PPG- Procedural Planet Generator

We will of course, save additional data for a planet. I'm thinking of having someone make a whole bunch of 1024x1024 texture maps that will represent different materials such as rock, black rock, red rock, grass, strange grass, sand, etc. Saved along with the planet will be a list of the different textures it uses. The more textures we make, the more different each planet will become, and the more fun the game will be.

Also, I think all that "We're making the game for the future computers so think BIG!!" will get you absolutely nowhere. You always have to start small.

You seem to be answering a question, but not the one I am trying to ask.

Quote :

Will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other?

In other words, will the planet generator be able to stop unrealistic arrangements of planets? (Like: gas giant, rocky, rocky, gas, rocky, gas, gas, rocky, gas, gas)

Ah, I thought you meant textures. (Materials and textures are the same thing in blender)(sorta)

I'm sure we can come up with a function that maps distance from the sun to size/type of the planet. If you imagine distance as x, and size as y... well yes. We can.

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

they can easily get flung out (pluto), and we must remember we have an extremely small amount of knowledge about solar systems in general. But yes, rocky in, gassy out should be the norm.

Of course, it doesn't hurt to have a bit of random.

I thought they could be close to their star... Is there anything really stopping them? (If so, they could be affected by gravitational pull of other objects pulling it close to the center of the system).

Also, even if we don't sort out the materials problem, can we still do something that Spore didn't - organise (not always, but often) the planets fairly like our solar system, all rocky together, all gas together.

And one more thing, could we include dwarf planets (presumably in the outer regions) like in our system? They could be used for outposts/bases in other systems, for war, or diplomacy, or observational research, or a ice-skating holiday, or even a place to get alien fast-food as you try and figure out why you're there in the first place!

All would be very easy to implement.

The Uteen wrote:

I thought they could be close to their star... Is there anything really stopping them? (If so, they could be affected by gravitational pull of other objects pulling it close to the center of the system).

Also, even if we don't sort out the materials problem, can we still do something that Spore didn't - organise (not always, but often) the planets fairly like our solar system, all rocky together, all gas together.

And one more thing, could we include dwarf planets (presumably in the outer regions) like in our system? They could be used for outposts/bases in other systems, for war, or diplomacy, or observational research, or a ice-skating holiday, or even a place to get alien fast-food as you try and figure out why you're there in the first place!

Dwarf planets will simply be created by making a planet below a boundary of size.

How will we stop major crashing when visiting a planet though?

Check the devblog, then link to roadkillguy and bashi's discussion on LOD

Quote :

How will we stop major crashing when visiting a planet though?

Umm well... don't crash?

YourBreakfast wrote:

How will we stop major crashing when visiting a planet though?

Slow the ship when you enter the atmosphere?

Seriously, though, I have no idea. I'm not a coder.

Noitulove wrote:

YourBreakfast wrote:

How will we stop major crashing when visiting a planet though?

Slow the ship when you enter the atmosphere?

Seriously, though, I have no idea. I'm not a coder.

The notion of 'major crashing' is not a predictable scenario. If it does crash, thats a bug we will need to fix.

YourBreakfast wrote:

How will we stop major crashing when visiting a planet though?

Uhh... learn to fly your Belgium spaceship?

He's talking about computer crashes, I think.

~sciocont wrote:

He's talking about computer crashes, I think.

Oh. Why would your computer crash from entering the atmosphere? I guess from all the planet loading at one time?

InvaderZim wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

He's talking about computer crashes, I think.

Oh. Why would your computer crash from entering the atmosphere? I guess from all the planet loading at one time?

He said "When visiting a planet"

Wow, I thought you were joking

~sciocont wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

He's talking about computer crashes, I think.

Oh. Why would your computer crash from entering the atmosphere? I guess from all the planet loading at one time?

He said "When visiting a planet"

Well, yeah... Now, I beleive the obvious answer is to load the planet quality in layers, slowly getting more detailed as you get closer to the ground, rather than just BANG! Full quality! Would most likely be easiest on the 'puter.


Just statin' the obvious.

InvaderZim wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

He's talking about computer crashes, I think.

Oh. Why would your computer crash from entering the atmosphere? I guess from all the planet loading at one time?

He said "When visiting a planet"

Well, yeah... Now, I beleive the obvious answer is to load the planet quality in layers, slowly getting more detailed as you get closer to the ground, rather than just BANG! Full quality! Would most likely be easiest on the 'puter.


Just statin' the obvious.

We are discussing exactly this in

Planetary coordinates

PPG:
Plants, pollen and Biomes. (Crossed over from a thread in Programming.)
1) Biome is determined by environment factors (temp/temp variation, precipitation, geographical location.)
2) Different types of biomes will have different categories of autotrophs. Extremely quick-growing autotrophs will thrive in areas frequently disturbed. (By fire, avalanche, whatever.) Whereas if there is an opportunity for longer-growth organisms and greater biodiversity, it will be taken.
3) Airborne pollination (or pollination in general) is pretty darn important for terrestrial plants, and, along with the other things, will be getting it's own thread over here when I get around to it.

Why do we need to keep track of pollen?

~sciocont wrote:

Why do we need to keep track of pollen?

I don't think it needs tracking, but we are going to have to simulate it, probably something random, but more likely in areas of trees (possibly taking into account wind, too, which should already exist for flying organisms).

Pollen should also have effects on creatures sometimes.