Lowest & Highest Points of Celestial Bodies

[Poodmund]

18 hours ago, botlivesmatter said:

May i ask, how did you obtain these values

It feels like a grind to walk to all over each planet

https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Cartographer - Sigma88 basically created a plugin as I kept of moaning about a few things like leaflet style map exporting, altitude point info and a few other things and because he's awesome... he made this plugin. Can't give enough thanks.  

3 hours ago, Rocket Witch said:

Are we there yet?

I'll just take that out I think.

[Sigma88]

On 4/4/2018 at 7:22 PM, lajoswinkler said:

Not knowing about this thread, I've decided yesterday to get to the tallest point. This time it was easier because of paragliders.

 

Wiki says: "with the tallest peak being 6764.1 m in altitude", Kerbalmaps says " 6761.0483 m", and I've found a point 6767.4 m high which confirms the screenshot on wiki.

I've made Jebediah walk on all those adjacent peaks and none of them show higher values. They're all ten or more metres lower.

Mind that my terrain rendering and other graphics details are maxed out, and I don't use any terrain altering mods.

So I really don't see where your value of 6768.6 m came from. 

 

Nevertheless, it's good to have such table. I recommend placing it in KSP wiki pages somewhere.

there are some limitations where looking for the tallest point on a planet:

depending on how you decide to scan the planet you might find yourself in a local maximum that is not the absolute maximum, also it is possible that using a grid like pattern to scan the planet, the actual maximum falls in between two points on the grid, which means you miss it by a little.

 

another big limitation is the fact that the method provided by squad is unreliable for the measure of altitude. this is due to the fact that the altitude is not fixed, it can change depending on various factors, like terrain detail and stuff like that.

 

to be honest I am surprised the error is so low, while programming SD I have come across differences of many meters, even tens of meters, between the number provided by the stock method and the actual surface height found at the chosen coordinates

also, the altitude you show in the screenshot is not the altitude of the terrain but the altitude of the kerbal, measured somewhere around its center I would guess, so some 0.5 meter above the actual terrain altitude

[king of nowhere]

i found a sizable mistake in the chart. wal has at least one point that is 100 meters higher than the record given in the table (indicated as 20660 m and 3 degrees eastward)

[Xiphosura]

7 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

i found a sizable mistake in the chart. wal has at least one point that is 100 meters higher than the record given in the table (indicated as 20660 m and 3 degrees eastward)

This thread is quite old, it's very possible some update changed the numbers on Wal if not several of the bodies; it would be interesting to check for any other anomalies. It is definitely a significant difference, the original data was gathered at a resolution of 0.001°,  way lower than the 3 degree offset you found. It would have easily been picked up originally.

[king of nowhere]

15 hours ago, Xiphosura said:

This thread is quite old, it's very possible some update changed the numbers on Wal if not several of the bodies; it would be interesting to check for any other anomalies. It is definitely a significant difference, the original data was gathered at a resolution of 0.001°,  way lower than the 3 degree offset you found. It would have easily been picked up originally.

well, i didn't check. I am running an elcano challenge on wal, and i stumbled over that mountain accidentally.

i actually thought wal had mountains above 30 km (was confusing with priax) so I thought nothing of it. until i run halfway around wal, found very few mountains above 20 km, and went to check this thread to see where the 30 km peaks were. I can't really replicate the process for another planet

Edited August 12, 2022 by king of nowhere