Not quite. Procedural generation uses more logarithms and algorithms, and approximation uses more RNG.
Incorrect. Procedural Generation uses Pseudo Random Number Generation as it'd basis so with the same seed you get the same result.
Not quite. Procedural generation uses more logarithms and algorithms, and approximation uses more RNG.
LOTS OF INCORRECT STUFF.
...snip...
Wow, those last posts managed to make the magic behind math boring as hell. Achievements get... here, have no rep people.
And I assume topological data involved in current planet texturing will be used to generate terrain through sparse voxel octrees and marching cubes when planetary expansion will come.
Do you mean that Braben is trying to avoid the height maps in those demos or coding in assembly for speed?Yeah, I've seen that before. Here's one (albeit not as good looking) in 1K. That's exactly the kind of thing David Braben was trying to avoid, however. Where are the overhangs and caves? Where does the water in the lakes and seas come from and go to? There's a lot more than a height map and textures required to do a convincing job in this game. How they do that procedurally will be interesting to see.
Do you mean that Braben is trying to avoid the height maps in those demos ...
You can make overhangs/caves etc by using a displacement method called vector displacement, but I've never seen that used for games. More realistically, those types of features would probably be modeled in the traditional way and placed into the scene by hand. They could be modular assets like the component parts of a space station, able to be rearranged to fit a specific environment.
I believe the CrYEngine at least supported it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lha8SgQ_4fE
Modular assets are a possible approach, but I don't think they will scale enough for what is planned.
Soo 400,000,000,000/365= 1,095,890,410.96.
So the question is it reasonable to calculate the almost 1.1 Billion planets worth of geologimiwatsits a day?