I want more planets like Wilson
Except FD are using some form of realistic model for generating the universe, you may not like the results of the model but ultimately you have no solid argument to support your assertion that the result is unrealistic.But that is exactly my Point. Trying to Build a Universe ONLY with the Confirmed Facts (which we dont even have because even the things we considered Fact have been changed again and again due to Scientists Suddenly finding something that completely topples them over)
Is completely Irrelevant. And will Result in a very Boring and very Repetetive Universe. (Exactly what we got)
Because what we know is so very little that you get of course also very little Variation.
You cant make a Universe based on Factual Information when you have no Factual Information.
If we Limit ourselves to Factual Information we cant even make Earth Realistic. Because we dont even know our Planet Good enough to do that.
1.Except FD are using some form of realistic model for generating the universe, you may not like the results of the model but ultimately you have no solid argument to support your assertion that the result is unrealistic.
To do what you would like done would arguably compromise the principle of the universe being based on scientific fact and enter into the realm of pure unbridled fiction. If you want a galaxy like that - then there is NMS and KSP in essence.
I am sorry but ultimately you are wrong - we have various modern scientific models to go on that can be adjusted based on various factors.1.
Because we dont even know what is Realistic. So if FD had an way to Generate a Realistic Universe.
Nasa and other Space Agencies would give em Billions for the Program instead of FD making it into a Game.
FDs Universe Generator is boring and highly Unrealistic with very little Variety.
Its nothing but a very Limited RNG.
Sorry but that got nothing to do with Bias.I am sorry but ultimately you are wrong - we have various modern scientific models to go on that can be adjusted based on various factors.
Your claim about it being very limited RNG is biased based on your own desires and not backed up by any scientific basis. We do know that FD's modelling is based on accepted scientific theories thus your "opinion" is just that (opinion) and without any scientific evidence to back up your claims that FD's model is unrealistic then such claims are without any merit of note.
It is you who is making unfounded claims about realism, all I have said is that it is in accordance with a scientific model. That model may have limitations such as no auto generated sub-surface structures but the claim that it is unrealistic is what requires actual proof. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one making trollish claims about realism or lack there of.So if your Claiming that EDs Random Universe Generation is Realistic. Then your the one who would need to Provide Evidence that the Universe looks like the one ED Created
Nice pics!Unlike others I think I get what you're saying and it's not ridiculous it's just that I disagree about what would be best for the game and think that the "tightness of the screws" that we currently have is a good balance between some semblance of realism and an interesting degree of variety in our planets (given the current capabilities of the terrain generation algorithm).
Just to lay my credentials on the table here, I have over 25 million metres (i.e. over 25,000 km or 15,000 miles) in the SRV. I've completely circumnavigated 2 different moons (Pleione 3A and Chi Herculis/Kumay), written articles in Sagittarius Eye magazine on the subject of both Planetary Circumnavigation and advanced SRV driving techniques, established the Pomeche Ridge Challenge (perhaps Elite's foremost standing SRV time trial event) and am widely known as a massive fan of both planetary terrain and SRV driving. That's not to say my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses, just that it's based on a LOT of experience.
I think perhaps the easiest way to illustrate what I mean is by showing a selection of screenshots of some of the terrain I've seen.
(ignore the pointing finger - that was to illustrate something else in the original use of that image)
Oh, and I think the mountains we have are plenty extreme enough!
All that "loosening the screws" (as you put it) would achieve is to make those variations more extreme (pushing some generated surfaces outside the realms of believability), we wouldn't get new types of variation.