Same Engine?

[ElmoBond]

Im assuming this will use the same engine and skeleton as No Man's Sky, water looks the same, clouds look the same, terrain generation is actually a little better than no man's sky but looks very similar, heck even the mounting animation and flying camera angles look very familiar. (i am of course referring to the newest version of no man's sky, so please do not use this as an excuse to insult it)

[Lindy Bomber]

The built the NMS engine from scratch. The general assumption is they will use an improved version for LNF.

[SENA]

Well they are going to be similar, Stuff they are doing in Light No Fire they are bringing it into No Mans sky. Like most of the World Update stuff was done and made for Light No Fire and was moved over, So most of what we are seeing in NMS will be very similar in LNF.

[Dr.Abscondus]

Of course it's the same engine. They made it, they know it inside and out. You don't just pull a game engine out of your butt. Switching to something like UE5 would mean starting over and making mistakes (see Stalker 2 for mistakes). NMS engine is amazing and I'm really curious if they will ever license it for use by other studios. The creative possibilities are endless and judging by how NMS has changed since release, the engine is very adaptable and can do things it couldn't before. It may have started as a basic procedural generation program, but it's much more than that now. I think the reason Sean got in trouble originally was because he was thinking about what the engine could become instead of what it actually was at the time. Classic dreamer.

[Occasional Gamer]

I'm assuming they're building the LNF engine from scratch and that's why it's taking so long.

[+VLFBERHT+]

Originally posted by Dr.Abscondus:

Of course it's the same engine. They made it, they know it inside and out. You don't just pull a game engine out of your butt. Switching to something like UE5 would mean starting over and making mistakes (see Stalker 2 for mistakes). NMS engine is amazing and I'm really curious if they will ever license it for use by other studios. The creative possibilities are endless and judging by how NMS has changed since release, the engine is very adaptable and can do things it couldn't before. It may have started as a basic procedural generation program, but it's much more than that now. I think the reason Sean got in trouble originally was because he was thinking about what the engine could become instead of what it actually was at the time. Classic dreamer.

I suspect the current version of Hello Engine is locked in it's scope in many ways, unless (and that's a BIG BUT) unless "Worlds Part 2" will be a total conversion to the LNF version of the Hello Engine...

BUT, i kind of doubt they will be able to convert all 18.4 quintillion planets into mini-LNF planets with multi-biomes without wiping out everything ever discovered and built in all 256 Galaxies, let alone many of the unknown features as yet to be revealed coming to LNF.

[grimgary]

Why would they have to covert 18 quintillion planets. They don't exist before they are generated or referenced except as mathematical algorithms and bounded rules. Any data that is saved is only saved on your PC, EXCEPT those claims that were specifically uploaded to the HG's server. And even then it is not the planet, just the stuff the player manipulated inside the area of the claim. Other than that, only the changed names of planets and system are saved automatically.

Which is why when they change the way things are generated, your planet changes sometimes to different biomes, climates, or the colors and critters.

Also, the engine as they have put in their 2018 GDC talk on how they generate worlds from procedural generation is quite modular. In fact, Ines stated that the data about the planet is quite "agnostic" as they put it when it comes to how a planet's data is generated.

There would of course need to be changes to the scale of a planet and how biomes are derived by setting new rules. But the same math generally applies. Minor but time consuming since each time you change the rules you need to check the results because you won't know the results of proc gen until you probe it or sample it.

[+VLFBERHT+]

Originally posted by grimgary:

Why would they have to covert 18 quintillion planets. They don't exist before they are generated or referenced except as mathematical algorithms and bounded rules. Any data that is saved is only saved on your PC, EXCEPT those claims that were specifically uploaded to the HG's server. And even then it is not the planet, just the stuff the player manipulated inside the area of the claim. Other than that, only the changed names of planets and system are saved automatically.

Which is why when they change the way things are generated, your planet changes sometimes to different biomes, climates, or the colors and critters.

Also, the engine as they have put in their 2018 GDC talk on how they generate worlds from procedural generation is quite modular. In fact, Ines stated that the data about the planet is quite "agnostic" as they put it when it comes to how a planet's data is generated.

There would of course need to be changes to the scale of a planet and how biomes are derived by setting new rules. But the same math generally applies. Minor but time consuming since each time you change the rules you need to check the results because you won't know the results of proc gen until you probe it or sample it.

"Why would they have to covert 18 quintillion planets. They don't exist before they are generated or referenced except as mathematical algorithms and bounded rules."

Not quite...

All 18.4 quintillion planets "already exists" AS pre-determined algorithmic maths equations (the proc-gen formula)... the basis for which was set in 2016 upon the "Final Universe Build"

The planets or solar systems are NOT a "dynamically randomly generated seed" waiting for the first person to discover and land on it for it to spring into existence/generate an output for the first time and then subsequently generated the same output for each successive visitor.

It's all already there, the closest thing to simulated reality as it gets... allot like in reality, where a never before observed "Tree" in the middle of lets say, the Yellowstone National Park, is right now there waiting for a hiker to happen by, too finally see it.

The player and their current location is the input that initiates the output of the layered proc-gen formulas that already exists as a maths equation for everything in the No Man's Sky Universe.

Each solar system and planet "already exist" as an math equation... there are coordinates to solar systems and planets with 1 or 3 suns, with 2 to 6 planets (toxic, radioactive, hot, cold, etc.) have already been determined and set, before anyone has ever visited them... the instructions on how to create everything is already there in the UNiverse Build.

That's why certain changes and especially major updates create far reaching changes to the look and type of many, many planets, discovered and not discovered, over all 256 galaxies.

Changing the equation to make ALL planets "multi-biome" would require a complete overwrite of the entire "Universe Build" which they have never done Or, {i'm assuming} they would have already done it by now.

Based upon Sean Murray's personal phone number "The Universe Build" was set using an "unsigned" 64-bit integer: The maximum value is 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, in 2016...

Here is the backup disc it was placed on...

https://www.gamespot.com/a/uploads/screen_kubrick/1179/11799911/3091662-selfie.jpg

[grimgary]

Ok. Which is exactly what I just said in a long winded form. Plus, I do develop games and understand procedural generation as my specialty. Currently writing a dwarf fortress like role playing game that uses a lot of the same principles NMS proc gen does (save for rendering out cube data as a sphere).

"The planets or solar systems are NOT a "dynamically randomly generated seed" waiting for the first person to discover and land on it for it to spring into existence/generate an output for the first time and then subsequently generated the same output for each successive visitor."

And no. None of the NMS data exists except as procedural maths based on a seed. This is a psuedo-random process based on the very seed you then go onto describe later in your post. Which yes, turns out the same results based on several criteria including player position in a particular galazy.

Anyway. Don't even know why the point is being argued.

My main point was that they don't need to change much as far as this very algorithm engages with the rules and bounds of the way biomes are generated. And the only factor here is that you have to probe and sample the new results, and that can take time.

In my own case if proc gen, I have the ability to add/remove/change biomes and their parameters all in a lovely little json file. If I don't like where swamps and forests are changing up, I can just change the volcanism, ground water, rain level needed, land height, climate, and a few other factors it looks at to just move them around. I could remove forests entirely if I needed to test other biomes. But, with each change I have to make sure that the world map, region level and local level all match up with the change. And that takes time. The entire system didn't take long to implement ( I think a months worth of work as I settled into what I was looking for exactrly).

Note on a key difference between my game and NMS is that once a world is generated, the data is in place and cannot be altered unless I make a method to regenerate it. Where as NMS regenerates the proc-gen each and every time you enter a system, and the planet surface when you enter the atmosphere (Both cleverly hidden by the warp sequence and the blinding atmosphere entry).

Anyway. Refitting NMS single biomes to LNF multi biomes is a matter of changing the rules and bounds since the crux of the generation is already in place. It is a bit of work, but the skeleton is already in place.

Not even sure NMS Words 2 will even bother with a multi-biome setup though. That would be a far and fastastic change.

[xO_oxdk]

Originally posted by ElmoBond:

Im assuming this will use the same engine and skeleton as No Man's Sky, water looks the same, clouds look the same, terrain generation is actually a little better than no man's sky but looks very similar, heck even the mounting animation and flying camera angles look very familiar. (i am of course referring to the newest version of no man's sky, so please do not use this as an excuse to insult it)

Hopefully you also just saw the release of Worlds II for NMS..... they are doing exactly what I predicted in febuary 2024 they would do....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MT5FcGpyH0

[Masque]

One reason I think this is built on the same engine as NMS:

No flowing water in the trailer.

Still using Morrowind-style pools of water, instead of Skyrim-style rivers and waterfalls which actually look like they're flowing in some direction.

I'm still dying to play this, because HG is awsomesauce.

But I hope they'll figure out flowing water. Rivers with rapids. Waterfalls.

[Lindy Bomber]

NMS worlds 2 deep dive video, at 2:20 talk about working on LNF and bringing improvements to the terrain generation to NMS.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2lG2DTjP-_M&si=bqmPLMQHXXJ8N6Ea