Pls Loosen the Screws on the Planet Generator :)

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.
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.
 
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.
1.
Wrong.
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.

2.
I dont need to Prove this lol.
I am making a Suggestion to Improve the Game.
Not an assertion on how to make ED more Realistic.
Under Realism Viewpoint I could Suggest anything. And as we dont know what Planets really are like. We would never be able to Argue for or against.

3.
I will dismiss the last Comment as I already stated several Times that NMS etc is not delivering what I am asking for.
If you want to tell lame jokes pls try your Grandma.
And if you want to have a Realistic Universe stop Playing a Game and Start Studying Astronomy.
 
Interesting topic, I mostly agree that we need even more variety in planet surfaces. They are good but there is one noticeable thing that need to be address.
The higher G plnaet is, the less height variety it has. There are never any deep ravines, high mountains on huge planets. Its like vertical is re scaling with planet size.
It bugs me to no end as a explorer :(
 
1.
Wrong.
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.
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.
 
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.
Sorry but that got nothing to do with Bias.
Its just a Simple Fact.

The Random World Generator on Elite Dangerous is an Extremely Simple Height Map. What it does. Is Create a Ball. And then Set Heights and Color them. Thats all. And thats not how Planets Work.
No Fractures, No Overhang Cliffs, No Possibility of Subsurface Formations, No Tectonics.
I will say this Again. Our MOON. Which is basicly just a Rock Ball. And thus is exactly what 90% of the currently Landable Planets in ED should look like. Is 10 times more Interesting than anything you find in ED.
Just Jupiter has more variety and oddities than the Entire Universe of Elite Dangerous.

So if you want Scientific Evidence you just need to check out what we know about our own Solar System and then Compare our Solar System to what Elite Dangerous has Provided us with.

Albeit to begin with thats a Pretty Stupid Demand. Because you dont Demand People to Prove Negatives.
If I claimed that Elvis is not Dead because his Death etc was just a Fake and actually he was Abducted by Aliens because they wanted to make him their Singer for Eternity.
Then its not your Job to Provide Evidence that my Claim is Wrong. But my Job to Prove that my Claim is Right.

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 ;)
 
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 ;)
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.

Just to clarify - a lack of modelling fidelity does not constitute a lack of realism (at least not to the point of being able to call the model unrealistic without indisputable proof).
 
Last edited:
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!

Source: https://youtu.be/8l8-itiyCpg


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.
Nice pics!

Without shooting the messenger, the planetary terrain generation system doesn't produced any caves or overhangs. That is the current technical limitations.
 
Leaving aside some of the groundless assertions made in the original post related to the type of planets 'out there' that supposedly have water, caverns, etc. (as well as supposedly taking millions of years to become globular in shape - one idiot 'scientist', Neil deGrasse Tyson, claims the earth is 'pear shaped'*) I would like to see some caverns on the planet surface which the SRV could drive into and explore.

Don't believe everything you're told folks - not even from people labelled as 'scientists'.


*
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
 
Interesting topic, I mostly agree that we need even more variety in planet surfaces. They are good but there is one noticeable thing that need to be address.
The higher G plnaet is, the less height variety it has. There are never any deep ravines, high mountains on huge planets. Its like vertical is re scaling with planet size.
It bugs me to no end as a explorer :(
Yet that is exactly what you should expect. Two factors come into play:

1. Scaling. Eight kilometers of mountain very much stand out on something smaller than our moon. The same eight kilometers look much less significant on something with 6 or 8 times the mass of earth.
2. Gravitation. This is what tries to make perfect spheres out of all bodies. Thus the higher the gravitation on any planetary body, the more sphere-like shape actually is to be expected, unless there are significant other factors (volcanism, high tectonic activity, being very close to another body of high gravitation and thus being on the way to destruction) at work.

I guess that's why the highest known mountain in the solar system is on mars. Active volcanism on a planet with a third of earths gravitation seems to be a sweet spot for making high mountains.
 
Sorry but that got nothing to do with Bias.
Its just a Simple Fact.

The Random World Generator on Elite Dangerous is an Extremely Simple Height Map. What it does. Is Create a Ball. And then Set Heights and Color them. Thats all. And thats not how Planets Work.
No Fractures, No Overhang Cliffs, No Possibility of Subsurface Formations, No Tectonics.
I will say this Again. Our MOON. Which is basicly just a Rock Ball. And thus is exactly what 90% of the currently Landable Planets in ED should look like. Is 10 times more Interesting than anything you find in ED.
Just Jupiter has more variety and oddities than the Entire Universe of Elite Dangerous.

So if you want Scientific Evidence you just need to check out what we know about our own Solar System and then Compare our Solar System to what Elite Dangerous has Provided us with.

Albeit to begin with thats a Pretty Stupid Demand. Because you dont Demand People to Prove Negatives.
If I claimed that Elvis is not Dead because his Death etc was just a Fake and actually he was Abducted by Aliens because they wanted to make him their Singer for Eternity.
Then its not your Job to Provide Evidence that my Claim is Wrong. But my Job to Prove that my Claim is Right.

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 ;)
Except that a lot of what you said is factually untrue. Watch the FDev videos on how they develop the planets.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Et5Ivi_yIg&list=PL7glm5rbPHKw-XsTFLUu5N6dlLrvZA_1Y&index=1
 
Currently all of the Planets we can Land on. Are pretty much Identhical.
I feel you bro

Which can have Deep Caves.
Yeah, caves is like all the rest of the features that for whatever reason FDEV is not talking about


High Mountain Ranges....Planet rather Oddly Shaped as it takes Millions of Years before it actually becomes a Sphere due to Gravitational Forces :)
These we have. All planets (almost) have mountain ranges, canyon, so enough to make me sick driving the SRV in VR.

Is because the Random Generation Bugged out. And ended up doing something that is actually Unintended by the Devs.
It's not random. The way you can see it and control it is almost random from a certain point, but it's acqually not.

Might actually provide alot more Unique Places and might in Fact end up way more Realistic than the current situation where if you know one Planet you know all of them.
These are my 2 main concern with Stellar Forge. While I admit it's a piece of art, it's still driven by too rigid rules (like you said) to try to simulate reality at best.

Point 1:
But who really know the reality? Have we ever landed on exoplanets? Have we ever visited places outside our solar system?
In our solar system we have 8 planet plus other minor bodies that are all different. So the experience here says that the more we have the bigger the diversity and wider the variations. Instead in many systems we find many times 5-6 planets that are all the same.

Point 2:
Whenever FDEV add something "unique" to the galaxy this is damn rare to be found. So if they ever modify again Stellar Forge to add some new type of discovery I hope they will completely revise the odds to find these things in favor of a better gameplay.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
All the stuff that used to exist that was "super interesting!!!!"

Were mostly glitches.

They just fixed the glitches, they didn't make the generation less interesting
 
Top Bottom