#justiceForPluto
NASA's Flyover Video of Pluto Suggests Planets in Horizons may be too Conservative !
- Thread starter Lightspeed
- Start date
Well if you've been to Wilson, you'd know it's a treacherous place with 6km high mountains and 2km deep valleys.
It's also where Bomba got stranded last year and a heap of Commanders went there to help him.
Oh yes and lots of holes that Bomba kept falling into, and only a Sidey was small enough to help him get out
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/268862-Help-I-need-Ship-Rats!
It's also where Bomba got stranded last year and a heap of Commanders went there to help him.
Oh yes and lots of holes that Bomba kept falling into, and only a Sidey was small enough to help him get out
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/268862-Help-I-need-Ship-Rats!
NASA's website tags images about Pluto with "dwarf planet"
+1 (since it won't let me give you any more at the moment)
Last edited:
IMHO the term "beigeification" should only be used for item 1. Using it for item 2 as well is just confusing. So please find another term for that. Smoothification? Terrain homogenisation?
Last edited:
while I'm as disappointed about the adjustments to the planets terrain as anyone else I can fully understand the technical reasoning behind it if SRVs were "falling" through the surface. I'd imagine FD dropped it so far to be very conservative, I'm hoping FD are dialling things up in testing to see what is the best trade off between interesting terrain and SRV viability.
In-game the terrain detail doesn't really kick in until a much lower altitude than in that video simulation. From that height in-game everything appears much softer than it will when you actually get close to the ground.
And Pluto is an icy planet, so should really be compared to icy planets in Elite, rather than rocky worlds.
And Pluto is an icy planet, so should really be compared to icy planets in Elite, rather than rocky worlds.
It's a planet. This video proves it.
[video=youtube_share;heRn5n6z-Ck]https://youtu.be/heRn5n6z-Ck[/video]
Oh, well spotted ! [yesnod]
I've added that quote on the opening thread.
Guess the real features aren't so different from what we have in the planet engine already, then !
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
The star pop in as you jump has been fixed for the most part. It is not as good as pre 2.3 but it's ok. The star is a little blurry when it first pops in and becomes focused within a half second and in a smooth manner
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wait though over half the planet is beige.
Yes Frontier has done a pass on extremely sharp features, but that is a good thing. The most 'interesting' terrain features whose loss people seem to lament were completely ridiculous and looked like crap. Until the time Frontier adds horizontal displacement to terrain generation it should remain that way.
I'm ignorant about these things: what is "horizontal displacement"? Does that sharpen canyons, mountains?
The terrain we have now is displaced "vertically", "horizontal" is an essentially perpendicular displacement on that terrain.
Here is an old shot of outterra from their blog showing on the left, vertically displaced terrain and on the right, vertical and horizontal displacement:
The height of mountains is a function of the differing density between the crust and the mantle Although it's doing it very slowly and appears solid the mantle is acutally working like a liquid over geological time, cooling by convection for example, if you find this hard to rationalise think of silly putty - quickly it acts like a solid (and bouces) sowly it acts like a liquid/plastic and flows or stretches.
The less dense crust then floats on the denser mantle.
If your crust is thin enough to have active tectonics - (many are too thick) when plates collide the crust is deformed up (creating mountains) and down (creating a root) the root acts like a boat, displacing the mantle and supporting the "mountain" the one under the himalayas is about 120km deep if I'm remembering it correctly from university. The maximum average height that can be supported on earth is about 4.5 km (The Tibetan Plateau) any higher and it just flows out sideways (look at the Himalayas and China).
How much of this is in Stellar Forge who knows but I'd like to think someone's thought about it. Considering it all the photos look surprisingly like some of the planets in ED to my eyes!
Of course you can also smash things around with commets and asteroids for a bit and create irregularities.
I'm not sure how much "geology" is included in the planet generating software - I'd like to think a fair amount although the continents on earthlikes don't really look like they've been created by continental drift.
The less dense crust then floats on the denser mantle.
If your crust is thin enough to have active tectonics - (many are too thick) when plates collide the crust is deformed up (creating mountains) and down (creating a root) the root acts like a boat, displacing the mantle and supporting the "mountain" the one under the himalayas is about 120km deep if I'm remembering it correctly from university. The maximum average height that can be supported on earth is about 4.5 km (The Tibetan Plateau) any higher and it just flows out sideways (look at the Himalayas and China).
How much of this is in Stellar Forge who knows but I'd like to think someone's thought about it. Considering it all the photos look surprisingly like some of the planets in ED to my eyes
!Of course you can also smash things around with commets and asteroids for a bit and create irregularities.
I'm not sure how much "geology" is included in the planet generating software - I'd like to think a fair amount although the continents on earthlikes don't really look like they've been created by continental drift.