Some easy to implement exploration gameplay QOL improvements... for better indication of topography in FSS/DSS/System maps

[GraphicEqualizer]

Currently the depictions of bodies in the FSS scan and in the resulting system map when zooming in, do not do the topographies of those worlds any justice... and so limits the ability to judge which will be really interesting to visit. This is particularly apparent for my Landscape Signal survey operations to find big interesting mountains.

Currently it appears as though topography is indicated or less than a 1:1 ratio - I think that topography (mountains, valleys, plateaus, etc.) should be given a slightly exaggerated view e.g 1.5/2:1 to really highlight what you can expect and avoid the constantly misleading bland billiard balls we see.
* Also if they could match the current day/night cycle that'd be useful too - especially now with the sick atmosphere effects, knowing that the sun is setting/rising over a mountain range is useful!

The same views from Horizons, demonstrating the ability to more accurately judge that this body has interesting terrain... (though of course on the old planetary tech), the Odyssey version in the system map gives very little clue to whether there is any varied topography height at all and certainly no indication that that huge rift valley is there indicated in the above right

Also, for landable worlds we need to have the post DSS scan latitude and longitude lines back - they are useful to know where the poles are etc., to make it easier to find the interesting topography you saw (or should see) in the system map view, they could be faintly overlaid in a different colour than biological and geological markings. They were very useful in Horizons and would be here too.

 

[varonica]

Currently the depictions of bodies in the FSS scan and in the resulting system map when zooming in, do not do the topographies of those worlds any justice... and so limits the ability to judge which will be really interesting to visit. This is particularly apparent for my Landscape Signal survey operations to find big interesting mountains.

Currently it appears as though topography is indicated or less than a 1:1 ratio - I think that topography (mountains, valleys, plateaus, etc.) should be given a slightly exaggerated view e.g 1.5/2:1 to really highlight what you can expect and avoid the constantly misleading bland billiard balls we see.
* Also if they could match the current day/night cycle that'd be useful too - especially now with the sick atmosphere effects, knowing that the sun is setting/rising over a mountain range is useful!

Which would lead to endless complaints what they saw in the FSS wasn't actually there.

Once a body reaches a certain size you simply won't see mountains and valleys for the distance away the view is in the FSS and system map, and showing them on an exagerated scale would simply lead people to fly to it looking for something really remarkable that wasn't actually there. Really small bodies you can indeed see the mountains and valleys because of the body scale. I would much rather see a realistic rendition than some sort of exagerated cartoon depiction that shows things that aren't actually there. This wouldn't be a QOL thing, it would be an endless source of complaints thing!

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

Which would lead to endless complaints what they saw in the FSS wasn't actually there.

Once a body reaches a certain size you simply won't see mountains and valleys for the distance away the view is in the FSS and system map, and showing them on an exagerated scale would simply lead people to fly to it looking for something really remarkable that wasn't actually there. Really small bodies you can indeed see the mountains and valleys because of the body scale. I would much rather see a realistic rendition than some sort of exagerated cartoon depiction that shows things that aren't actually there. This wouldn't be a QOL thing, it would be an endless source of complaints thing!

Its kinda flattened out to the other extent at the moment though as per the first example (which is less than 700km radius), which is counter-productive too. I don't think we should get to a cartoonish geoid potato kinda depiction, but it needs to be more accurate than present. Most planets bigger than 1000km radius currently just look even more like billiard balls than that first example, whereas on approach (at roughly the same distance/size that they appeared in the system map/FSS - again as per first example) they are actually way more interesting.

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

PS. For example Horizons view of worlds were much more accurate in regard to topography... I'm only really looking for that - see the Landscape Signal search post for examples of the Horizons era

 

[varonica]

PS. For example Horizons view of worlds were much more accurate in regard to topography... I'm only really looking for that - see the Landscape Signal search post for examples of the Horizons era

No they weren't, specially for smaller bodies, that's why large planets are flatter now and really small bodies are much more mishapen, having exaggerated features which don't actually exist on the planet itself would be completely wrong on every level. What you see in the maps and scanners should be what is there when you get there, and not entirely different.

 

[varonica]

I don't agree that certainly some will have outstanding features due to recent asteroid impacts etc, but they are clearly visible in the FSS and on the systems map, but most of them won't, for instance here's Europa, 670klm radius;

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

Point is though that it is undeniable that finding interesting topography to visit from the system map is now harder than it was and it is not just because we don't have as many admittedly redonkulous mountains and canyons that we used to have.

ps Europa is a bad example, it is the smoothest body in the solar system - pretty though it may be
https://www.planetary.org/worlds/europa

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

Added the same body as in the first example to the OP - but from Horizons mode view (admittedly also showing the old planetary tech - but the planet radius and details are still the same) - showing how much more accurate the system map view was to the reality a similar size/distance away

 

[varonica]

Added the same body as in the first example to the OP - but from Horizons mode view (admittedly also showing the old planetary tech - but the planet radius and details are still the same) - showing how much more accurate the system map view was to the reality a similar size/distance away

No it doesn't, because the planetary tech changed the way and places mountains and valleys appeared, the way erosion and greavity affects the landcape, you can't compare the two and claim one is more realistic because they are not images of the same thing. The system map view is actually the planet in real time, it's not a generated image, it's what you would see at that distance and point away from the planet (taking into account different times of the day and light effects). If the Odyssey one is different it's because the planet itself is different. You can track you ship marker across the planet in the system view, watch it as it crosses crater rims and different coloured areas. These views are actually what you see, not a separately generated image.

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

It is true of course, as I indicated, that the planetary tech is different so it is not a like-for-like comparison, but the point being that the left and right of the Horizons example is more accurate to what is there (in that version), and the left and right of Odyssey is less accurate to what is there (in that version).

The good thing is that we can agree to disagree and be civil because we are adults, and leave it to others to chime in. The other "good" thing is that most of the QOL improvement ideas here are ignored anyway lol

 

[varonica]

It is true of course, as I indicated, that the planetary tech is different so it is not a like-for-like comparison, but the point being that the left and right of the Horizons example is more accurate to what is there (in that version), and the left and right of Odyssey is less accurate to what is there (in that version).

The good thing is that we can agree to disagree and be civil because we are adults, and leave it to others to chime in. The other "good" thing is that most of the QOL improvement ideas here are ignored anyway lol

No that's completely wrong, this is what I expect from the FSS, my system map, and actually being there;

FSS;

System Map;

Actually being there at the planet;

They are all close enough to the same, apart from the lighting which has always been an issue in the system map, if I was to see high mountains in the system map image 2, and when I got to the distance I was as in image 3 and couldn't see the mountains then I would be reporting it as a bug because it would be wrong! You can't put stuff into maps that aren't actually there, that's then not a map!

 

[GraphicEqualizer]

yours look further away so of course there will be less detail in both views - I zoom into the system map until it almost fills the area - and fly closer within 2Mm

Here there is no indication that there would be such a deep canyon

Whereas here there is an easily distinguishable canyon and mountains - none of that was indicated in the system map which has virtually no "relief", just colours

Point is, again that it is harder to figure out where to visit if there is no topgraphical information conveyed any more --- these are small worlds, the detail should be easily visible, less so on 1000km+ radius worlds unless it a truly big feature

 

[baron_V_S]

Totally agreed, one of the main reasons I explore is to find mountains and high peaks.

It would be so cool if after a scan, we could see the highest points highlighted in a certain colour in the FSS or just some basic statistics for the highest piece of land.

Very concerning though is that Odyssey's new planet generation system seems to have flattened all planets and turned the mountain ranges we do have into homogenous generic ranges that go on forever. There are very rarely any standalone, huge mountains any more. I've found maybe one 10km high standalone peak but that's about it in 1000s of planets visited. We used to get huge mountains like Mount Neverest on rocky ice worlds, some of them 30km+ in height. Those are now gone.

 

[zikolach]

yours look further away so of course there will be less detail in both views - I zoom into the system map until it almost fills the area - and fly closer within 2Mm

Here there is no indication that there would be such a deep canyon
View attachment 283369

Whereas here there is an easily distinguishable canyon and mountains - none of that was indicated in the system map which has virtually no "relief", just colours
View attachment 283368

Point is, again that it is harder to figure out where to visit if there is no topgraphical information conveyed any more --- these are small worlds, the detail should be easily visible, less so on 1000km+ radius worlds unless it a truly big feature

It is hard to say for me from these 2 images if it is the same planet or not. Not only topografical details, but also surface colors and atmosphere are shown differently. I would guess the algorithm for rendering system map version of planet surface is way too different. I am not sure, but maybe on system map FDev could better use simplified version, switching to "real" algorithm (which is used when we fly by the planet) for planetary map (this way system map could load maybe faster).