• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Because the computer-generated images that symbolize said other planets are generally done with some shitty-shit stupid noise algorithm to generate the surface rather than anything decent (well, at least it’s not uniform noise), whilst the ones for planet Earth just use existing map data for the Earth surface.

    As it so happens I’ve been working on a game that has planets, so here’s an example generated with better algorithms:

    example made up planet

    PS: also note that for game purposes, the athmosphere is unrealistically thick as a proportion of planetary radius, purelly because it looks better. A lot of choices in game making are mainly artistic freedom which at first people with a Science or Engineering background tend to shy away from “because it’s not how things are”.

    • Venat0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think it’s also that we choose the most photogenic angle for earth, if you pick a random angle of earth it sometimes doesn’t look as good.

      e.g. 638

      do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game?

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        do you have an algorithm for picking a photogenic angle for your game?

        Nah, the planets are just shown as 3D objects in the game.

        The little icons as the one I linked were made by a special game mode for development which I call the PlanetPhotoStudio that just lets me manually rotate the planet 3D object and take a snapshot. Since the planet surfaces are pre-generated using an external program (“Grand Designer”, highly recommended) and only some results are chosen, it’s fine to also make those icons during development time.

        It’s actually less hassle to create a “photo studio” (especially since most of the work for it is also used in the main game) and do it manually for each planet like that than to try and come up with an algorithm for “how photogenic a 2D view of a planet looks”.

    • luciferofastora@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      A lot of choices in game making are mainly artistic freedom which at first people with a Science or Engineering background tend to shy away from “because it’s not how things are”.

      This is a chorus I like to repeat: Entertainment doesn’t need to be realistic to be fun, and I wish publishers / marketers / reviewers / players would acknowledge that more often and stop slapping the label “realistic” and the like on things that aren’t.

      There are sims that are grounded in careful study and attempt to model some part of reality as accurately as possible, but even they need to compromise, both to run on contemporary hardware and to balance it against playability. But they’re often complex, by virtue of modeling a complex reality, and not everyone’s cup of tea.

      But then you have things like Assassin’s Creed that regularly and heavily fudge history, not always in a bad way, but convey an impression of past societies that seems accurate, but glosses over things like the Spartan inequality and slavery or Viking brutality, painting a more “noble” and “heroic” picture than they each deserve.

      Again, there’s nothing wrong with making up interesting stuff, but people should be honest about it (as you are). Pointing out those artistic choices is an opportunity for learning things. Though the scale of an atmosphere is probably less significant than the scale of Viking slave trade, I still find it curious just how thin it actually is.

  • cartoon meme dog@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    7 days ago

    Fermi paradox solution: aliens approach from a direction where the first part they see is the Philippines and Indonesia, and just say “nah I’m not learning all those names of islands”, and leave.

  • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 days ago

    Because one of them (Earth) is based on reality, and the other is a poorly done conceptual render because no human actually knows the shape of the landmasses on that planet on account of having never been there.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Have they considered zooming their telescope in enough until they can see for themselves firsthand?

      • Octagon9561@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        I know you’re probably joking but even the best telescopes can only directly image a planet that’s like 10 times the mass of Jupiter and even then it’s only like two pixels.

        • Psythik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Makes me wonder what a telescope the size of a solar system could see. How large of the telescope do you think it would take to be able to get a clear image of this planet?

          • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Honestly I’m not even sure it’s possible at that distance. Planets reflect very little light compared to stars, and that already minuscule amount of light gets scattered across an insanely huge area due to the inverse square law. So that tiny amount of light gets spread over an insanely huge area (light years in size).

            I feel like to get a clear picture your telescope would have to be light years across in size to get a clear image with fine details in it. The light is just too spread out to get a clear picture of it with anything you can build at a human scale.

      • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        The hard part is that the stars create so much glare and planets are so small and faint that it’s really REALLY hard to zoom in on them. Even with very powerful telescopes. It’s probably straight up impossible actually. Like you can see them and get an idea of what they’re made of (light spectrum analysis) but you’re not going to be able to make out fine details like what the landmasses look like.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      We’ve always done that. Everybody knows our hemisphere is prettier and sexier than theirs. We’ve got the hottest hemisphere on the planet, and that includes whether you break it up North/South, or East/West. We own it, baby.

  • ExtremeUnicorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    7 days ago

    Am I the only one around here who doesn’t think it looks like shit?

    Geoscentific and ecological implications aside, they have a huge ass continent with multiple giant lakes and small peninsulas all around. With a comparable vegetation to earth, this would look amazing in person, I believe.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, very geo-centric view. It just looks different than literally the only planet humanity has ever known

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      What I’d actually like to know is how it was chosen. At that distance, we can’t see anything from position and luminosity, and even the luminosity is rough to bake out of other bias. We’re better at telling that there’s a moon. Is this an artists rendition? It is a reasonable calculation due to age and plate tectonics?

      I don’t hate it, but if it’s just art for the sake of art, why not go earth-like?

    • agingelderly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Well, if Americans settled on that planet, travel would suck to get around. But if a modern country developed it, it would be great - high speed rail all around!

  • melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’d probably like to come colonize our planet, but with 2x the gravity of Earth, I bet it’s hard to build a rocket that can actually get them into space, much less travel 1800 light years.

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 days ago

      Documentaries and science communication in general has always been waaaay too fucking lax on properly disclosing artists’ renderings. Every field suffers from it, but I have to say astrophysics and astronomy are the absolute worst about it.

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 days ago

    Bro that’s a PRIME sailing planet if I’ve ever seen on.

    Earths oceans shores are largely extremely boring linear beaches. Especially along the Atlantic.

    This plant would be prime for small cheap hobby costal sailing

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    They got a lot more land on that planet. The people who live there don’t appreciate what they’ve got like we will, so we deserve it more. Let’s go kill them and take it from them.