Jump to content

Show and Tell - Gurdamma


KSPStar
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/9/2021 at 11:40 AM, cubinator said:

I seem to recall seeing it in the video. I know the canyon on the Mun is still there.

No the one on Dres! That's canyon is my favorite. 

Edited by Dr. Kerbal
Hey look, a new page. - A traditional Megathread edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 10:21 AM, The Doodling Astronaut said:

What if you guys showcased some of the ones we already know like rask and rusk?

How about the planets from the Kerbol System? I haven't seen Eve in a while....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 10:22 PM, coyotesfrontier said:

For reference, Gurdamma has roughly the same surface area as the IRL continent of Asia. A level of detail at a scale that big is simply unheard of in gaming. Incredibly impressive work!

Space Engine, Elite Dangerous (eww), No Man's Sky, you get the picture. KSP2 isn't breaking any grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Space Engine, Elite Dangerous (eww), No Man's Sky, you get the picture. KSP2 isn't breaking any grounds.

I'm not sure about Space Engine, but the other two are totally procedurally generated. This is hand designed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Space Engine, Elite Dangerous (eww), No Man's Sky, you get the picture. KSP2 isn't breaking any grounds.

Space Engine: essentially no surface detail, even on earth

Elite Dangerous: Repeated tiling with procedural generation

No Man's Sky: Procedural generation

KSP 2: Entirely hand crafted

So yes, KSP 2 is breaking new ground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear (read?) A word about planet creation though. Because we're talking about Moon scaled objects here. And I'm sure the basic shapes are handmade, but some noise must've been generated. It's just counterproductive to manually detail every single ridge, hill, mountain and crater, on Kraken knows how many bodies. And software these days is really good at this sort of thing.

Maybe in dev diary, pretty please?

Edited by The Aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Space Engine: essentially no surface detail, even on earth

Elite Dangerous: Repeated tiling with procedural generation

No Man's Sky: Procedural generation

KSP 2: Entirely hand crafted

So yes, KSP 2 is breaking new ground

Ksp 1 used quite a bit of procedural generation, it's likely that ksp 2 does as well, with parameters being tweaked to get the desired effect, or procedural details overlain on a rough manually made height map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Missingno200 said:

I'm not sure about Space Engine, but the other two are totally procedurally generated.

Space Engine is procedurally generated as well.  

6 hours ago, Missingno200 said:

This is hand designed.

Only the massive landmasses. Finer details kilometres across are still procedurally generated. It's no different at the smaller scale, which is what you were bringing to attention in the first place.

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Space Engine: essentially no surface detail, even on earth

Elite Dangerous: Repeated tiling with procedural generation

No Man's Sky: Procedural generation

KSP 2: Entirely hand crafted

So yes, KSP 2 is breaking new ground

Space Engine does not yet generate details for textured planets, but everything else should generate surface details. Graphics are low or something's wrong if you can't find any surface details. The paid version on Steam also includes 3D rocks akin to KSP's parallax mod. ED/NMS use proc gen as well. KSP 2 is handcrafted at the much larger scales, but this is being conflated with handcrafting the finer details, which is false. Everything smaller than several dozen kilometres is procedurally generated. So no, KSP 2 is not breaking new grounds. It looks good but it's not new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Everything smaller than several dozen kilometres is procedurally generated

Assuming they use a 2048x1024px equirectangular map for a Kerbin-sized planet, each pixel on the heightmap is roughly 1.84 kilometres. So it's completely possible for details as small as approx.4 km (roughly 2px) across to be handmade on the heightmap, and smaller terrain modifier maps for finer detail in areas of interest (like the Space Center terrain) They can use 4096x2048 or even 8192x4096 maps for larger or more detailed bodies. 'Several dozen kilometres' is much larger than the smallest handmade detail they can actually make.

Yes, the small craters are likely procedurally placed. And so is probably the case with everything smaller than a kilometre. But the planet artist still tuned the procedural system for each planet.

Edited by OrdinaryKerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Space Engine does not yet generate details for textured planets, but everything else should generate surface details. Graphics are low or something's wrong if you can't find any surface details. The paid version on Steam also includes 3D rocks akin to KSP's parallax mod. 

Are you trying to argue this is anything akin to what we are seeing with terrain in KSP 2? It seems so if you draw comparison between them and if this is the case is it flat out ridiculous. I own SE, it's great for what it is but planetary terrain is bordering tomb raider 1 or quake 2 graphics and detail...

 

52 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

ED/NMS use proc gen as well. KSP 2 is handcrafted at the much larger scales, but this is being conflated with handcrafting the finer details, which is false. Everything smaller than several dozen kilometres is procedurally generated. So no, KSP 2 is not breaking new grounds. It looks good but it's not new.

Neither ED nor NMS have planets with hand placed assets, heightmaps, or anything of the sort... They weren't intended to because doing so for a galaxy with billions/trillions of celestial bodies would be beyond futile. Do you intend to mean that if not every single vertex in KSP 2 is hand placed that it doesn't count as being hand crafted or something and gets lumped in with completely procedurally generated systems that didn't have an iota of hand placed detail? Or are you just arguing to make outlandish statements or something? Genuinely curious where your mindset is at in these statements and why you've bothered to make them.

 

It's pretty obvious what is happening in KSP 2 is quite different from other space games...

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Ksp 1 used quite a bit of procedural generation, it's likely that ksp 2 does as well, with parameters being tweaked to get the desired effect, or procedural details overlain on a rough manually made height map.

Thank you, I was definitely under the impression that the artists had hand shaped every small hill and pebble...

 

 

Now to both of you I get that I had said "Entirely hand crafted" but in saying that I assumed I was talking in a forum where I wouldn't be assumed as holding the position that every single piece of terrestrial plane was placed by hand. No map maker does this anywhere....

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I own SE, it's great for what it is but planetary terrain is bordering tomb raider 1 or quake 2 graphics and detail...

That's an options/hardware issue, not an SE issue.

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you, I was definitely under the impression that the artists had hand shaped every small hill and pebble...

Procedural Generation. KSP 2 is not breaking any new grounds, and I know people don't like hearing that but I've seen various games rival the detail KSP 2 wants to show.

Edited by Bej Kerman
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Procedural Generation. KSP 2 is not breaking any new grounds, and I know people don't like hearing that but I've seen various games rival the detail KSP 2 wants to show.

Please show me which ones you are speaking of then since all 3 of your examples are no where close to what is being shown...

Also, please define what you mean by procedural generation. It seems to me that you find any algorithmic assistance to the creation of a map to fall equally under that category regardless if human intention was placed into  it, which I find ridiculous. But if that is your position please state so clearly so I can know I am speaking with someone who is arguing simply for the sake of arguing or lacks any notion of nuance. So far this seems to be plain sophistry.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2021 at 9:34 AM, SOXBLOX said:

I hope they leave the atmosphere mostly clear. It would be a shame to hide all that beauty underneath a smog layer.

It would be cool if there were a range of atmospheres for planets. Some having atmospheres so thick you cant see the surface would offer an interesting challenge for landing. That said I hope there are a lot of transparent atmospheres as well, at least a bit more transparent than astronomers visual pack on Kerbin where even clear non-cloudy patches of sky look very hazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Make it thicker! >:D

Like Venus, the planet it is emulating. Then give us SONAR mapping

Presumably you mean RADAR? Unless you can figure out how to transmit sound through a vacuum, SONAR won't work for a mapping satellite :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Presumably you mean RADAR? Unless you can figure out how to transmit sound through a vacuum, SONAR won't work for a mapping satellite :P

*cough* Of course, of course *cough* isn't that what I said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2021 at 11:16 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you, I was definitely under the impression that the artists had hand shaped every small hill and pebble...

Yay, a sarcastic response...

You are aware that the the vast majority of the heightmap of kerbin is procedurally generated, with some specific features (like that big crater) and features added in.

This early version of kerbin had the entire heightmap procedurally generated, its pretty close to what it is now:

Kerbin_color.png

It was generated by libnoise:

http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/

Using Kopernicus, you can procedurally generate addon planets in KSP 1, and many of them were and still are made that way IIRC:

https://github.com/Kopernicus/pqsmods-standalone

Val is, afaik, completely procedurally generated except for the east egg additions. IIRC, Gilly is too, I forget which ones are and are not, or to what degree they are.

Mun may have had some craters specified, but aside from the very large ones, the rest are done through procedural generation.

While Gurdamma does look pretty, I see no evidence that its not just the result of tweaking some procedural generation parameters...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KerikBalmI mean they would have to be, right? Im totally cool with that. So far the KSP 2 planets look amazing so whatever they're doing they're doing it right. Def some procedural tools but the curation and fine adjustments are key. We also haven't talked much about this but Im pretty happy to see some significant surface overhauls so long as they stay in the spirit. 

The other thing Im really interested in is how the functional topography will work in terms of resource availability, especially after seeing the new wind and geothermal generators. I'd personally be fine with locking things in a little tighter and not fully randomizing, so there were some more predictable relationship between resource values and geographic features. Having a dynamic of overlaying pros and cons to various landing and colony locations would really bring these rocks alive.

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Yay, a sarcastic response...

You are aware that the the vast majority of the heightmap of kerbin is procedurally generated, with some specific features (like that big crater) and features added in.

This early version of kerbin had the entire heightmap procedurally generated, its pretty close to what it is now:

Kerbin_color.png

It was generated by libnoise:

http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/

Using Kopernicus, you can procedurally generate addon planets in KSP 1, and many of them were and still are made that way IIRC:

https://github.com/Kopernicus/pqsmods-standalone

Val is, afaik, completely procedurally generated except for the east egg additions. IIRC, Gilly is too, I forget which ones are and are not, or to what degree they are.

Mun may have had some craters specified, but aside from the very large ones, the rest are done through procedural generation.

While Gurdamma does look pretty, I see no evidence that its not just the result of tweaking some procedural generation parameters...

 

 

I get this, but there is a vast difference in what is happening in KSP 2 from the other games that were mentioned. NMS and ED didn't get an artist curating and designing fine details of all the individual planet surfaces, yet this is what we are getting with KSP 2. So I'm sorry that I had replied with blunt sarcasm but it is my go to response when someone responds to me with a point that adds little and avoids the subject at hand. The subject being that what is taking place in KSP 2, as far as intentional artistic detail, seems quite a bit different than what has been presented in other games before it. Also, non of us know for sure what methods the devs are using to make these surfaces and referring to KSP 1 doesn't do much as that is a different game made by different people at a different studio... For instance it is completely possible the terrain here is being created with the help of deep learning:

Spoiler

 

But at the end of the day all we can do is speculate as to the exact process the artists are using. But one thing we know is that each and every planet we will encounter will be crafted, analyzed, scrutinized, and adjusted iteration by iteration by a person and I know of no other game to do such a feat with an outcome near par with what the devs have shown us.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

The other thing Im really interested in is how the functional topography will work in terms of resource availability, especially after seeing the new wind and geothermal generators. I'd personally be fine with locking things in a little tighter and not fully randomizing, so there was some more predictable relationship between resource values and geographic features. Having a dynamic of overlaying pros and cons to various landing and colony locations would really bring these rocks alive.

This would be an awesome detail to the game and I'm also hoping that resource deposition is sensible in matching its environment though hopefully not being cartoonishly obvious so we have to still probe and prospect with caution.

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...