Maybe something is wrong with my comp then.
New Planet Tech is KILLER of Exploration (all terrain is tiling/repeating/not procedural/random)
- Thread starter BlackMaze
- Start date
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
I totally agree. Merging craters with other formations in a simplified way is quite ok by me, especially as that's not a retrograde step like using repeating terrain tiles.
Color change for me, but I noticed there were a few different pattern. They follow those patterns, which make them repetitive. I don't say the pattern are all copy pasted, but they "look" similar, and follow the same rules.
Didn't change, I don't think they did anything yet.
So white knight say they are perfect, doom cultist say they are the worst, and normal people report issues to be fixed.
I think they are great much more nasa feel less cartoony
They are both, really, but almost never at the same time.
Its interesting as I found a few example for mountains forming in craters on Mars, though the current thinking seems to be they formed through wind erosion, still it proves it can happen!
Example 1:
Example 2, the crater on the left:
Ok then. I may not know much, but I studied geology at university, so that's sort of a thing I kinda know (and like). I'll try to over simplify to make it short.Its interesting as I found a few example for mountains forming in craters on Mars, though the current thinking seems to be they formed through wind erosion, still it proves it can happen!
Example 1:
View attachment 239531
Example 2, the crater on the left:
View attachment 239532
Mountains are usually formed at the boundary between 2 tectonic plates. Which are gigantic. Earth have around 15-20 of them (all of them added together from the entirety of our world).
Moutains form because 2 (or more) plates push against each other, over a long period of time. That's why mountains are "range". Like the Himalayas, the Alps and all the others. They follow a "line" if you will. Everything over that line, and at some distance away, is submitted to massive strength that'd make a nuclear bomb a wet fart.
If you have a crater there, it follow the same rule than anything else at the same place.
For example, India is pushing against the rest of Asia, going "north", the Himalayas mountain range is born.
What could happen is volcanism. Mars is more or less dead now, but it wasn't always true. Volcanoes are not mountains, they follow different rules. Essentially, magma poke through the land, and there you go, volcano. Sometimes magma inside the volcano cool down, but it's a much harder mineral than the surrounding. So, when the erosion star doing its thing, the "outside" is worn off much quicker than the inside. Eventually leading to a weird "mountain".
Once gain, complicated and simplified. Not really a rule per say.
There is also how the crater was formed, could be a result of that. Relatively similar to the whatever-you-call-it thing in the centre of them.
Eventually, as you see in the picture, those "mountain" are very small and barely above the crater itself. Which is different from the picture posted earlier.
Anyway, it was a lot of oversimplification, but that was the best I could do. Consider it nitpicking about calling those mountains
And in any case, it's fairly minor, as I said.
Both
They are great until you look at too many of them.
The Original post has been updated with a picture, showing the same land-mass being used on different planets. That might go some way to answering your question.
Last edited:
Its a long thread, so sorry for grunching, but I dont get how there is not much more outrage at the general tyness of the textures and assets when you land. I landed on a well lit flat plane, and the whole plane was littered with repeating rock asset #lazycoders which looked like they were made out of polystyrene and then glued onto the ground texture. It was horrible.
Subjective emotion is the important thing. A lot of people get this the wrong way around. A good grasp of practical considerations is necessary for being able to figure out how to get what you subjectively and emotionally decide is worth having, but they themselves can't tell you what's worth having. Appeals to logic only make sense as a means to an end, they make no sense at all for determining what's a worthwhile end.
For me, a really depressing moment was when I switched to Odyssey after approaching that planet with Horizons. In EDH, you could tell that the location was chosen with the landscape in mind, having the main location in a spot between a nice crater and a hillside. Due to the location having some interesting scene, I wanted to look at it on foot. So I supercruised out, switched client, and approached again. And of course the planet is the usual dull grey freckles thing, and the location is right in some noisy height-map area.
When this tech is merged into Horizons as is, most explorers will retire. Or just massacre some settlements to vent their anger.
Ah yes, the classic "Star Trek; TOS" school of planetary surfaces.
That's a similar approach as those direct comparisons between Horizons and Odyssey, where you pick a great planet in Horizons and land on the same in Odyssey and are disappointed that it's not great there.
Do this the other way around, and you might be disappointed of the Horizons one because the percentage of great planets isn't that great in both systems, which is absolutely fine in my opinion.
I landed on two completely random planets in both clients to see what happens, and both times, the Odyssey one was much more interesting.
Also, and this is the important bit I guess: I didn't do that to prove a point, but because I wanted to see for myself and look at it unbiased and fair.
I posted the result in this thread, but I fear it's buried somewhere now.
I can't tell from the picture, but when flying around the feature, could you make out the shape of the crater depression and its rim across the whole area where its outline intersected the mountain? 'Just wondering whether the blending of bumpmap layers is just a simple multiplicative or signed additive operation for everything (...in which case order shouldn't matter), or if there is anything slightly more complex going on (including some sort of roughly approximated "geological history").