bad to you because its not as fantasy as it used to be in that old Horizons planet tech. This is what mountains really look like.
PBR = Pabst Blue Ribbon in the USA. So I have to assume PBR shaders to be...
View attachment 244496
Not sure how it will help, but I'd have a beer with ya
I've heard it's basically bilge water, but having never tried it, I guess I can take it.
But PBR stands for Physically Based Rendering and is trying to render the graphics according to the real flow of light.
mona lisa or picasso seems to be the argument