there isn't.Is there a ground map to show where you have been and what objects you have run into?
there isn't.Is there a ground map to show where you have been and what objects you have run into?
I have not seen any tepees but I will look out for them. I can launch but want to look around more and set more credits via gold. Any way to get warp engine plans on the surface?Planetside, there are little metal teepees /\ that you'll see periodically, you can buy new suit slots there (they go up 10,000 units for each new slot). I believe you have to scan an animal (L2 on PS4) before you can interact with them. Scanning them will tell you if the animal is belligerent or not.
Fallout 4 and the new Deus Ex got overhyped as well and apparently they both are missing features. The main reason this game gets so much flak is because it's a small company. Bethesda and Eidos can tell reviewers they won't get an early review copy or they will be banned from interviews or panels if they thrash their game too much. Hello Games can't do that...No...... The only game I remember them copping much flak for, mainly because I got sucked into the game was Watch Dogs. That's the only Ubisoft big name title I have bought in recent years. That's also the only one I know of where people blew their stack about gimped graphics and lying trailers..
Bolded the 2 big ones...It is now easier to scan flying creatures.
Fixed height and weight stats being the wrong way around for creatures.
Gek towers can no longer be interacted with repeatedly.
The 'You have unredeemed items' message will now only show for the first 5 minutes.
Fixed getting 0% charge on Photon Cannon when buying a new ship and constantly being prompted to charge it.
Reduce Suit VO for life support warnings and only do life support VO on 25% and 50%.
Fixed grave being transferred to the new star system after you warp.
Fixed toxic protection 3 (theta) from having the wrong name.
Fixed incorrect marking of sea caves under floating islands.
Turning down music and SFX volume in the options will now work correctly (mutes the VO also).
If you change ship or multi-tool and then revert to previous save the ship should now be the one you had at the time.
Atlas station collision improvements to prevent you from bumping into them too much.
Fix for the stars not being discarded during load/warp (causing duplicate stars).
We rarely interrogate such language, and as a result we are not accustomed to discussing these concepts and thinking critically about whether they make sense in a game. By this I don’t just mean figuring out if developers are making sense, I mean also that as developers we are not good at evaluating whether our claims are sensible before going public with them. Does a sense of ownership over named planets make sense if we are also claiming players are unlikely to meet each other? Does an aesthetic of “true discovery” make sense if we are also claiming every planet is unique and wondrous? It’s not that these ideas are contradictory by definition, but we’re barely even considering the questions at all, much less drawing conclusions about them. We can’t examine these claims for their contradictions, because we lack a shared, well-understood language to communicate in about procedural generation. We are stuck with our own interpretations and mental models and the hope that they match up with the journalist whose article we are reading, or the developer whose game we are following.
Does a sense of ownership over named planets make sense if we are also claiming players are unlikely to meet each other?
We can’t examine these claims for their contradictions, because we lack a shared, well-understood language to communicate in about procedural generation.
I know enough to know roughly how to generate the surface of a planet. At its very basic and highest level, it is just a single math formula. The formula takes two inputs, longtitude (x) and latitude (y) and produces a single output, altitude (z). The simplest formula would be x, y = 0. This would produce a completely spherical planet.
A formula like x, y = sin(x) * sin(y) would produce a planet filled with hills and valleys of identical height and evenly spaced out. To make it look more random, we can inject random numbers into the formula x, y = Rsin(Rx) * Rsin(Ry). Here, each instance of R has a different, randomly generated value. (PS: Opening the link multiple times will produce a different landscape).
Typically, we would would use a sum of several hundred random-sine pairs to form a more complicated landscape. Unfortunately, Wolfram Alpha only allows me to plot the sum of two random-sine pairs, but you get the idea. Each random-sine pair adds complexity to the landscape. So with several hundred sine-pairs, you can generate quite a realistic looking planet surface.
Combine the above formula with a pseudorandom number generator, tie each star system with a unique magic key and you get a planet that looks exactly the same every time you visit it. Hello Game uses some variation of this idea to generate it's planets.
OK interesting. I knew there was maths involved, but thought it would be complicated, and oh hang on that to me sounds complicated![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.