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

[Erei]

Terrain is one place where copy-pasting is absolutely necessary as geomorphology is made up of a (rather long) list of elements we can recognise and put labels on. These elements often have similar processes behind them and can therefore have a similar looks to them, such as horst-graben systems in faulted areas, or dunes in a dune field that can look extremely similar in top view.

The main issue with the copy-pasting in EDO seems to be that not enough variability has been added to many features after the original base models have been picked for a landscape.

S

You can also "hide" repetition with various tools. Increasing/decreasing the size of the pattern, rotating it, not using the same close to "itself", using others pattern to partially cover them (IE break the pattern, like zebra or tiger do), etc....

The problem is not repetition by itself, but the lack of covering.

See, the big crater that look the same everywhere ? It was not as obvious to me (and many other according to multiple thread) in horizon, because it was covered in various color and stuff. Thus, pattern broken.
In Odyssey, it is glaring and obvious. Every planet seems to have it.

 

[here_it_comes]

Different name for exact same thing.

No, they are not remotely the same.

A topographical map is a representation of naturally formed terrain.

A height map is a bingo chart of RNG that has no inherent connection to physics, reality, or even terrain/geography necessarily.

You are conflating the two because heightmaps are often used to represent terrain using a similar method to how topographical maps work.

You have a really bad habit of pretending to know what you're talking about when it is obvious you don't. You should reconsider this habit, it's pretty cringey. And I say that meaning well.

o7

 

[Sysmon]

No, they are not remotely the same.

A topographical map is a representation of naturally formed terrain.

A height map is a bingo chart of RNG that has no inherent connection to physics, reality, or even terrain/geography necessarily.

You are conflating the two because heightmaps are often used to represent terrain using a similar method to how topographical maps work.

You have a really bad habit of pretending to know what you're talking about when it is obvious you don't. You should reconsider this habit, it's pretty cringey. And I say that meaning well.

o7

Is splitting hairs helping the discussion? Isn't the height maps in ED meant to represent topography? Topography is elevation (or height, if you want). So I really don't see where you are trying to get to with this particular line of arguments.

S

 

[here_it_comes]

Nm, rock on man.

 

[alexzk]

See, the big crater that look the same everywhere

Oh noes, I see God made 3 copy-pastes at least (just resized a little)

Lunar craters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Erei]

No, they are not remotely the same.

A topographical map is a representation of naturally formed terrain.

A height map is a bingo chart of RNG that has no inherent connection to physics, reality, or even terrain/geography necessarily.

You are conflating the two because heightmaps are often used to represent terrain using a similar method to how topographical maps work.

You have a really bad habit of pretending to know what you're talking about when it is obvious you don't. You should reconsider this habit, it's pretty cringey. And I say that meaning well.

o7

It's complicated, and you are both kinda right and kinda wrong.
A heightmap is a representation of height (I know right) using black, white and grey only. White mean highest height, black lowest, and you go from there.

You can export and import said map in some game and other tools. What is important, however, is several things :
1/it's only height. Caves and other structure of that kind can't be seen on that map. Also other issues related to that
2/the heightmap have a resolution. Which mean usually it's rather smooth, because it's hard to have grey for little rocks, while still representing hundreds, thousands of meter of height
3/they do features poorly, like cracks (due to limited height changes)
4/they don't care about trees, and other natural/artificial stuff.

This is why a heightmap is the base for the map you want. But you need to work on them, mostly give them "noise". Like crevasses, fissures, and rocks. Especially since you then have texture stretching, a natural result of a smooth rapid increase in height. You hide that with other textures or noise.

If the heightmap is "poorly done" or too low in resolution, you have artifacts. Sharp mountain raising at near 90° angle. Needles out of nowhere. Big thin wall of smooth "mountains". That's very common if you have say a black, then a dark grey with no "in between". The game will think the terrain goes from zero to super high in literally one pixel.
When that stuff happens you need extra manual work.


Now, replace "manual work" by whatever they use for noise generation/terrain sharpener. And I think we have the culprit right there.

 

[Sysmon]

It's complicated, and you are both kinda right and kinda wrong.
A heightmap is a representation of height (I know right) using black, white and grey only. White mean highest height, black lowest, and you go from there.

You can export and import said map in some game and other tools. What is important, however, is several things :
1/it's only height. Caves and other structure of that kind can't be seen on that map. Also other issues related to that
2/the heightmap have a resolution. Which mean usually it's rather smooth, because it's hard to have grey for little rocks, while still representing hundreds, thousands of meter of height
3/they do features poorly, like cracks (due to limited height changes)
4/they don't care about trees, and other natural/artificial stuff.

This is why a heightmap is the base for the map you want. But you need to work on them, mostly give them "noise". Like crevasses, fissures, and rocks. Especially since you then have texture stretching, a natural result of a smooth rapid increase in height. You hide that with other textures or noise.

If the heightmap is "poorly done" or too low in resolution, you have artifacts. Sharp mountain raising at near 90° angle. Needles out of nowhere. Big thin wall of smooth "mountains". That's very common if you have say a black, then a dark grey with no "in between". The game will think the terrain goes from zero to super high in literally one pixel.
When that stuff happens you need extra manual work.


Now, replace "manual work" by whatever they use for noise generation/terrain sharpener. And I think we have the culprit right there.

We had weird landscapes in EDH as well, where some sort of multiplier appeared to get out of hand and give us insane ridges/canyons especially on small ice worlds. It seems we are still facing that issue in EDO, just with a different architecture for landscape modelling being impacted by it.

S

 

[Erei]

If you want to see heightmap in action, for free, pick one on
http://terrain.party/
Anywhere in the world.

Then download and use Wilbur (there is a free version somewhere, legal). It's a geological tool, also uses to make fantasy world and the like. Even without simulating erosion and so on, you can import the height map. You can then apply erosion and stuff, and play with that.
In any case, you'll notice some "issue" when importing the heightmap. Some might be similar to what we have in game now. This is because terrain party have a relatively low resolution, and if you want to use said map, you'll need to "clean" it.

 

[Sysmon]

If you want to see heightmap in action, for free, pick one on
http://terrain.party/
Anywhere in the world.

Then download and use Wilbur (there is a free version somewhere, legal). It's a geological tool, also uses to make fantasy world and the like. Even without simulating erosion and so on, you can import the height map. You can then apply erosion and stuff, and play with that.
In any case, you'll notice some "issue" when importing the heightmap. Some might be similar to what we have in game now. This is because terrain party have a relatively low resolution, and if you want to use said map, you'll need to "clean" it.

I work a lot with SRTMs (Shuttle Radad Terrain Models), making topographical models out of them (which I then apply to geological 3D models). When the grid (height map, I guess) is not well cleaned up, you get some interesting ridges and features curiously aligned with the space shuttle travel path.

S

 

[Erei]

I work a lot with SRTMs (Shuttle Radad Terrain Models), making topographical models out of them (which I then apply to geological 3D models). When the grid (height map, I guess) is not well cleaned up, you get some interesting ridges and features curiously aligned with the space shuttle location.

S

I used to read them for geology. But I used them in map making for games. Cities skyline first. And the artifact are very similar to what I see in the game.
Heightmap are quite sensible to having defect that need cleaning up. Like sometimes you can have the map border that wasn't properly removed, and the tool you use think it's part of the map, so you have a big wall of death/canyon of doom on the side^^

 

[here_it_comes]

A heightmap is a representation of height (I know right) using black, white and grey only.

Those shades are for ease of use, they are numbers in reality.

 

[Erei]

Those shades are for ease of use, they are numbers in reality.

Spoiler alert : everything is a number if you go far enough

But yes, they are numbers.

 

[here_it_comes]

Spoiler alert : everything is a number if you go far enough

You don't have to go a single layer down for heightmaps to be numbers, they are only represented as shades by your GUI. Lots of datatypes aren't numbers, such as strings. Nothing about heightmaps has anything to do with shades, you're talking about the GUI of the software you are using to edit said heightmaps.

o7

 

[hunvagy]

Oh noes, I see God made 3 copy-pastes at least (just resized a little)

Lunar craters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You do know there's a difference in something looking similar, or being the same thing? I see similar craters there, but none of them are exactly the same asset, because nature doesn't work that way.

EDO (and EDH) reuses assets which are exactly the same, at different scales and orientations. And for some reason, on some planets this becomes very visible, because the reusing happens in short intervals, so your eye notices it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

No, they are not remotely the same.

A topographical map is a representation of naturally formed terrain.

A height map is a bingo chart of RNG that has no inherent connection to physics, reality, or even terrain/geography necessarily.

You are conflating the two because heightmaps are often used to represent terrain using a similar method to how topographical maps work.

You have a really bad habit of pretending to know what you're talking about when it is obvious you don't. You should reconsider this habit, it's pretty cringey. And I say that meaning well.

o7

Same thing when the outcome is believable and - most importantly - diverse.

 

[alexzk]

EDO (and EDH) reuses assets which are exactly the same, at different scales and orientations. And for some reason, on some planets this becomes very visible, because the reusing happens in short intervals, so your eye notices it.

I don't think crater is asset at all. On 1050 video card u can see full stage by stage loading, craters are there immediately. I think it is generated and that's why identical as on photo.
Only I could see identical for now - that twin rock in different variations. I think rocks are assets, and what FDevs mean, they need more different rocks.

 

[Erei]

I don't think crater is asset at all. On 1050 video card u can see full stage by stage loading, craters are there immediately. I think it is generated and that's why identical as on photo.

That one :

It was in horizon to, but it was better hidden and less glaring. In Odyssey it's very visible and almost every metallic word have at least one. The CG planet with the battlefield have one for example, and also at least one planet in the CG system with the megaship.
Once in a while I see that crater mentioned or shown on reddit/here. People noticed that one very fast, and it is annoying.


It's definitely an asset, there is nothing random about it. And it's reused very, very often.

 

[alexzk]

Once in a while I see that crater mentioned or shown on reddit/here. People noticed that one very fast, and it is annoying.

Okey, one of 1-2-3 planets I was last on had crater with like-cross (4) lines, which took my attention to investigate 1 line of it. So it was 4, not many as here.
...and yes, each planet will have it. Even Earth STILL has it, 1 in Arisona is visible.

What I'm trying to say, similar processes will do similar results, You cant say it is copy-paste. Another problem is chaotic processes. With slight different initial values those will do complete different results. Generator may be not enough chaotic. And it's truly hard to do. Need infinite sized computer.

 

[Erei]

Okey, one of 1-2-3 planets I was last on had crater with like-cross (4) lines, which took my attention to investigate 1 line of it. So it was 4, not many as here.
...and yes, each planet will have it. Even Earth STILL has it, 1 in Arisona is visible.

Arizona have a similar one you say. Can you please show me the similar crater on this picture ? Red circles are OK.

Can you prove me such crater is a common feature in our system ? Obviously, since it happens that frequently in space, you'll have to admit the odd to have several of it in the literal hundred of celestial body we have mapped is very high.
So, I want proof it's common.

 

[MishaTX]

Even Earth STILL has it, 1 in Arisona is visible.

That's just downtown Phoenix.