Re: [nbos] [FM8] FM8 Wish List
Sat Mar 29th, 2008
Note: the quoted below was in response to David Tait. I seem to have
missplaced the quote in my first quote. Chris is pretty much nailed
it, and even when some of the conditions are different enough are the
same that we can hypotheize. I will agree that the average mapper
doesn't need the degree of geology the average Exploration Geologist
needs, but the surface should LOOK right, especially realizing most
people have had some elementary earth science before graduating
highschool. Rivers shouldn't flow uphill unless the author/mapper has
a reason for the rivers to flow uphill, or your story starts loosing
credibility with your audience.

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:36 AM, T'Star <> wrote:
> *chuckles* most of the people I have talked to don't want to think
> that much about the geology of their world. ;) They want a tool like
> the existing 'wind erosion' and 'water erosion' tools, that apply
> everything to the whole planet. That requires much more complicated
> algorithms and longer processing times. The mountain raising can be
> done, to a limited degree with the 'elevation' tools, but it gets much
> to soft curves, and the erosion tools make much too straight lines and
> look very artificial. Even craters aren't absolutely featureless
> circles, there's always some warping, cracking, and faulting wherever
> it hits. They don't want to think "well I've got a fault here so I
> need this side to go up and that side to go down… and do it over
> 1000000 years and ". Which means the computer must do the thinking
> for them, which means higher processing times and longer calculation
> waits. I may not be able to write the code but I do understand the
> basic principles and what slows things down. And the issue is
> balancing something that looks realistic (which means you can't just
> ignore the geology side), and doesn't take forever to calculate, but
> the more realistic it looks the more data points there are by
> necessity. The more data points there are, the more calculations
> become necessary. The more calculations that are necessary the longer
> it takes to calculate. A certain amount of slow down is inevitable.
> For my part I want a middle ground. I would like tools that can
> duplicate specific effects of techtonics. That is, a mountain
> building tool that actually builds realistic mountainous terrain
> instead of nice smooth round mountains. Rivers that you can actually
> set a width for rather than a proportion, possibly a canyon too to
> 'carve' narrower trenches. Basically I'd like to be able to
> manipulate the internal parts of the continent and the oceans with a
> little more detail. A glacier tool might be interesting, but how
> would it work? Would you want the view of the glacier while it was
> advancing or present? Or the valleys, lakes, and moraines it creates?
> A lake and canyon tool would do the latter part.
> This is 8th grade earth science, if I was after full geology I'd be
> asking for a program that takes into account the underlying substrata,
> all hot spots, variable extension and subduction rates, and the
> stresses of different rock types as they're being subjection to shear.
> I'd want algorithms that take into account plastic deformation,
> elastic deformation, creep, and high pressure solid rock flow, but
> that's a little bit extreme. ;)
Nbossoftware mailing list

Copyright © 2003-2007, NBOS Software. All rights reserved. 'Fractal Mapper', 'ScreenMonkey', 'Character Sketcher', 'Inspiration Pad', 'Fractal World Explorer', 'Goblin API', 'AstroSynthesis' are trademarks of NBOS Software. 'Dwarven Beserker' art by V. Shane.
Member contributed resources