Why are Munar Polar Lowlands not actually lowlands?!

[Silias]

Begin rant.

Recently I installed SCAN Sat and noticed that Mun's Polar lowlands actually have the highest elevation of all the biomes!

I've searched the forums, KSP subreddit and did a general google search but found no explanation. Am I really the first to notice this?

I find this extremely annoying. Not only the name is worng but it's also unrealistic since the equatorial radius of rotating planetary bodies should be larger than polar radius.

End rant.

[SkyRender]

It's a side-effect of the conversion proces of heightmap to sphere. Even the most minute changes in elevation around the poles get exaggerated to the extreme. This is why the poles of practically every body in KSP have almost alien geometries to them.

[JumpsterG]

It's a side-effect of the conversion proces of heightmap to sphere. Even the most minute changes in elevation around the poles get exaggerated to the extreme. This is why the poles of practically every body in KSP have almost alien geometries to them.

I've known about this limitation for a while and just realized that I'd been taking for granted that it is not fixable. I wonder if there's any way this could be smoothed out by the developers? Admittedly I haven't searched the forum for other discussions on this issue, so maybe it's already been hammered on.

[Silias]

Makes sense, I can finally get some sleep now:wink:. I guess the same thing is responsible for those strange ridges at Duna's poles.

But if this is unfixable the name should be changed to Polar Highlands:D.

[keeper]

I've only done a few landings on poles and as rough as they are, they're not bad imo.

I am yet to leave Kerbin influence.