Search the Community

Let me ask you - what do you think of the stock planets? If I was to answer my own question, I would (constructively, of course!) say that they're... Not exactly in tip top condition. There are many things that can be improved about them, such as the actual terrain, the detail or how Gilly and bop look like mud balls instead of asteroids. However this isn't just about Gilly or bop. This thread is about how badly the planets need a makeover. As some of you may know, I'm a planet modder. I make planets. Now put into perspective, I would like to compare Kerbin (and also duna) with a planet I created. The reason why I am comparing two planets is because squad didn't actually 'make' kerbin. Kerbin's colour texture comes from the Libnoise first example, not squad. Now then. Assuming that duna was created by a much more skilled creator than myself, with more experience, qualifications and is employed to do exactly this sort of work, why am I able to do better using paint and Microsoft word. I'm not joking. I made a relatively decent planet with two free programs in 2 hours. I'm not tooting my own horn or saying that squad is lazy or bad, I'm saying they could do much, much better. I shall elaborate. Planets consist of three textures - a height, normal and colour map. The normal map is generated from the completed heightmap. The other two are created manually. I created the height map with Paint and Paint alone. No filters, no layer system. I just used a paint brush and drew on my texture. Squad would likely use Photoshop, or gimp at the least to make their planets. Maybe even a professional drawing program. They'd certainly not fire up paint and set to work. The colour map, admittedly, was created with Adobe After Effects, however this exact effect can also be achieved using the planet config, albeit it is more time consuming. Here is the video where I create the planet, then I'll talk about my next point. Now, by no means am I trying to show off. That is not the purpose of this thread at all. If I can make a planet which looks arguably just as good, if not better than kerbin in 2 hours, squad can do the same with their professional tools and heightened knowledge of the game. "But Linx, the planets do not have to look good, they just have to be there for us to land on" Alright, so who goes to duna and says "actually yeah, this is a good spot I'll visit again! I love the terrain here, the colour and detail is simply breathtaking. I love this planet!" Right. Barely anyone. Because duna is just bump after bump with no variation at all except for the poles. Not to mention that most of the bumps are procedural and not textured, which is just as easy to accomplish (as I used procedural noise mods on my planet, too) Now then, duna is not a particularly interesting planet with much diversity except for the poles being the only difference. I would love for duna to have more colour variation, more evidence of previous water (assuming it is a Mars analogue), more pronounced terrain variation such as mountains, small cracks and such. The same goes for other planets like Dres and tylo. They don't really look very interesting or worth exploring as they have no canyons (Dres has one, but nothing more) or defined mountains. Even Jool needs a facelift! I'd love to also see more craters or evidence of past activity on the planets and moons to make them more diverse and interesting, not to mention that squad MUST rely less on procedural noise mods, as they make the planets and moons incredibly "samey". A balance must be achieved and at the moment, we can be safe to say that the planets are a really weak point in the game, especially since they're supposed to be a substantial goal within the game's progression. I'd like to hear your view on this situation. - Linx.