Read by Council Have planets generate based on meeting realistic criteria, as opposed to random generation

[Jerry_Brinefield]

Essentially, I was thinking it'd be interesting if planets (and the ore they contained) generated based upon meeting realistic criteria. This would mean that like their real counterparts, planets would develop characteristic based upon their distance from the sun and their distance to other planets and cellestial bodies. There is a similar idea going on with asteroids, but there is room for improvement for each! What I propose, is getting rid of planet "classes" Instead of having "Terran" or "Desert" or "Mars (which doesnt even look like mars)", have planets generate crust, mantles, cores, and ore based upon where they are located, as well as other factors. This could allow for potentially limitless combinations of planets and terrain, and add a layer of "Uncertainty" to exploring planets.

As of now, everybody sees a desert planet and knows exactly what to expect. Theres no point in exploring different planets if you know exactly what they will contain and how they will look. Imagine coming across a seemingly dead rock planet, littered with geysers. Digging below the surface could reveal a vast ocean of liquid methane (Or in this case dolom or something?).

It would be incredible to have procedurally generated planets that not only generate realistically, but also uniquely. While planets do fall into categories (Gas giants, Ice giants, carbon, and so on), the amount of variability within each planet is vast and completely unknown. Having just a few different looking planets is silly and counter intuitive to the mysterious and exploration heavy themes of space.

I would suggest looking to Saturn's moons, as well as the planets in our own solar system for aesthetic and functional guiding. StarMade fails to provide analogs for the majority of planets in our universe. Earth planets are the only ones which I would say are appropriate. Starmade has no gas giants, the mars planets are way too extremely generated and fail to look close to mars. The ice planets are way too varied in surface composition and the alien planets are..well theyre fine cause they're alien planets!

I realize that there is a VAST disparity in planet sizes in starmade and actual starmade, but the terrain generation is absolutely ridiculous.

Planets and moons in our solar system have been shown to be flat for the most part.

WHAT IS THIS

Triton and neptune tend to be believed to look like this:

Their starmade analogs look like this:

The surface of Io is believed to look something like this:

There's no analog to IO in starmade, but there should!

Ganymede is just a rocky planet of craters and ridges

Eurpopa has a solid ice surface with large red scars from salt from the underground ocean.

I think that this game would benefit SIGNIFICANTLY from ditching the minecraft style terrain generation (something that is already planned) and adopting a realistic, randomly generated system that allows for infinite permutations of planet qualities. Allow the planet's crust, mantle, core, and surface features to develop independent of each other. Utilize the planned liquid to have underground (or overground) oceans of water, methane, whatever! Develop a vast catalog of terrain blocks for planet generation to draw upon to create unique, interesting surface patterns. How cool would it be to come across planets with insane surface features like the scars of Europa?!!? Don't just give us boring space engineers planets, give us better! Give a reason to explore planets.

 

[Blaza612]

Pls no, there's no point in being realistic

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

Pls no, there's no point in being realistic

Hey! Thanks for replying, however I'd really appreciate it if you could offer some criticism or some sort of counter. Saying "there's no point" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and benefits nobody. Saying things like "increasing realism causes the game to lose some of its identity" is a valid, contributing response, but "there's no point" is useless to the discussion.

I would counter that there IS a point, because planets right now are not aesthetically pleasing, and are essentially useless to the vast majority of players, and as I stated in my opening post, offer no sense of exploration of mystery. Whether realism is necessary is up for debate, but it is certain that planets could benefit from a randomized system of generation, realistic or unrealistic.

I realize that right now the developers are considering avenues to go with planet generation, and this was one possible solution. If you don't like it, propose your own! Dont simply dismiss an idea with no counterpoint or criticism. That benefits no one!

 

[nightrune]

Pls no, there's no point in being realistic

Completely realistic no, based on reality in a way that allows immersion while stimulating the imagination is great. The core of the idea is having sections for planets based on distance. I like it.

I like for there to be somewhat of a reason for them to be there. The fact you might get mercury or gas giants at the appropriate places is awesome.

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

Completely realistic no, based on reality in a way that allows immersion while stimulating the imagination is great. The core of the idea is having sections for planets based on distance. I like it.

I like for there to be somewhat of a reason for them to be there. The fact you might get mercury or gas giants at the appropriate places is awesome.

Yea! I'm by no means expecting to get like, topographical recreations of planets, but I think that a more focused and randomly generated universe would be insanely cool! a reason to actually go out and explore planets would be incredible. Going out on missions to find planets with a high parseen concentration on the surface would be so much like what we do now and so much more rewarding than the current system.

 

[Blaza612]

because planets right now are not aesthetically pleasing

The devs are well aware of this, they are working on it, and there is a lot of speculation, since their new dev, Auburn's website shows off a voxel planet, similar to that of SE's, but not as obscenely big, and better in every way.

offer no sense of exploration of mystery

You criticized that the Mars planets were not flat, like the picture you showed before...

randomized system of generation

Do you WANT to see random generation? Procedural is by far the best, unless you want to see a chaotic mess.

I realize that right now the developers are considering avenues to go with planet generation, and this was one possible solution.

No, it isn't. The game can only work within the bounds of voxels, you're idea was to remove that, and just have a relatively flat sphere, which wouldn't work for a Voxel game based around blocks.

If you don't like it, propose your own!

I don't need to

Dont simply dismiss an idea with no counterpoint or criticism.

B-but, "There's no point in realism" is valid, it's saying that x suggestion (in this case, x is this suggestion) is needlessly adding realism. It might've been worded badly, but hush, that's not important. :p

That benefits no one!

It benefited you with conversation, did it not?

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

The devs are well aware of this, they are working on it, and there is a lot of speculation, since their new dev, Auburn's website shows off a voxel planet, similar to that of SE's, but not as obscenely big, and better in every way.



You criticized that the Mars planets were not flat, like the picture you showed before...



Do you WANT to see random generation? Procedural is by far the best, unless you want to see a chaotic mess.



No, it isn't. The game can only work within the bounds of voxels, you're idea was to remove that, and just have a relatively flat sphere, which wouldn't work for a Voxel game based around blocks.



I don't need to



B-but, "There's no point in realism" is valid, it's saying that x suggestion (in this case, x is this suggestion) is needlessly adding realism. It might've been worded badly, but hush, that's not important. :p



It benefited you with conversation, did it not?

Now it's benefitted me with a conversation! Thanks for responding, I think you may have confused some of my points though, which is completely my fault for not articulating them clearly. I don't want sphere planets or space engineer planets or whatever. That would only serve to remove a lot of the games identity and "generify" it. I am actually quite appreciate of the current general "shape" of the planets, however their size and composition leaves much to be desired.

When I said "flat planets", I didn't mean their shape, but their terrain. Starmade planets have what I would call "mine craft terrain", which is in general, crazy hills and defilades.

This kind of terrain makes extensive use of the y axis. This often results in really bizarre and unsightly terrain generation.

In regards to what I said about "random generation", you're correct, as "random" is a bit of a monomer. I am not suggesting purely random generation, but generation based upon values of distance from the Sun and solar system values. Planets in solar systems tend to be similar in chemical composition due to their sharing of materials from a common solar nebula. The actual substances found on these planets vary greatly, but it would be incredible to see planets generated with differing ores, crusts and mantles. Instead of having planets generation consisting of it going "okay I'm an earth planet", it could assign a size, ore composition, crust composition, atmosphere, surface material, gravity, and other features. I think a system like this could yield some incredible planets. Itd go a long way to eliminating the "sterile" universe and making things unique instead of just being generic check the box planets.

Something that I would like to add, is that I think that crazy terrain generation like we see now does have it's place. It creates interesting a vibrant structure which is soemthing that is definitely valuable, the problem is that it is too common

"Extreme" terrain generation is something that is often valued in (I hate to make this comparison but I think this is a good one) minecraft because of its rarity. People go out of there way on great explorations to find places with incredible terrain. The problem occurs when it is oversaturated. When there are planets everywhere with unique terrain, it is no longer unique. By adding in planets that are somewhat nondescript, planets that are more extreme could be seen as more valuable or rare, adding value to individual planets.

 

[kiraen]

Planned.
FSM, #8

 

[psteiner]

Wait until we optimize planets, although the flatter terrain might look better on the small one right now...

 

[Blaza612]

In regards to what I said about "random generation", you're correct, as "random" is a bit of a monomer. I am not suggesting purely random generation, but generation based upon values of distance from the Sun and solar system values. Planets in solar systems tend to be similar in chemical composition due to their sharing of materials from a common solar nebula. The actual substances found on these planets vary greatly, but it would be incredible to see planets generated with differing ores, crusts and mantles. Instead of having planets generation consisting of it going "okay I'm an earth planet", it could assign a size, ore composition, crust composition, atmosphere, surface material, gravity, and other features. I think a system like this could yield some incredible planets. Itd go a long way to eliminating the "steril" universe and making things unique instead of just being generic check the box planets.

That is indeed a good idea, except don't put it in a way that looks as though you're trying to make it more realistic. :p

Planned.FSM, #8

To some extent, yes. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, he is actually proposing an idea to have a bunch of different variables that determine a planet type, rather than have preset types, of the former I like better. :p


But yeah, I'd suggest rewriting this, and just saying that you'd like the biomes/types to be generated themselves via a bunch of variables, rather than presets, it'd be easier to understand. <3

 

[Kilim]

I think it would be nice for the planets to have a more spacey feel. The terrain generation - especially on ice planets, needs to stop looking like pentagonal tumours

 

[Pacific_Jim]

I'm not really for realism tbh, but I would like more stretches of flat plains on planets for building purposes. I'd also be disappointed if the excessive valleys etc disappeared for good though, especially once there's actually stuff and reason to explore around planets. Large chasms, not knowing what's around the corner etc is much more interesting for exploration then a mostly flat plain.

And for the record, Starmades ice planets don't feel analogous to any real life planet to me. They're more Hoth than anything in our solar system.

 

[Criss]

Allow the planet's crust, mantle, core, and surface features to develop independent of each other. Utilize the planned liquid to have underground (or overground) oceans of water, methane, whatever!

What purpose (other than the water) does generating a mantle do for the game though? Is there interaction there? If it is for the sake of simply being realistic then that might not be enough. Underground oceans sounds exciting and I would be interested in that. The current system for planet generation does not really lend itself to these features however. There are already changes to planets in development but I can't speak on that. StarMade is a space game first and foremost. Planets are there not because they are the focus, but an aspect of space as we know it. Having decent planet gameplay is still something we want to achieve, but do not expect a lot of attention to be devoted to making it as grandiose as Space Engineers does.

How cool would it be to come across planets with insane surface features like the scars of Europa?

Very cool, and we will see more variety in planet generation as time goes on. There are places for realism in StarMade. I for one would like to see ice planets farther from stars. We already use a temperature system for asteroids. I do not think it wise however to turn planets into bland rocky wastes as they usually are. It needs to be exciting in other ways than terrain generation.

In the current state of development I cannot say for certain how much attention we can give to the details of the planets that we can't already alter right now.

 

[jgames666]

In the current state of development I cannot say for certain how much attention we can give to the details of the planets that we can't already alter right now.

A neat solution to this would be to create a planet builder and planet templates. Then you could allow the community to create unique planets to add to the mix of randomized planets. For instance, have planets that generate randomly using a better algorithm. Then, also allow for the option of template based planet spawning and have that as a rare spawn that can be added by server administrators.

 

[Jerry_Brinefield]

What purpose (other than the water) does generating a mantle do for the game though? Is there interaction there? If it is for the sake of simply being realistic then that might not be enough. Underground oceans sounds exciting and I would be interested in that. The current system for planet generation does not really lend itself to these features however. There are already changes to planets in development but I can't speak on that. StarMade is a space game first and foremost. Planets are there not because they are the focus, but an aspect of space as we know it. Having decent planet gameplay is still something we want to achieve, but do not expect a lot of attention to be devoted to making it as grandiose as Space Engineers does.


Very cool, and we will see more variety in planet generation as time goes on. There are places for realism in StarMade. I for one would like to see ice planets farther from stars. We already use a temperature system for asteroids. I do not think it wise however to turn planets into bland rocky wastes as they usually are. It needs to be exciting in other ways than terrain generation.

In the current state of development I cannot say for certain how much attention we can give to the details of the planets that we can't already alter right now.

The mantle could have varying kinds of ore deposits in each one. This would allow different planets to be composed primarily of different materials. Although almost all ore is located within the Crust on real planets, an appropriate analogue in starmade would be to have the mantle have a variety of different materials and features form in it. Differentiation could also be considered, allowing "rarer" materials to be considered to be more dense and form deeper In the planetary body, making it more challenging to mine valuable minerals.

 

[Edymnion]

I'd be happier if the placement of the planets made more sense. I once found an ice planet orbiting so close to the star that I took sun damage whenever I lifted off during the day.

We already have asteroid generation based on distance from the star, would be nice if planets followed the same method. Put the desert worlds in close to stars, ice planets at the very edges, and the earth/mars/alien worlds in the middle sections.

 

[StormWing0]

I'd be happier if the placement of the planets made more sense. I once found an ice planet orbiting so close to the star that I took sun damage whenever I lifted off during the day.

lol you think you have got it bad, my faction on a server is parked next to a blue giant, about 2/3rds of the system is a death zone and if you got onto one of the planets nearest the sun you aren't getting off it. XD

 

[jayman38]

I think planet terrain could be more interesting and realistic at the same time by having more plain plates, but with cave systems that go down into "wild", more-minecraft-like terrain generation underground, making planet exploration something of a "Journey to the Center of the Earth" affair. You could still use weapons or mining systems to peel the roof off these underground worlds if you wanted them exposed.

Maybe a plain-surface planet could be just one of many planet ideas that are planned.

I think planets need gravity transition zones. These are astronaut-sized areas along each seam that would run the entire length of the seam and probably reach down to the core. As the astronaut travels along this zone (only the length of a block or two) between two plates, the astronaut and their gravity direction are gradually turned depending on how far along the zone you travel. E.g. Assuming an angle between plates of about 60 degrees, if the astronaut travels 1/4 meter across the transition zone, they change angle and gravity by 15 degrees. half-way across the transition zone, the astronaut is half-way between the angles of the two plates. At 3/4 along the meter, the astronaut has rotated 45 degrees, putting them almost even with the plate they are traveling to. You can see by these small scales that the transition would still be fast, but it wouldn't be instant, allowing the player's brain to adjust adequately to its new orientation. This would resolve the sudden-gravity reset you experience when traveling from plate to plate.

It should be easy to add craters to planet surfaces now. Just add an advanced-mode-circle shape of a randomly big diameter and add terrain to the surface with the circle helper.