Comment

Comment on Real

Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Because the computer-generated images that symbolize said other planets are generally done with some shitty-shit stupid noise algorithm to generate the surface rather than anything decent, whislt the ones for planet Earth just existing map data for the surface.

As it so happens I’ve been working on a game that has planets, so here’s a example generated with better algorithms:

example made up planet

source

Sort:hotnew top

Venat0r@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
I think it’s also that we choose the most photogenic angle for earth, if you pick a random angle of earth it sometimes doesn’t look as good.

e.g. 638

do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game?

source
- grozzle@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  i love the Himalaya doing a creepy smile
  
  source
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  
  do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game? Nah, the planets are just shown as 3D objects in the game.
  
  The little icons as the one I linked were made by a special game mode for development which I call the PlanetPhotoStudio that just lets me manually rotate the planet 3D object and take a snapshot, since the planet surfaces is pre-generated using an external program (“Grand Designer”, highly recommended) and only some results are chosen. It’s actually less hassle to do make a “photo studio” and do it manually for each planet like that than to try and come up with an algorithm for “how photogenic a 2D view of a planet looks”.
  
  source
- texture@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  looks like a baby elephant
  
  source
NecroParagon@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Good luck with the game! Sounds like it’ll be interesting

source
- Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Thanks!
  
  It definitelly looks nice, though the game play is IMHO what makes it fun or not.
  
  source
luciferofastora@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

A lot of choices in game making are mainly artistic freedom which at first people with a Science or Engineering background tend to shy away from “because it’s not how things are”.

This is a chorus I like to repeat: Entertainment doesn’t need to be realistic to be fun, and I wish publishers / marketers / reviewers / players would acknowledge that more often and stop slapping the label “realistic” and the like on things that aren’t.

There are sims that are grounded in careful study and attempt to model some part of reality as accurately as possible, but even they need to compromise, both to run on contemporary hardware and to balance it against playability. But they’re often complex, by virtue of modeling a complex reality, and not everyone’s cup of tea.

But then you have things like Assassin’s Creed that regularly and heavily fudge history, not always in a bad way, but convey an impression of past societies that seems accurate, but glosses over things like the Spartan inequality and slavery or Viking brutality, painting a more “noble” and “heroic” picture than they each deserve.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with making up interesting stuff, but people should be honest about it (as you are). Pointing out those artistic choices is an opportunity for learning things. Though the scale of an atmosphere is probably less significant than the scale of Viking slave trade, I still find it curious just how thin it actually is.

source