“…The Elite universe contains eight galaxies, each with 256 planets to explore. Due to the limited capabilities of 8-bit computers, these worlds are procedurally generated. A single seed number is run through a fixed algorithm the appropriate number of times and creates a sequence of numbers determining each planet’s complete composition (position in the galaxy, prices of commodities, and name and local details; text strings are chosen numerically from a lookup table and assembled to produce unique descriptions, such as a planet with “carnivorous arts graduates”). This means that no extra memory is needed to store the characteristics of each planet, yet each is unique and has fixed properties. Each galaxy is also procedurally generated from the first. Braben and Bell at first intended to have 248 galaxies, but Acornsoft insisted on a smaller universe to hide the galaxies’ mathematical origins.[36]”
"Of course, David Braben and his team didn’t dot their virtual galaxy manually with all those star systems, they used procedural generation. But there’s absolutely more to it, Braben explained when we recently sat down with him in San Francisco.
“I think it is a distraction when you start describing it as ‘we generated our galaxy procedurally’. It belittles the fact that we actually put a lot of artistic work in it and gathered real data.
We have a one-to-one scale model of the milky way in our game, with all the 400 billion star systems. What we’ve done is we got real data from 160,000 star systems. That’s every single star in the night sky. About 7,000 are visible to the human eye and a lot more with a telescope. These are all in the game. And all the nebulae and things like that.
Now, beyond 30 or 40 light-years from Earth, even Hubble can’t resolve the smallest stars. So, the most common star we know about is a Class M Red-star, and beyond those 30 to 40 light-years, Hubble can’t see them. But you CAN see them as a sort of smoke, you just can’t see individual stars.
And I’m sure in our lifetime, we’ll see further and further with better telescopes. But the point is, we can populate that smoke with stars –with the right sort of mix of stars as well as the density. Because we know how much radiation is coming out of that smoke. And that’s the sort of approach we have taken.
Using procedural generation to create that smoke, in much the same way an artist uses an air brush or computer. The artists doesn’t mind where the individual dots come, what he’s doing, is getting the pattern of the smoke right, or whatever it is he’s drawing with the air brush."
Remarkable that you can copypaste all that and still can’t comprehend what was done in 1984 and what was done in 2014.
If you find a way to represent our existing Milky Way galaxy with a procedural algorithm and a seed that can be run in a reasonable time on any current computer or even a cluster (say, running for a few dozen years), you’re welcome to claim the Nobel prize.
Champ, re-read the thread. The comment was a joke - “in a cave, with a box of scraps” is a meme. The point was that Braben demonstrated procedural generation compresses galaxy-scale data into almost nothing, which is directly relevant to starman’s napkin math about storage per star. Nobody claimed a seed perfectly reproduces the real Milky Way. You invented that claim and then dunked on it.
Also, you confidently told me Elite Dangerous was from 2014 when I was clearly citing Elite (1984) and Elite Dangerous (2014).
How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.
How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.
The sub-thread is about the minimum storage to hold a 3D model per star. Starman defined a 2-byte tetrahedron and multiplied. That’s storage math, not astrophysical reproduction.
Nobody at any point said “accurately reproducing existing stars.”
Procedural generation is relevant because it’s the canonical example of compressing astronomical-scale data into almost nothing - which is what Braben did in 1984, on the machine I cited, which you initially corrected me on incorrectly.
You’ve now moved the goalposts twice: first from Elite to Elite Dangerous, now from “minimal storage per model” to “accurately reproducing existing stars.”
At some point it’s easier for you to just re-read the thread than to keep inventing new arguments to lose.
Three replies deep and you’ve been wrong every single time. Confused Elite with Elite Dangerous. Invented a claim nobody made. Moved the goalposts thrice. Failed to comprehend both jokes and basic geometry.
And now that you’ve run out of thread to misread, you’re resorting to ad hominems and hoping nobody scrolls up.
David Braben did it 1984, in a cave, with a box of scraps
https://ctrl500.com/tech/how-frontier-managed-to-re-create-our-entire-galaxy-in-elite-dangerous/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(video_game)
‘Elite Dangerous’ is from 2014.
Elite is from 1984. Per the wiki I cited
“…The Elite universe contains eight galaxies, each with 256 planets to explore. Due to the limited capabilities of 8-bit computers, these worlds are procedurally generated. A single seed number is run through a fixed algorithm the appropriate number of times and creates a sequence of numbers determining each planet’s complete composition (position in the galaxy, prices of commodities, and name and local details; text strings are chosen numerically from a lookup table and assembled to produce unique descriptions, such as a planet with “carnivorous arts graduates”). This means that no extra memory is needed to store the characteristics of each planet, yet each is unique and has fixed properties. Each galaxy is also procedurally generated from the first. Braben and Bell at first intended to have 248 galaxies, but Acornsoft insisted on a smaller universe to hide the galaxies’ mathematical origins.[36]”
Elite Dangerous expands on this mechanic, per cited article.
"Of course, David Braben and his team didn’t dot their virtual galaxy manually with all those star systems, they used procedural generation. But there’s absolutely more to it, Braben explained when we recently sat down with him in San Francisco.
“I think it is a distraction when you start describing it as ‘we generated our galaxy procedurally’. It belittles the fact that we actually put a lot of artistic work in it and gathered real data.
We have a one-to-one scale model of the milky way in our game, with all the 400 billion star systems. What we’ve done is we got real data from 160,000 star systems. That’s every single star in the night sky. About 7,000 are visible to the human eye and a lot more with a telescope. These are all in the game. And all the nebulae and things like that.
Now, beyond 30 or 40 light-years from Earth, even Hubble can’t resolve the smallest stars. So, the most common star we know about is a Class M Red-star, and beyond those 30 to 40 light-years, Hubble can’t see them. But you CAN see them as a sort of smoke, you just can’t see individual stars.
And I’m sure in our lifetime, we’ll see further and further with better telescopes. But the point is, we can populate that smoke with stars –with the right sort of mix of stars as well as the density. Because we know how much radiation is coming out of that smoke. And that’s the sort of approach we have taken.
Using procedural generation to create that smoke, in much the same way an artist uses an air brush or computer. The artists doesn’t mind where the individual dots come, what he’s doing, is getting the pattern of the smoke right, or whatever it is he’s drawing with the air brush."
Remarkable that you can copypaste all that and still can’t comprehend what was done in 1984 and what was done in 2014.
If you find a way to represent our existing Milky Way galaxy with a procedural algorithm and a seed that can be run in a reasonable time on any current computer or even a cluster (say, running for a few dozen years), you’re welcome to claim the Nobel prize.
Champ, re-read the thread. The comment was a joke - “in a cave, with a box of scraps” is a meme. The point was that Braben demonstrated procedural generation compresses galaxy-scale data into almost nothing, which is directly relevant to starman’s napkin math about storage per star. Nobody claimed a seed perfectly reproduces the real Milky Way. You invented that claim and then dunked on it.
Also, you confidently told me Elite Dangerous was from 2014 when I was clearly citing Elite (1984) and Elite Dangerous (2014).
Maybe ease off the “can’t comprehend” akshually.
How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.
The sub-thread is about the minimum storage to hold a 3D model per star. Starman defined a 2-byte tetrahedron and multiplied. That’s storage math, not astrophysical reproduction.
Nobody at any point said “accurately reproducing existing stars.”
Procedural generation is relevant because it’s the canonical example of compressing astronomical-scale data into almost nothing - which is what Braben did in 1984, on the machine I cited, which you initially corrected me on incorrectly.
You’ve now moved the goalposts twice: first from Elite to Elite Dangerous, now from “minimal storage per model” to “accurately reproducing existing stars.”
At some point it’s easier for you to just re-read the thread than to keep inventing new arguments to lose.
Go away.
Wow, it’s really a damn mess in your head.
Three replies deep and you’ve been wrong every single time. Confused Elite with Elite Dangerous. Invented a claim nobody made. Moved the goalposts thrice. Failed to comprehend both jokes and basic geometry.
And now that you’ve run out of thread to misread, you’re resorting to ad hominems and hoping nobody scrolls up.
They will.