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

I think it's all down to individual perception. (...)
Hmm...

Yeah, but but this is dumb and I see such limitations in dealing with reality similar to this way of thinking:

"I prefer my girlfriend cheating on my as long as I can't find about it and she acts decent in my company,
then see her flirting with several other guys on a party she is with me even if she wouldn't ever sleep with anyone else as long as we are together"

(anyone offended can switch BG to BF and guys to girls if it helps)
 
Hmm...

Yeah, but but this is dumb and I see such limitations in dealing with reality similar to this way of thinking:

"I prefer my girlfriend cheating on my as long as I can't find about it and she acts decent in my company,
then see her flirting with several other guys on a party she is with me even if she wouldn't ever sleep with anyone else as long as we are together"

(anyone offended can switch BG to BF and guys to girls if it helps)
Thanks for calling me "dumb" and having "limitations in dealing with reality" - goes a long way for you, sure.
 
having the same pattern used
only ONCE per planet
but reused on multiple planets.
That would still be completely unacceptable to me, i don't have a clue why they ditched Horizons randomised method of creating unique planets, but that mediocre FPS shoehorned into the game and its needed bases, are likely a part of the reason, they probably need to make sure the ground wouldn't hide or cover them when they appear on the landscape
 
Yeah! I saw the planet standing on its moon and thought "Whoa! This looks so... ohcrapafreakinduplicatepattern."

I hear you :rolleyes:

Ucnkomj.jpg


4Iu5ubf.jpg
 
but that mediocre FPS shoehorned into the game and its needed bases, are likely a part of the reason,
I find this "FD needed terrain traversable on foot/for FPS" stretched.
There is still a lot of terrain you won't be able to explore on foot.
But it's the usual game of guessing with FD with no way to find out who's right.
 
I think the question is this. If we have procgen for the universe. If we have procgen for the planets.. why not procgen for planetary assets? If a roguelike can generate cities, maps, rivers, history (DF says hi) then surely we could generate.. a mountain, a fumarole.. a caldera.
Yep, and I honestly can't tell how much of / to what extent are those planetary "stamps" we see and argue about generated and how much predefined, and how they really differ on the same/different planets.

Data/observations actually are just contradicting.
You see more similarity up to some range, then suddenly it looks not so familiar.
Only FD could explain how it REALLY works, but they never do, until problem is "solved" according to them.
 
Yep, and I honestly can't tell how much of / to what extent are those planetary "stamps" we see and argue about generated and how much predefined, and how they really differ on the same/different planets.

Data/observations actually are just contradicting.
You see more similarity up to some range, then suddenly it looks not so familiar.
Only FD could explain how it REALLY works, but they never do, until problem is "solved" according to them.
And I think with your big mountain, they meant they have seen that mountain stamp before, just in a different scale and orientation :D
 
And I think with your big mountain, they meant they have seen that mountain stamp before, just in a different scale and orientation :D
If such mountains were predefined stamps, there would contain no flaws that are there and are typical to (badly) proc generated terrain topography features...
E.g. rocks : they are predefined and they are looking "too good", they distinct too strongly from the terrain that has too rounded, "mathematical" features.

Complaining about mountains being
"yoghurted" (because of bad math)
AND
copy-pasted (because predefined assets)
is simply contradictory.
 
If such mountains were predefined stamps, there would contain no flaws that are there and are typical to (badly) proc generated terrain topography features...
E.g. rocks : they are predefined and they are looking "too good", they distinct too strongly from the terrain that has too rounded, "mathematical" features.

Complaining about mountains being
"yoghurted" (because of bad math)
AND
copy-pasted (because predefined assets)
is simply contradictory.
Not really. The noise graph terrain is yoghurted, and the premade assets are copy pasted :D
 
Even FD would not prepare SUCH mountain models for reusing:

ZiEhLb.jpg

ZiEadT.jpg

Zik2a7.jpg

BTW: I never saw anything like this again on this or another planet.
AND I would recognize this for sure :)
 
Even FD would not prepare SUCH mountain models for reusing:

ZiEhLb.jpg

ZiEadT.jpg

Zik2a7.jpg

BTW: I never saw anything like this again on this or another planet.
AND I would recognize this for sure :)
Yeah, that's a noise graph :D But that Ayers rock looking one could be premade. I can't say, as I don't start it up until the fixes are through. And really, it would need a lot of work to correlate the data.. for nothing. Because FD won't say anything until fixed, as you said.
 
Yeah, that's a noise graph :D But that Ayers rock looking one could be premade. I can't say, as I don't start it up until the fixes are through. And really, it would need a lot of work to correlate the data.. for nothing. Because FD won't say anything until fixed, as you said.
You mean this one, that triggered "THE SAME RIDGE" remark would be a predefined copy pasta?
Nah, it's just... bad enough to be more likely a product of EDO terrain procedural generation ;)
TBF it's not THAT bad either.

ZZPmpD.jpg
 
Yeah, that's a noise graph :D But that Ayers rock looking one could be premade. I can't say, as I don't start it up until the fixes are through. And really, it would need a lot of work to correlate the data.. for nothing. Because FD won't say anything until fixed, as you said.
Wait, I just googled Ayers Rock and I realized there was a series of misunderstandings from my side.
It was about those flat top thing and not my "Mt. Everest".
Even so, "Ayers Rock" mountains are IMO just a TYPE of generated assets. There is nothing so special about it that would explain necessity of considering them predefined assets.
 
Wait, I just googled Ayers Rock and I realized there was a series of misunderstandings from my side.
It was about those flat top thing and not my "Mt. Everest".
Even so, "Ayers Rock" mountains are IMO just a TYPE of generated assets. There is nothing so special about it that would explain necessity of considering them predefined assets.
1623241316201.png

This one I believe, from Valorins post. But as said, I have no idea at this point :D
 
Back
Top Bottom