Hi all, are there any experts who can tell me what the different shades of blue / green mean on the planetary surface biological heat map? They don't seem related to terrain features, height etc as they either appear, or don't, at certain altitudes with colour varying a lot at the same altitude (e.g. plains). Do they mark density or likelihood of finding different life forms?
-
Greetings Commander, want a more instant approach to your questions and need for help? Check out the Galactic Academy Discord server!
Feel free to join the Galactic Academy Discord server by clicking here!
Newcomer / Intro Biological heatmap - help please!
- Thread starter Frankymole
- Start date
First of all, I don't think I've ever seen signal heatmap so badly pixelated. That looks like Minecraft. It's weird.
Secondly - there are different schools on the subject. Some people say that it doesn't mean anything, as Fdev dropped heatmap during beta or shortly after, and it's only underlying terrain that's responsible for shading, but from my experience it's unlikely and I believe it is related to likelihood of certain plant being present (which actually might in turn be related to kind of terrain that's underneath).
Personally, I tend to aim at the turquoise shade of blue (not the brightest, nor darkest, but the most "colorful" one) when looking for best place to find selected flora and I've never been disappointed.
Secondly - there are different schools on the subject. Some people say that it doesn't mean anything, as Fdev dropped heatmap during beta or shortly after, and it's only underlying terrain that's responsible for shading, but from my experience it's unlikely and I believe it is related to likelihood of certain plant being present (which actually might in turn be related to kind of terrain that's underneath).
Personally, I tend to aim at the turquoise shade of blue (not the brightest, nor darkest, but the most "colorful" one) when looking for best place to find selected flora and I've never been disappointed.
Interesting - I'd always thought that the differences in colour were probably just a combination of how the blue exobiology layer was combining with the shading that signifies the roughness of the underlying terrain (i.e. I've never seen different shades of blue that didn't correlate to terrain features - e.g. different levels of blue across an otherwise even plane). I guess it's possible those shades do reflect the likelihood of certain bio types being found in the hills vs. near the hills but personally I suspect that's pure coincidence and that actually the biological heat map is binary (i.e. you're far more likely to find plants in the blue areas than the not blue areas and that's about it - no degrees of likelihood being indicated).
I really don't understand why FD ditched the original, more nuanced heat map. Sure - people didn't like the colours, and that could have simply been improved by using a different palette. But nobody said get rid of the heat map entirely we don't want that much information. It really felt like FD got annoyed with us around that time - simply removing the detailed heatmap, and simply cutting out the bioscanning mini-game (rather than refining it) - both of those changes rather felt like petulance to me.
a) It's not a heatmap, despite being called that. It was changed to just a map during the alpha. There is only blue, or not blue.
b) The gradations of color you see are due to the terrain showing thru. This can be a clue, if you know what sort of terrain the biological in question tends to favor.
So, for example, if you're looking for a Frutexa and you know that it likes rocky terrain, you can check for any blue areas that are rocky terrain, and look there.
FDEV's post on the map: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/32054
It is unfortunate that the "heatmap" term is still used, even by FDEV, to describe this map. It's just a map. There's no heat to it at all.
b) The gradations of color you see are due to the terrain showing thru. This can be a clue, if you know what sort of terrain the biological in question tends to favor.
So, for example, if you're looking for a Frutexa and you know that it likes rocky terrain, you can check for any blue areas that are rocky terrain, and look there.
FDEV's post on the map: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/32054
It is unfortunate that the "heatmap" term is still used, even by FDEV, to describe this map. It's just a map. There's no heat to it at all.
"There is no longer a 'heat map' as this was causing some confusion"
What absolute bs - I don't recall anyone being confused, it was just a poor choice of colours.
If they'd simply explained whether it was the dark or light areas that carried the higher chance of containing plants, or changed the colour palette to range from blue (cold) to red (hot) then people would have loved it.
Pure petulance I tell you.
Last edited:
My theory is that it just shows you that there's a terrain underneath which has higher or lower chance to have certain flora - like even if there's seemingly flat plane, there are various types of terrain there - sand and rocky dunes f.ex.
But that's just my theory and it can be all wrong.
I don't buy that, because that "heatmap" isn't transparent at all.
Last edited:
I think what it is is not so much transparency as that the "heatmap" (sorry Codger, don't know what other word to use) follows the precise contours of the surface so it gets "roughed up" by the terrain and consequently starts to include some light and shade.
I think it was more like - "let's just shut them so we can concentrate on our first person shooter".
I've started calling it the "heatless map" just to be ornery about it
In any case the map works well enough once you understand it just means "might be here", and then use your experience to fill in the details of where to look.
I've scanned around 250 plants so far, and earned over 140 million credits. I'm now a "Taxonomist". Exobiology is not lucrative, but it is fun, and you see some amazing sights.
I don't think I understand what you mean.
Can't it be that what we have is a leftover from original heatmap fdev tried to make monochromatic? For me that what I call "turquoise" shade looks like what was previously yellow, but with blue film over it. That would mean that original heatmap mechanic is still there somewhere - just colors are mostly gone.
But I'm always outnumbered in this view, whenever this discussion comes up, so I'm seriously considering I might be looking at it wrong somewhere, even if it doesn't feel like it to me
Could be.
But if you toggle the map on and off (by switching to combat mode and then analysis mode, and back again) you can clearly see that the color changes match up with underlying terrain changes.
Anyway, it is what it is and we just have to manage to use it.
You might already know this, but its not obvious...
You can select different filters that switch 'heatmaps' when looking at the planet using the Surface Scanner. Whichever filter you leave it on it will stay on that filter. When you go down to the planet to change the filter to a different 'heatmap' I find I ned to fly up high enough to use the Surface Scanner.
IIRC the keybinds for the 'heatmap' filter by default are not keybound. So you gotta go set them. Or look to see what they are.
Regarding the idea that maybe the colors relate to the different results... I don't think that is true. switching between filters doesn't suggest there is anything related between heatmap colors and the results.
You can select different filters that switch 'heatmaps' when looking at the planet using the Surface Scanner. Whichever filter you leave it on it will stay on that filter. When you go down to the planet to change the filter to a different 'heatmap' I find I ned to fly up high enough to use the Surface Scanner.
IIRC the keybinds for the 'heatmap' filter by default are not keybound. So you gotta go set them. Or look to see what they are.
Regarding the idea that maybe the colors relate to the different results... I don't think that is true. switching between filters doesn't suggest there is anything related between heatmap colors and the results.
Yeah, because (I think) this map never showed you where plants were exactly, but what terrain had the most probability of having certain plant - like if for example some grass mostly grows on sandy flats, then this kind of terrain will be shown as being "hot". That's how I see it anyway.
Last edited:
I seem to remember them saying that it was also not working properly, but this was in the test phase (when to be honest a lot of stuff wasn't working properly) a long time ago so I am probably wrong."There is no longer a 'heat map' as this was causing some confusion"
What absolute - I don't recall anyone being confused, it was just a poor choice of colours.
If they'd simply explained whether it was the dark or light areas that carried the higher chance of containing plants, or changed the colour palette to range from blue (cold) to red (hot) then people would have loved it.
Pure petulance I tell you.
You can see the outlines of craters in it so it is at least translucent.
I am one of those who believe that blue means that whatever the filter is set for can be found in the area and the shade is related to surface texture not simply altitude.
What it shows is how rugged the terrain is. The more greeny colour is flat and the pixellated areas are more rocky/mountainous. After a while you get to know what species prefer which terrain, When you flick between each species using the E key you can then judge the best place to land. When landing on a moon with multiple species, i use the e key to work out where one species ends and the other begins, that way there isn’t much flying between them….
Here's why I don't believe that:
Same planet, "heatmap" shows the same amount of terrain where something can be found in both cases, but color shades differ. Those are geological signals, because it's easier to demonstrate, but the same applies to bio signals.
And here's the weird part about those more "greenish" areas - they do not directly correspond with any terrain (and from my experience it's easier to find something there):
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, precisely that!
From my - granted, not very extensive - experience, the lighter shades are areas where the given bio is more concentrated. The darker the shade, the less of it is there.
OK - that's quite a persuasive argument! Of course the best thing would be if someone from Frontier could just settle this debate definitively. Does the surface scan reveal a simple binary indication of where signals are or aren't likely to be found or are the subtle gradations in the blue colouration indicative of greater or lesser probabilities of finding those signals and if so, which way does the scale work (e.g. does a lighter shade mean more likely?). @Zac Cocken sorry for the ping but any chance of an answer to this one?
I told you guys.
