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

[Helvellyn]

Just look at minecraft, it took players a decade to find the seed for its title screen world. After this decade of work,they eventually managed to find only two which created this exact same environment. 2151901553968352745 and 8091867987493326313. Might something similar exist deep within the infinite expanse of other minecraft worlds? Sure. But it'd be exceptionally hard to find, and the matching features on planets which we do sometimes get in Horizons with the existing procgen system are more of a cool extreme rarity, whereas with the prefabs we can see those matching features everywhere we look.

Problem with how you do such features I suppose. Certain types of features will have to have some predefined characterisitcs, maybe with parameters to tweak them in scale etc., such as craters, which will then get stamped on to whatever else is generated. Harder still when you've got to generate them on the fly rather than spend time pre-calculating and storing. Now does that mean it can be done better? Sure. But also some features will frequently look similar anyway - a rayed crater is a rayed crater for example. But they need different rays and sizes.

Getting a variety of even semi-realistic terrain types without having some predefined factors is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible - an algorithm will only produce craters if you code craters in to it, defining what a crater is and what it looks like.

 

[Sunyavadin]

A good example of this kind of pattern recognition in action is in fantasy MMORPG Guild Wars 2, where after the city of Lion's Arch was rebuilt following its destruction in the game's storyline, the new loading screen for it went from being hand-drawn art of the city, to being a composite put together from several stock photographs of cities, in complete contrast to the hand drawn art of all the other map loading screens for some reason.

This loading screen is however mostly known for the one dude in a blue shirt checking his mobile phone in the bottom of the image. The moment someone spots him their brain immediately picks him out and he becomes the centre of the entire scene. You simply cannot unsee him. Your brain immediately registers the incongruity and it leaps out of the screen at you.

 

[SpaceIsHuge]

You'll be glad that it's not up to me since you clearly love landing on all these wonderful new grey planets!

What are you even talking about? Theyre tons better and much more varied than in Horizons.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Aren't moderators supposed to keep everyone on topic?

They only do so when there is contention and gnashing of teeth. In this case, there is civilised conversation that everyone is enjoying. Good referees only blow the whistle when the players need to be brought in line for the sake of the game and orderly conduct.

 

[Sakashiro]

And it looks a million times better for it. Have you ever looked up at the night sky, even from a dark location?

"Multiply that by a thousand," is what James Reilly said. The sky in Odyssey looks wrong, and we have an actual astronaut confirming this.

 

[AdriánGuth]

"Multiplique eso por mil", es lo que dijo James Reilly. El cielo en Odyssey se ve mal, y tenemos un astronauta real que lo confirma.

Logical fallacy of authority.

 

[MCCART]

Aren't moderators supposed to keep everyone on topic?

Look up software "interdependence" or "coupling". ...Dad.

 

[MishaTX]

The sky in Odyssey looks wrong, and we have an actual astronaut confirming this.

I agree, but that's old news. I will never, even if I live to be a hundred, understand who possessed FDev to make the Milky Way a glowing orange-brown, a color it doesn't have anywhere in the 'verse. I'd pay good money for an update that did nothing but fix that one issue, but that's a discussion that's been had a million times and it ain't going to happen ever.

As to the rest of the lighting issues in EDO (huge disclaimer: I haven't bought EDO, YET, but I reckon I will as soon as the bugs have been ironed out, so anything I say is based on hearsay from both the doomsayers and the praisers), I firmly believe that it was unintended and fixable. As long as I still have Horizons, I can wait, although I'd prefer it to be a short wait, because those EDO planets sure look awesome when they're turn out right, I'm not ever going to deny that.

 

[Helvellyn]

"Multiply that by a thousand," is what James Reilly said. The sky in Odyssey looks wrong, and we have an actual astronaut confirming this.

It looks wrong, yes, but less wrong than previously. The Milky Way isn't very bright and dominating (and isn't brown). The cloudless dark sky night sky is black, with points of light (sun an moon notwithstanding), and the difference to the eye between seeing such on Earth and in space is small. You don't need to ask an astronaut. Have any other lighting around and the eye won't get dark adapted enough to even see the Milky Way. Look at a partially-lit planet or moon and what you'll see is a crescent, the unlit side indistinguishable from space (e.g. how we're used to seeing the Moon - occasionally it blocks out a star, and sometimes there's enough backlit light from Earth to make the away-from-sun face faintly visible, if the orientation is favourable). There aren't colourful glowing nebulae dotted around - detecting much colour in them (from Sol) requires long exposure photographs. Only a few stars are very obviously non-white (e.g. Betelgeuse) to the naked eye.

 

[Miri4Ever]

I was searching for some geolocial spot to collect some mats from planet surface. The planet scanner show me but there are no more the spots in my radar to fly and land in EDO. Some people telling about a new scanner and that is removed and i all read is to land inside the blue spots. Each planet has the ugly blue and I go down with the ship and there was just nothing to find at all. Even nobody can explain where this new scanner with this filters is found and how to setup this filter for the mats I'm looking for.

I frustated log off and got back to Horizons, there are my spots marked I can land and collect them.

Some people on steam me oh you have greater chance to find things in Odyessy about 17% or more from complete planet surface. Lol I'm not sure if sometime on try to round a planet with an SRV. 17% from whole planet or 5% chance from a 500 metere spot. I think then I would choose the 5% as driving weeks around the surface as long as we dont got better SRV with a radar that everyone can see like as in the space ship. It's impossible to me find the location I see from my ship just about 200 meters away. I not find this anyoften anymore with SRV and it's dfficult and nearly impossible to land even with mid ships or drive SRV with so many hills and rocks on planets.

If the ship has landed by calling ship, it can land on rock but then I can't deploy my SRV anymore if there is a big rock inside the docking bay. I can't upload things from SRV to cargo as in Horizions and need to dock in each time. On foot this works, but not in SRV.

I wanted to discover by foont on planet doing long walk and not after 5 minutes i need to hurry back my batteries are empy and I can not assmelbe mats to refuel them. I can't collect this minerals by foot with my laser and put in my bag. Even to understand and finding those spots. I was flying over the surface with my ship and crash it one time and it often scratch the surface and then the docking computer always want to land my ships if 'Im on slow speed and making the control total impossible.

For those I really need to go back to horizion for play and too much such an advertised feature got made so impossible to play in EDO.

 

[Erei]

And it looks a million times better for it. Have you ever looked up at the night sky, even from a dark location? The Milky Way is barely visible. The atmosphere (in good conditions) is enough to screw with big telescopes but doesn't make all that much difference to what they eye can see. All I'd change is to have the Milky Way white rather than brown, a faint band right across the sky (when seen from around the bubble anyway). I find it odd that people seem to want realistic-looking everything else but want completely unreaslistic, stylised space, which makes as much sense as making everything else look like it's in Borderlands.

Pity there's unlikely to ever be an option to let everyone have the look they like though.

The dark cockpit and UI are very irritating though.

Yes I saw the sky at night from a remote location, the stars are highly visible and so is the milky way.
This is what it look like (the lighting is a glitch from long exposure camera, the sky isn't).

If you don't see that by a clear sky, that mean you have light pollution nearby. It makes the stars "disappear". Either from a city or the moon, or pretty much anything. And that's from a very thick atmosphere planet.

And yes, it's stunning.


Space isn't black. It's dark, but not black. There are millions of stars in our galaxy alone. Space in ED is both dark and black.

 

[Helvellyn]

As you point out - "long exposure camera."

That photograph gives a very unrealistic impression of the brightness. Whilst you can see that many stars in a dark sky, with dark-adapted vision, they'll be nowhere near that bright, and if there is anything that bright around - such as a planet, or seeing it from a lit room, e.g. a spacecraft cockpit which doesn't have lighting issues making it very dark, you won't see anything like that. Take a look at photos from space probes where the focus of the picture is not getting a long exposure of distant objects (stars, nebulae, galaxies).

I'd like to see something a bit like that if I pointed by spaceship away from the star, no nearby planets, and could turn all the lights in it off - that many stars, not that level of brightness though.

The Earth's atmosphere makes little difference to what the naked eye can see (under good non-light-polluted locations), although the reddening towards the horizon in your photo is probably atmospheric.

The night sky away from light pollution really is a splendid sight but it does not look like that picture. The Milky Way is there in good conditions - impressive, unmissable - but not startlingly bright.

Anyway can we agree that the Milky Way's not brown?

 

[FX2K]

Sometimes, Odyssey can look great, other times, really crap.. but overall, there's a lot of 'same old same old' going on, fairly repetitive imo.

All of these are on a fairly boring planet, but just look at the mountains in the foreground compared with the one further in the background (just to the right, above the blue primary text) I mean, seriously.. what is that all about, so much detail in that background mountain section (I didn't get a closeup screenshot, but it looked great close too) and then all that janky stuff in the foreground just looked really really bad, up close too.

Then looking one way, ugh!:

and turning to face the other

Sometimes it's pretty cool, too, but clearly the pre-fabs at work in some places vs not in others (dunno)

That's all on ultra for capture, fwiw.

 

[Amy Pendergast]

Sometimes, Odyssey can look great, other times, really crap.. but overall, there's a lot of 'same old same old' going on, fairly repetitive imo.

All of these are on a fairly boring planet, but just look at the foreground compared with the background (just to the right)
I mean, seriously.. what is that all about, so much detail in that background mountain section (I didn't get a closeup screenshot, but it looked great close too) and then all that janky stuff in the foreground just looked really really bad, up close too.

Then looking one way, ugh!:

and turning to face the other

Sometimes it's pretty cool, too, but clearly the pre-fabs at work in some places vs not in others (dunno)

That's all on ultra for capture, fwiw.

I switched from ULTRAFORCAPTURE to ultra, i had sometimes strange shadows otherwise.

Yeah, the new planet tech is a bit of a mixed bag atm

 

[MCCART]

Have you ever looked up at the night sky, even from a dark location? The Milky Way is barely visible. The atmosphere (in good conditions) is enough to screw with big telescopes but doesn't make all that much difference to what they eye can see.

I have and, sorry to say, you are incorrect.

https://flic.kr/p/2m2Rbdh

Source: https://flic.kr/p/2m2Rbdh

 

[Helvellyn]

I have and, sorry to say, you are incorrect.

And just how does a photo of some telescopes during the day demonstrate that I'm incorrect? In fact what have telescopes got to do with it at all? I know atmospheric effects can interfere with telescopes (I've seen it myself), the point was that whilst it can affect telescopes enough for the big ones to be built on top of mountains the difference the atmosphere makes to the naked eye (in good conditions, in non light polluted areas) is not large. To the eye, good conditions from the surface of the Earth will look practically indistinguishable to the eye in space. So yes, you'll see the very obvious but faint white band of the Milky Way across the sky for example, once you've been outside without any other light sources around for a few minutes.

The problem isn't that it's there, it's that it's too damned bright. And if you're looking at, say, the Moon, you'll be doing well to see the Milky Way at all. The Moon will (phase depending of course) be a bright crescent, with the dark side being indistinguishable from the black of space, unless it's being illuminated via Earthshine.

 

[Erei]

As you point out - "long exposure camera."

That photograph gives a very unrealistic impression of the brightness. Whilst you can see that many stars in a dark sky, with dark-adapted vision, they'll be nowhere near that bright, and if there is anything that bright around - such as a planet, or seeing it from a lit room, e.g. a spacecraft cockpit which doesn't have lighting issues making it very dark, you won't see anything like that. Take a look at photos from space probes where the focus of the picture is not getting a long exposure of distant objects (stars, nebulae, galaxies).

I'd like to see something a bit like that if I pointed by spaceship away from the star, no nearby planets, and could turn all the lights in it off - that many stars, not that level of brightness though.

The Earth's atmosphere makes little difference to what the naked eye can see (under good non-light-polluted locations), although the reddening towards the horizon in your photo is probably atmospheric.

The night sky away from light pollution really is a splendid sight but it does not look like that picture. The Milky Way is there in good conditions - impressive, unmissable - but not startlingly bright.

Anyway can we agree that the Milky Way's not brown?

Brightness yes. The rest, no.

What part of "dark but not black" you don't understand ? Ingame it's both, in real life it's not.

The Earth's atmosphere makes little difference to what the naked eye can see (under good non-light-polluted locations), although the reddening towards the horizon in your photo is probably atmospheric.

It does, that's why we send a freaking telescope in space, and don't use our ground based telescope much.

 

[MCCART]

And just how does a photo of some telescopes during the day demonstrate that I'm incorrect? In fact what have telescopes got to do with it at all? I know atmospheric effects can interfere with telescopes (I've seen it myself), the point was that whilst it can affect telescopes enough for the big ones to be built on top of mountains the difference the atmosphere makes to the naked eye (in good conditions, in non light polluted areas) is not large. To the eye, good conditions from the surface of the Earth will look practically indistinguishable to the eye in space. So yes, you'll see the very obvious but faint white band of the Milky Way across the sky for example, once you've been outside without any other light sources around for a few minutes.

The problem isn't that it's there, it's that it's too damned bright. And if you're looking at, say, the Moon, you'll be doing well to see the Milky Way at all. The Moon will (phase depending of course) be a bright crescent, with the dark side being indistinguishable from the black of space, unless it's being illuminated via Earthshine.

Again...

Have you ever looked up at the night sky, even from a dark location? The Milky Way is barely visible. The atmosphere (in good conditions) is enough to screw with big telescopes but doesn't make all that much difference to what they eye can see.

You said that. I said you are incorrect. The picture was posted so that when I post that I've experienced something, I can back it up.

 

[Helvellyn]

Brightness yes. The rest, no.

What part of "dark but not black" you don't understand ? Ingame it's both, in real life it's not.

It does, that's why we send a freaking telescope in space, and don't use our ground based telescope much.

OK, we agree about the brightness part, good. And the colour?

Because I'm pointing out that you're wrong I don't understand. Right... Just to point it out again - in REAL LIFE the MIlky Way is a faint, continuous, non-black band. Away from it the human eye mostly (there's the odd other patch like the Magallenic Clouds) black, with lots of stars speckled on it. Putting aside effects like light pollution how many stars will very much depend on how dark-adapted the eye is; if you're close to a mostly illuminated planet not in the outer reaches of the solar system the pupil won't be very dilated and you won't see many (the Apollo astronauts said only a few of the brightest ones could be seen from the Moon, although I don't know how much filtering was on the helmet visors).

We send telescopes to space. That was the point, it's significant enough to affect telescope performance, but not what they human eye would see.

 

[Helvellyn]

You said that. I said you are incorrect. The picture was posted so that when I post that I've experienced something, I can back it up.

I'd have thought that you'd have got it right then rather than sounding like someone who points to long exposure photographs instead of looking up and claims that's proof about what it looks like.