Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Wait... no procedural planets?!?!

Discussion in 'General' started by Lrj52, Oct 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    What makes you think the height maps are a problem? Remember, we're talking voxel, dynamic, destructible planets here, not just some polygon soup ball. I doubt the height maps are what makes the biggest challenge here.
     
  2. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    omfg!! instabuy!
    that volcanic planet :eek:
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  3. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,551
    No Mans Sky generates the world as you move through it. everything you see is generated for you right there on the spot.. the "seed" that creates the galaxy will be the same for everyone once it is complete, therefore everyone will be exploring the same universe, because everything is generated the same for everyone from that same seed.

    No Mans Sky will support Mods on Steam, so there is the possibility of completely new galaxies to explore created by users.

    The creators of No Mans Sky don't truly know what is in the galaxy, because they cannot possibly look at everything generated.... of course not everything is procedural, but for the most part, nearly everything will be.

    No Mans Sky for me is instant purchase day 1.
     
  4. chemicalscum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    318
    No Mans Sky looks pretty but for some reason the gameplay I have seen just doesn't convince me. I doubt the game is very exciting.
     
  5. BlackUmbrellas Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,818
    It depends if they put any sort of core narrative into it. IIRC, there's something about trying to get to the galactic core?

    I'm sure that could be made pretty interesting. Still, at the moment, it does sound a bit like a (very elaborate) "walking around looking at pretty things" simulator. Which isn't bad, per say, but I prefer my games of that sort to be a lot more heavily story-driven to make up for the lack of interactive gameplay.
     
  6. aaagamer Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    56
    The planets shown seemed to be the "test worlds" the devs put together for use in screenshots, teasers, and internal tinkering. My real qualms come from this: The stream seemed to be a rather rushed affair which did a poor job at properly showing them off, and created more questions than it answered.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    It was their very first stream. Give them a break.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Spets Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,214
    I dont want to be the guy, but I dont kno wwhy I feel NMS is just selling smoke and mirrors. You know, so much media around it, perhaps they have a contract so people buy more consoles, or who knows... Is obvious when he play the demo he is not controlling the ship as he say, everything looks prerecorded
    EDIT: I hope Im wrong of course, I like the idea of the game
     
  9. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,551
    I felt that way for a bit, after watching some of the interviews that had gameplay by Sean Murray I was sold :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2015
  10. Azzanine Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    289
    I don't really care, I never expected planets to enhance the exploration aspect of the game. Merely be a justification for wheeled vehicles.
    Also procedural generation has no middle ground either it looks wacky makeing things look like planets in Spore (where Spores planets PG?) or it ends up samey like in minecraft where he worlds are obviously different but in the end feels way too familiar.
    Also the 50/50 thing is probably going to be procedural height maps selected and possibly edited. But no actual generation will need to be done in game.
    Generating the height maps and importing afterwards would be a clever labour saving method.
    Full procedural generation looks like too much hassle for too little reward. Even if you make a perfect algorithm that removes any possibility of any terrain whackyness you will have then made the planets too plain, very different but way too familiar. Every thing would look the same only with the added advantage of feeling lost. Like if someone rearranged the rooms and floorplan of your house but keeping the walls, floors and ceilings the same.
     
  11. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,460
    Yeah, NMS first day purchase, definitely.

    Infinity, already on that bandwagon, been following that for a long while, never thought it would get to KS, to be honest. But now it has, following it all the way.

    There are a number of space related games I play, follow or back. I just like the genre. For me SE would have been the genre beater, had it done planets the way they were in the dev version I play with. Now before anyone shouts out 'we don't know how they'll look', I agree. But from the stream the other day, they looked very different to the ones I play with in the dev version (albeit an old dev version).
    The impact of planet landings in that dev version here in SE, was on a par with Infinity, but it beat infinity because I could get out of my ship start building, mine or do whatever. So SE had the drop on Infinity.

    ED, this will be small planets I believe, in the new Horizons add-on, also with no atmosphere. I get the Horizons for being an earlier backer, but ED has instances and that is a problem for me when playing, I like fluid space to planetary landings plus travel. So SE also had the drop on ED. Plus again, getting out and doing the funky rabbit if I chose too, on the planet surface. Then building a disco, if the funky rabbit turned out well.

    SC, well less said for now the better, backed this up to some nice ships. But I'm disappointed the chairman couldn't occasionally say 'no' to an idea.

    But again SE had the drop, not graphically on some of these games (of course). But that matters little to me, its all about the game-play. So yes, SE had the drop on all of these games. Well almost, can't be certain on NMS yet.
    But I believe, because SE is a building game, it has the drop on that too. Simply for the fact you can do whatever you want in SE here, or almost.

    Flying from space to the planet surface (120km planet), was stunning in SE. The surface was not too unlike the Infinity type planets, lets be honest they're basic. But we make them something more than basic when we start inhabiting them. I don't need lots of tree's, bushes, rivers, etc. Those simple planets were great, the ones I played with. If they could have/had got those working and yes, we don't fully know yet, I'm still keeping my fingers firmly crossed. Then SE had the drop on all these games mentioned above, plus many other space games I watch, back or play.

    Its surprising to me. I didn't think SE could be that good, but they have pushed out the limits of the engine and its amazing how well they're doing. But they didn't need to go too detailed with planets, just keep the 'wow' factor when flying in from space (large 120km planets or larger). The performance was great, the atmosphere, on entry, looked more stunning than Infinity. I really hope they have those large planets.
    If they do, doesn't matter what detail they have. SE will have the drop on the games I mentioned.

    Next big thing would be MP, for some players, not really for me, I'll be happy playing SP, in my own universe.
    Now SE couldn't have done all this without player content, it adds soo much to the game, but that again is a massive plus for SE. When I say 'massive plus', its really an understatement, it gives the game that much more.

    This is my personal opinion, obviously, but its the way I feel at present. SE was looking to be 'the' space game to play. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for the planets. Don't do what ED is going to do and give us 'golf balls' to land on.
     
  12. Lrj52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    246
    I'm pretty sure the biggest planet the devs of ED have found yet was about 100 times bigger then earth, full scale ;)
    (I may of missed the point of this comment entirely, if it isn't about size... my bad)
     
  13. chrisb Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,460
    Yeah I know. If only they would let us have a planet in Horizons. Instead we're getting a, o.k. perhaps not golf ball. But unfortunately it isn't really a planet either. Whereas here we have them, albeit in the dev version. Lets be honest 120km planets are small (in the real world), but when in-game, they feel much better and bigger than that, so that size for me would be great. Larger yes, that's even better, but really devs saying planet sized planets, doesn't really mean much, until they produce one for us to land on.
    There are games that players will be disappointed with once planets arrive. I don't think SE would have been such a game, but we'll see.
     
  14. Klaern Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    296
    Anyone demoing live is a risk taking fool. Demos at large events should always be pre-recorded. That doesn't mean it's not playable though... It just means they don't want to risk something going wrong. It's the right thing to do.
     
  15. Darkicus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    74
    We honestly don't need procedural planets. Back in the good ol' days the community made their game maps by hand. The inexperienced mappers created content worse than procedural, while the experienced produced masterpieces. It is clear what Keen is intending here.
    Procedural generation cannot produce unique content, merely randomized variation of specific varieties. This makes it very easy for any of us to select from a set of parameters and have the game generate the planet for us- turning a skilled production process highly accessible.
    Very advanced procedural generation that can nearly replicate a person's creative ability would be a technical innovation I do not expect Keen to undertake for the first released iteration of planets.

    See, Keen only has limited manpower, while we have unlimited manpower. Either Keen can do all the work creating some generator code, or we can do all the work hand-crafting. If you yourself out there are capable of creating a procedural planet generator to the quality that Keen expects for and submit it to them? Congrats because you're about to be hired and get a butt-load of our collective money while you work with Keen.

    Otherwise begin begging our community friendgineers to make your fav planet for inclusion on the workshop. It will be glorious, do not fear.

    Also don't get me started on planet size. Earth has a diameter of 12,742km. On this planet live more than 7 billion human beings, plus other assorted lifeforms. Any of us at any given time are just 1 human being. Even a 50km diameter planet is not 7 billion times smaller than 12,742km. The point might be lost, but still. What I'm saying is, while playing Space Engineers, we are all alone or in a very small group. We don't need 10,000km of planet in the same way that real-world Earth does. Once you get in-game to try it out for yourself, you'll see. They're big.

    Also, that's only the diameter. Surface area... well, there's quite a bit more of it.
    Also remember that the default view distance in Space Engineers is only 20km! Further, a lot of servers I've played on enforce the limited world size of 100km! You would barely fit a single of Keen's planets in that box I expect. In fact I almost suspect that is one of the reasons that they chose this 10-100km size, so that they aren't screwing over server owners as much. Essentially the whole game would take place around the far orbit and surface of a planet. Pretty cool. It would actually add distinction to being on either side of the world- rather than the meaningless -80km xy +80km xy coordinates that we presently have.

    Alsoalsoalsoalsoalso. First iteration does not mean final iteration, and vanilla does not mean mod-unfriendly.
     
  16. aaagamer Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    56
    I'm not trying to be overly hard on the devs, streams almost always have issues (technical or otherwise). KSH is a company however, not just one individual. It seems to me that if they had sat down at a meeting and took the time to outline/organize the content of the stream beforehand, it would have gone much more smoothly.

    I usually like community involvement, but I think planets shouldn't be considered levels or maps, but rather part of a larger procedural universe. I don't think planets should be made with creativity or imagination in mind, I think they should be generated in some semblance of the laws of nature (with exceptions for gameplay and performance, such as size and overall detail).

    Using what we know about the conditions on real planets, the devs can construct basic terrain features (mountains, craters valleys, canyons, deltas, plateaus, and so forth) and use a procedural generator to place them in the appropriate locations on appropriate worlds, randomly adjusting their size, orientation, shape, etc. These basic features will probably have to be hand made, but they can be added to and improved over time, creating a very diverse and unique range of planets to explore.
     
  17. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    ... Ok... You've got more faith in "company" than I do, that's for sure. Because in my experience that is irrelevant.

    Yes it would have gone better. Now they probably have learned that, so next time it'll be better. Good ol' nerves probably was involved here too, being the first. Company or not, they're just people.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.