New Planet Tech is KILLER of Exploration (all terrain is tiling/repeating/not procedural/random)

[Erei]

But they don't look like crap. It is not a killer of exploration. You are posting examples of personal taste, not actual issues. It's a shame people just can't tell the difference, and somehow thinks that general statements automatically become the opinion of everybody.

The game isn't fine, the tech is creaking. But all this hyperbole is getting extremely tiresome.

S

Hyperbole ? Just say I'm straight up lying, at least that'd be honest.
Apparently this is personal taste :

This to (very flat world with no details):

Or this (circles mine)

And perhaps this ?

Do you want me to keep going ? Still have a dozen of them.

 

[Andro]

No it's the same type tech used to populate planetary rings with rocks. At a distance, it is easy to see patterns in how the rocks are seeded. It is not as easy closer up as randomness seem to be added at the very end, to what is otherwise templates for landscape types, formations and features.

You people really need to start accepting limitations of the tech and instead focussing your efforts on finding actual issues with the game. Beating on the developer just because you can find patterns at a distance is pointless and counterproductive.

S

It has positives and negatives. I'm glad you like it, but it could be better and everyone who purchased Odyssey deserves better than what we got.

I hadn't seen anyone say before that it was a tech limitation, so I'll address that by quoting Braben, who said "bad procedural generation is art that hasn't felt the love of an artist". I agree, and I think that what we are seeing now isn't a limitation of the tech and more of a lack of vision and good techniques to mask out repeating patterns, and blend pre-made terrain stamps so patterns are harder to be noticed.

This is possible, and I'm telling you this as someone who has worked with Unreal Engine for a few years, even though terrain isn't my area of expertise. The downside of using a lot of these generation techniques together is performance cost. That's why I speculate the Dev Diary planets were so drastically different than they are now. The underlying tech was tried and weighed against performance cost, and they swung the pendulum (too far in my opinion) in the other direction.

Spoiler: A comparison

I would say that the planet tech is one of, if not my greatest "actual issues" with Odyssey right now, so I'll keep on voicing my opinion on it. Again, glad you enjoy it.

 

[alexzk]

This to (very flat world with no details):

Guess why? Maybe because wind works such during billion years?
....and all others in your post ...
All have natural explanations. It is not like to be pleasant for you, this game simulates real things. So yes, wind may do all flat in billion years.

 

[Erei]

All have natural explanations. It is not like to be pleasant for you, this game simulates real things. So yes, wind may do all flat in billion years.

Ok then, what's the texture seams explanation ? The low quality texturing explanation ? The Twin rocks ? The weird track posted earlier ? The "dragon" planet ? The plague of similar shaped crater all over the galaxy ? The pixel art ? The stretched textures ?
The wind ?

 

[Agrar Therenus]

You people have real problems with match for 170+ pages.
There are 400 BILLIONS of stars, so we can say there are about TRILLION planets you can land on.
So to say what you keep saying here, you must to visit at least 1 billion planets yourself. Then it will be +/- representative.
Spent on this planet 5 hours today, just looking views. I would like to have house there. And it is 1 of many randoms

https://imgur.com/44QgaHa

Source: https://i.imgur.com/44QgaHa.jpg

Incorrect. I've had this argument before and well, amusingly enough, exoplanetary science in reality explains it.

How exactly do they know there are trillions of planets, when they've only found a few thousand? Surely in your words they have to find a billion or so to make such statistical statements? No.

The VERY FACT we have found so many examples out of trillions is itself a indicator of the commonality of this issue. If it was super rare we wouldn't have found any yet, unless of course someone has won the lottery.

 

[alexzk]

The weird track posted earlier

Wrong question. Proper is, where is liquid which made it
That was moving ice or/and river, then it's gone - and you see that tracks. I saw standing rocks once.
And only I had question - where are all liquids?
P.S. possibly we're allowed to land dead planets only like Mars which had liquid before.

 

[Sysmon]

Ok then, what's the texture seams explanation ? The low quality texturing explanation ? The Twin rocks ? The weird track posted earlier ? The "dragon" planet ? The plague of similar shaped crater all over the galaxy ? The pixel art ? The stretched textures ?
The wind ?

Texture seams: Real issue.
Low quality textures: May be problem at your end.
Twin rocks: That is odd, so hopefully it has been reported.
Weird track: Images from a large distance would show tiling before final rendering (as we have known since 2016).
What dragon planet?
Craters are created in a very similar fashion everywhere. There are other issues than that they look the same (I've posted about that myself elsewhere). Modelling of asteroid impacts have shown it very hard to get different shapes than a near-perfect circle.

S

 

[Amy Pendergast]

They didn't say exact what's wrong. For example I see shadows in empty air - it fits to their words too.
For now i see all different where I land randomly. I can't decide what to set as wallpaper, because each next planet gives different nice views.

I'm really weary of this discussion.

If people would enter a thread and actually read it before commenting we wouldn't have exactly the same discussion over and over for the last 50+ pages.

Before that both sides incl. Frontier accepted that there were bugs like not enough prefabs etc.

But I think reading is a lost art in the modern times.

Have fun o7

 

[Erei]

Texture seams: Real issue.
Low quality textures: May be problem at your end.
Twin rocks: That is odd, so hopefully it has been reported.
Weird track: Images from a large distance would show tiling before final rendering (as we have known since 2016).
What dragon planet?
Craters are created in a very similar fashion everywhere. There are other issues than that they look the same (I've posted about that myself elsewhere). Modelling of asteroid impacts have shown it very hard to get different shapes than a near-perfect circle.

S

Hey I got several issues that were reported in this thread acknowledged as actual issue by you. It's almost as we actually report issues !
Dragon planet, that's the name the community give it (I let you guess why).

Do you want me to post all the other issue for your approval, or is it ok, dear sir ?

 

[alexzk]

Dragon planet, that's the name the community give it (I let you guess why)

Ok, prove it is not possible. Or confirm it is bug by finding 5-10 more exact sames.
It's a trillion variants at least, anything possible will happen. So best guess is to find 10 more exact sames but in different systems, because 10 repeats are unlikely.

 

[CMDR-ss47ply]

I'm really weary of this discussion.

If people would enter a thread and actually read it before commenting we wouldn't have exactly the same discussion over and over for the last 50+ pages.

Before that both sides incl. Frontier accepted that there were bugs like not enough prefabs etc.

But I think reading is a lost art in the modern times.

Have fun o7

I think that the more and more of the players are spreading there wings and seeing some of the cool sights they chime in as I did not that your issue is wrong it is completely true but It is also not as game breaking as claimed its only natural that 14 billion star systems are going to produce some awesome results as well as the crappy ones were found. I see its faults and its beauty and we all want it fixed. or at least the noted issues. but our test bed has been much to small on both sides. That is why I feel so strongly the statement that exploring is dead is false.

 

[Sysmon]

Hey I got several issues that were reported in this thread acknowledged as actual issue by you. It's almost as we actually report issues !
Dragon planet, that's the name the community give it (I let you guess why).

Do you want me to post all the other issue for your approval, or is it ok, dear sir ?

Actually, yes, perhaps every issue should pass by me, or at least by every single member of the community, before being declared a "killer of exploration".

"The community" is wrong, by the way. That issue in your image looks more like a penguin at times. Perhaps we could instead call it a "tiling issue"? I've asked for FD to cover their smoke and mirror implementation better too. Hasn't stopped me from exploring and otherwise enjoying the game, just like the fact that the similarities of mushrooms in Mario Brothers haven't stopped me from enjoying that particular game.

S

 

[Deleted member 38366]

To give the whole deal a constructive addition :

Hypothesis : (on Planets being a hell lot "flatter" in many regions, down to "molten Vanilla Ice Cream" flat terrain lacking visuals)

I can only assume that the originally visually splendid Terrain resulted in very basic Gameplay issues :

• terrible accessibility with the SRV (designed specifically for Horizons type Terrain)
• larger areas with virtually no landing spot for a large Ship

Solution : (If I was "the chosen one" and had to "fix" it)

• separate Planets into 3+1 distinct desired surface types
• Surface type 1 : pure Visuals, huge and realistic Mountains, the stuff you'd expect from year 2021 Planetary Visuals... only crazy folks, cliff-hangers and people running difficult challenges will find a playground there
• Surface type 2 : rougher but accessible (Ship,SRV, on-foot) terrain that contains the vast majority of Biological and Geological Signals and half of all POIs... Primary Gameplay area so to speak for the most common in-game Activities. A smaller part of this Terrain (upto 10%) contains canyons.
• Surface type 3 : flatter than type 2 and contains the majority of Meteorites for most effective SRV operations. However, this terrain type also has more areas with deep gorges and deeper canyons (upto 25%)
• Surface type 4 : a creative "freestyle" area of a Planet, can occur but is a tad rare. This type of Terrain denotes/reflects a "special", allowing for discovery of unusual and extreme Terrain. There's your 5000m deep foggy Canyons or isolated "Mount Everest" that reaches up high into the skies. The unusual stuff with a bit creative SciFi freedom, carefully dosed not to go overboard.

See what I did there?
I made sure any single Planet

• has enough area to allow efficient execution of standard Gameplay (Exploration, Exobiology, Farming Elements)
• has enough distinct terrain to cast large and distinct Vistas near the Gameplay Terrain, allowing for nice play of Shadows just as deep gorges or Canyons and eye candy not too far away
• has a chance to contain creative/extreme elements that give it character, some of which might make such a Planet a location for a Buckyball Race, Cliff Jumpers, SRV Drivers trying to reach Orbit or Canyon Racers... or simply make for a nice Screenshot

------------------
On top, one of the main characteristics of our Planets is that they are..... well, completely static. What you see is all you get, nothing will ever happen there on the Surface.
Planet will rotate and the Sun(s) might rise over a longer time.

Why not

• add occasional RNG impacts of tiny Meteorites or alike? You happily walk along and 200m from you one of these "stellar railguns" hit the surface with a distinct boom and nice impact FX (even if just a random even for pure effect... such stuff adds to the feeling of being vulnerable alone out there and a little bit something happening)
• you fly 5km above the Surface and far away in the distance you see the lightning-style streak of a larger Meteorite or small Asteroid smashing through the Atmosphere and visibly crash far away somewhere near the Horizon (pure FX)
• make solar eclipses a spectacular special event visually? Lighting and Atmospheric FX can do alot of magic if done right and with a bit creative freedom.
• add small, medium or larger seismic activities? A variably rare event that shakes your CMDR on foot or SRV, while tons of dust temporarily rises all around you for 10 seconds.

Small Details, big effects.
All to afford at least a few surprises and make things a tad more interesting and occasionally more dynamic.

After all, the one thing noone wants is : stand on a boring procedural heightmap and realize it isn't that different than the last 100 heightmaps you've seen in the last weeks.
IMHO that needs some creative freedom. Not exactly the "No Man's Sky type" of artistic freedom, but an additional touch to "break the routine". Distant Planets shouldn't be routine, they should be darn cool, interesting, inviting to be looked at & explored, dangerously looking in some spots, memorable.

 

[alexzk]

Small Details, big effects.
All to afford at least a few surprises and make things a tad more interesting and occasionally more dynamic.

Its all there. Just climbed today 2Kms mountain thin like needle. No need for special editions, just keep flying.

 

[Sysmon]

To give the whole deal a constructive addition :

Hypothesis : (on Planets being a hell lot "flatter" in many regions, down to "molten Vanilla Ice Cream" flat terrain lacking visuals)

I can only assume that the visually splendid Terrain resulted in very basic Gameplay issues :

• terrible accessibility with the SRV (designed specifically for Horizons type Terrain)
• larger areas with virtually no landing spot fir a large Ship

Solution : (If I was "the chosen one" and had to "fix" it)

• separate Planets into 3 distinct desired surface types
• Surface type 1 : pure Visuals, huge and realistic Mountains, the stuff you'd expect from 2021 Planetary Visuals... only crazy folks, cliff-hangers and people running difficult challenges will find a playground there
• Surface type 2 : rougher but accessible (Ship, on-foot) terrain that contains the vast majority of Biological and Geological Signals and half of all POIs... Primary Gameplay area so to speak for the most common in-game Activities. A smaller part of this Terrain (upto 10%) contains canyons.
• Surface type 3 : flatter than type 2 and contains the majority of Meteorites for most effective SRV operations. However, this terrain type also has more areas with deep gorges and deeper canyons (upto 25%)
• Surface type 4 : a creative "freestyle" area of a Planet, can occur but is a tad rare. This type of Terrain denotes/reflects a "special", allowing for discovery of unusual and extreme Terrain. There's your 5000m deep foggy Canyons or isolated "Mount Everest" that reaches up high into the skies. The unusual stuff with a bit creative SciFi freedom, carefully dosed not to go overboard.

See what I did there?
I made sure any single Planet

• has enough area to allow efficient execution of standard Gameplay (Exploration, Exobiology, Farming Elements)
• has enough distinct terrain to cast large and distinct Vistas near the Gameplay Terrain, allowing for nice play of Shadows just as deep gorges or Canyons and eye candy not too far away
• has a chance to contain creative/extreme elements what give it character, some of which might make such a Planet a location for a Buckyball Race, Cliff Jumpers, SRV Drivers trying to reach Orbit or Canyon Racers... or simply make for a nice Screenshot

------------------
On top, one of the main characteristics of our Planets is that they are..... well, completely static. What you see is all you get, nothing will ever happen there on the Surface.
Planet will rotate and the Sun(s) might rise over a longer time.

Why not

• add occasional RNG impacts of tiny Meteorites or alike? You happily walk along and 200m from you one of these "stellar railguns" hit the surface with a distinct boom and nice impact FX (even if just a random even for pure effect... such stuff adds to the feeling of being vulnerable alone out there and a little bit something happening)
• you fly 5km above the Surface and far away in the distance you see the lightning-style streak of a larger Meteorite or small Asteroid smashing through the Atmosphere and visibly crash far away somewhere near the Horizon (pure FX)
• make solar eclipses a spectacular special event visually? Lighting and Atmospheric FX can do alot of magic if done right and with a bit creative freedom.
• add small, medium or larger seismic activities? A variably rare event that shakes your CMDR on foot or SRV, while tons of dust temporarily rises all around you for 10 seconds.

Small Details, big effects.
All to afford at least a few surprises and make things a tad more interesting and occasionally more dynamic.

After all, the one thing noone wants is : stand on a boring procedural heightmap and realize it isn't that different than the last 100 heightmaps you've seen in the last weeks.
IMHO that needs some creative freedom. Not exactly the "No Man's Sky type" of artistic freedom, but an additional touch to "break the routine". Distant Planets shouldn't be routine, they should be darn cool, interesting, inviting to be looked at & explored, dangerously looking in some spots, memorable.

Some good ideas. However, if the game is supposed to emulate nature, there is no reason for it to give us nice landing spots. Instead, maybe we would need other ways to get to the surface, either by lowering ourselves or the SRV by wire or by boosters.

Impact of meteors would be cool, especially on moons in orbits near to planetary rings and such. Of course, people would be a bit upset when they get hit by one such. We would also need quakes. And of course, since the impact would be instanced, the next one to land there (or even the same dude resetting the instance for a photo op) would complain the new crater isn't there.

Are the "height maps" really that boring? Reminds me of standing at the base of Mt Cook in New Zealand, hearing an Austrian girl complain that it just looked like another poorer version of Matterhorn. There is also no reason for every location to be cool just because it is distant. Instead, what we can do there should be interesting, regardless of the vista.

S

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Some good ideas. However, if the game is supposed to emulate nature, there is no reason for it to give us nice landing spots. Instead, maybe we would need other ways to get to the surface, either by lowering ourselves or the SRV wire or by boosters.

Impact of meteors would be cool, especially on moons in orbits near to planetary rings and such. Of course, people would be a bit upset when they get hit by one such. We would also need quakes. And of course, since the impact would be instanced, the next one to land there (or even the same dude resetting the instance for a photo op) would complain the new crater isn't there.

Are the "height maps" really that boring? Reminds me of standing at the base of Mt Cook in New Zealand, hearing an Austrian girl complain that it just looked like another poorer version of Matterhorn. There is also no reason for every location to be cool just because it is distant. Instead, what we can do there should be interesting, regardless of the vista.

S

Oh I'd appreciate a "hot drop", either in SRV or on-foot over any location. That'd remove alot of restrictions and add lots of freedom (provided the hot pickup works reliably to get you back onboard )

Looking back the last weeks, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the Terrain, performance and Detail FX/Biologicals etc. popping up out of nowhere 50m ahead of the Ship aside.

For most part it merely looked "different", in some parts it did look very nice - but in many other parts it did look excessively bland just as well.
I'd say I got "mixed results" so far. I guess that's a fair statement.

 

[here_it_comes]

It is not a killer of exploration.

It is if you don't see the point of exploring to find copy pasta. I have an exploration account that I've loved in EDH, but will never use it for EDO and will abandon it when/if EDH gets EDO'd. Ironic, as pre-EDO launch I had full confidence in the new planet tech and assumed I'd be buying EDO only for my Exploration account. Now, my combat account can survive EDH getting EDO'd, but my exploration account will be RIP.

You are posting examples of personal taste, not actual issues.

You are correct in saying it is a matter of taste. You clearly don't mind the copy pasta, some do. Which is why you were wrong to say it's not a "killer of Exploration".

It's not a killer of Exploration for you.

Just climbed today 2Kms mountain thin like needle.

I've seen those in videos, man do they look terrible. What happened to all the vaunted "scientific realism"? I've seen some incredibly sharp mountains IRL, but those EDO needle mountains are just terrible.

 

[Sysmon]

Looking back the last weeks, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the Terrain, performance and Detail FX/Biologicals etc. popping up out of nowhere 50m ahead of the Ship aside.

For most part it merely looked "different", in some parts it did look very nice - but in many other parts it did look excessively bland just as well.
I'd say I got "mixed results" so far. I guess that's a fair statement.

"Mixed results" is my verdict as well. In many ways, I'm happy to see something looking closer to proper deserts and ice fields than what we had in the past. I get tired of invisible rocks, however.

The slow loading biologicals and final details is a PITA. Last night I spent a while floating slowly at a 45 degree angle over an otherwise nice-looking desert landscape looking for a particular type of cabbage. Getting tired of not seeing it, I landed to launch the SRV. Just to find I had landed in the middle of a huge field of said cabbage.

S

 

[alexzk]

I've seen some incredibly sharp mountains IRL, but those EDO needle mountains are just terrible.

That just means u grew up on Earth at 1G. Thats all. If you was burn on Mars you could preffer 20Kms mountains instead "small" on Earth.

 

[Erei]

I've seen those in videos, man do they look terrible. What happened to all the vaunted "scientific realism"? I've seen some incredibly sharp mountains IRL, but those EDO needle mountains are just terrible.

Those ?

Yes they look bad. Anybody who did heightmap is familiar with this issue. It's unaltered heightmap. IE what you get from a heightmap before you do any work to it.
Also it gives texture streching and almsot 90° angle with the ground in the most horrible manner :
angle :

stretching :