Statement on planetary tech?

So no not much better at all, it looks like the base tiled map but with a surface material pass that 'hides' some of the tiles....

Yuck... Just bring back Horizons planets already and give them the EDO texture/shaders treatments....
Ok, that is laughingly bad. I'm 100% ok with sticking their high res Textures onto the Horizon planets. Also, I would like these deep canyons back in Odyssey, pretty please.
359320_20211103230602_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
So no not much better at all, it looks like the base tiled map but with a surface material pass that 'hides' some of the tiles....

Yuck... Just bring back Horizons planets already and give them the EDO texture/shaders treatments....
B-but people on the forum told me it's not actually an issue and we are just "looking too hard to find reasons to complain"!
 
System is COL 285 SECTOR OK-P A35-1, not far from Jude Navarro's system. You'll probably be able to see it zoomed out on the system map, that's how I noticed it.
Confirmed. Although it's... ok? not bad? near the surface. But it definitely looks like some procedural generation modifiers got 0 weighting.
Screenshot_0987.jpg
 
I know we tend to compare EDO to Horizons planets but does anyone remember the pre-beige planets? It was so long ago I can't even remember what year it was.
 
I don't think anyone is saying there aren't any issues. While there some really bad planets out there, like the example above, most planets I have been to do not have these issues. In fact most look superb and much better then horizons.
Keep in mind you're only seeing the ones that people bother to post, for both sides of the argument. A lot of people will see awful pattern tiling, scoff, and just move on without screencapping it.

Actually if anything I'd say the people who put in effort to post "good" planets outnumber the other side of the argument. So we are seeing confirmation bias.
 
Keep in mind you're only seeing the ones that people bother to post, for both sides of the argument. A lot of people will see awful pattern tiling, scoff, and just move on without screencapping it.

Actually if anything I'd say the people who put in effort to post "good" planets outnumber the other side of the argument. So we are seeing confirmation bias.
Sure, but I'm talking abouty own experience. I have hardly seen any tiling issues. Not that I'm staying they don't exist, they do, but from my experience, they are rare.
 
Sure, but I'm talking abouty own experience. I have hardly seen any tiling issues. Not that I'm staying they don't exist, they do, but from my experience, they are rare.
My guess is every planet is quite tiled, but the modifier weights are normally quite heavy thus the tiling is less noticeable. Just some planets got unlucky and got sufficiently low weights that the tiling became obvious.
 
Keep in mind you're only seeing the ones that people bother to post, for both sides of the argument. A lot of people will see awful pattern tiling, scoff, and just move on without screencapping it.

Actually if anything I'd say the people who put in effort to post "good" planets outnumber the other side of the argument. So we are seeing confirmation bias.

Have been slowly making my way back from Colonia these last couple months, stopping by at literally hundreds of planets, seeing them go through a few patches that improved their appearance from orbit, then worsened it, then improved it again (but not as good as way before), then noticeably improved performance at last. The tiling has not been a real issue for me since late summer at least, found an instance of a recognizable pattern just yesterday, and even that was hardly in your face. The issue is still around at varying degrees of severity (I can remember Kremavi being an embarassing example, and I guess it might still be, I'll pay a visit again when I'm back in the bubble), but it's surely far, far less of an issue compared to what it was once.

The ubiquitous large crater with the exaggerated and badly blended ejecta rays that marks each and every planet in the galaxy, on the other hand, is currently far of a bigger offender in my opinion, as far as planets appearance is concerned.

Regarding the "confirmation bias" thing, I can't see how one would expect to see around more bad looking images than good looking ones...like, you know, people who love to take photos do that mostly to capture the best view and the beauty of something...rather sure you'll find substantially more pics of sunsets on the sea and crisp mountain valleys, than overcast skies over suburban apartment blocks or coal factories in a foggy afternoon. There is clearly a confirmation bias at work, it's confirmed that people at large like to highlight good looking things more than bad ones.

In the very specific context of this game, highlighting a prominent issue with proper visual documentation is absolutely a good thing to do, and doesn't invalidate the other two millions pics purposely not showing it for the sake of taking a good looking pic. Different images taken for different purposes. Everyone is welcome to take as many pictures of bad tiling as possible to show developers the issue is still there, "confirmation bias" in relation to the thousands good looking images posted elsewhere is only in the minds of who wants to stir antagonistic arguing for the sake of it.
 
Sure, but I'm talking abouty own experience. I have hardly seen any tiling issues. Not that I'm staying they don't exist, they do, but from my experience, they are rare.

No, they're not rare. The "repeating terrain tiles" are on every landable planet. This has been discussed to exhaustion on the original Odyssey planetary tech threads. Not all are obvious from orbit, but they're very obvious in the 20km to 50km altitude range - thousands of repeating terrain tiles on every landable.
 
No, they're not rare. The "repeating terrain tiles" are on every landable planet. This has been discussed to exhaustion on the original Odyssey planetary tech threads. Not all are obvious from orbit, but they're very obvious in the 20km to 50km altitude range - thousands of repeating terrain tiles on every landable.
I haven't seen them on the planets I have been landing on. So if they are on every planet, then they must be far from obvious and not what you are saying.
 
My guess is every planet is quite tiled, but the modifier weights are normally quite heavy thus the tiling is less noticeable. Just some planets got unlucky and got sufficiently low weights that the tiling became obvious.

Yup, that's pretty much it. It appears to me where multiple biomes are overlapping, the terrain tiling is less apparent. But for the distinct biomes the tiling is very obvious.
 
Not all are obvious from orbit, but they're very obvious in the 20km to 50km altitude range - thousands of repeating terrain tiles on every landable.

Forgot to mention that indeed, as of now the issue has largely disappeared or greatly diminished from orbit, but it remains more apparent at lower altitudes. You still have to actively look for that in most occasions, but some "feature templates" are clearly more prone to show repetition than others.
 
I haven't seen them on the planets I have been landing on. So if they are on every planet, then they must be far from obvious and not what you are saying.

Unfortunately, this is the new planetary terrain procgen methodology. The new game design uses a finite number of pre-generated "terrain tiles". Or in FDev's own words, "For Odyssey... we're talking up 100km worth of terrain for example, which are now generated offline into terrain shapes that we know are formed."
 
Forgot to mention that indeed, as of now the issue has largely disappeared or greatly diminished from orbit, but it remains more apparent at lower altitudes. You still have to actively look for that in most occasions, but some "feature templates" are clearly more prone to show repetition than others.

But they haven't made any changes to the new terrain generation since Odyssey dropped? All they've said so far is that they're looking into it.
 
How they do it isn't as important to me as getting rid of things like this:

View attachment 273047

Wow.

I've not been around a great number of planets since Odyssey's dropped, only perhaps a few dozen, but i've seen nothing even remotely close to that.

I haven't even seen any noticable tiling. Maybe if i spent time looking at the planets, squint a bit, rotate my head, maybe i'd see some, but so far its all looked fine from a distance. And of course, close up, not going to see it anyway.
 
I've not been around a great number of planets since Odyssey's dropped, only perhaps a few dozen, but i've seen nothing even remotely close to that.
Yeah, the only time I'd seen anything like that was when I went to that specific planet. I've seen some repetition, but nothing that... broken.
 
Unfortunately, this is the new planetary terrain procgen methodology. The new game design uses a finite number of pre-generated "terrain tiles". Or in FDev's own words, "For Odyssey... we're talking up 100km worth of terrain for example, which are now generated offline into terrain shapes that we know are formed."
Yes, I know how they are created. But as I said, I have seen very little obvious tiling. I know it's there and some planets are really bad, some are very good. But the ones that are really bad, like the example above seem to be very rare, thankfully. As I said, nearly all the planets I've landed on, obvious tiling has been extremely rare.
 
Back
Top Bottom