Random World Generation Rivers
- Thread starter De Sniper
- Start date
Lakes are also really lacking. Any body of water, really. I'd love to have rivers (even better, flowing rivers) and lakes back, but given that they use stamps for those now, you'll likely have to use a 3rd party world generation tool in order to get decent bodies of water like we used to have.
zztong
Well-known member
Okay, realism breaking.
I think that's an area of experimentation for TFP. They went from winding narrow, shallow rivers placed via some algorithm to the idea of using stamps. Stamps have worked out for mountains and hills, but not so much for rivers. For one thing, there's only 1-2 river stamps for RWG to use and folks are used to the "S" river appearing on their map. There's also a limit to how large or small you can scale a river stamp. Too large and you get a massive "S" lake. Too small and you get an unnoticeable dip in the terrain. Third, I think TFP changed focus for the past version or two and have been working on RWG's performance. It takes something like 1/5th to 1/7th the time it used to when generating an 8k map.
If I recall correctly -- and I might be misremembering, so sorry if this is misinformation -- but I think @faatal talked about perhaps using an algorithm like what it used for roads, but he's got to be juggling lots of potential features, support for other developers, and bug hunting -- and well interesting complications such as competing priorities and multi-developer teams.
I would think lakes as stamps should work, though I don't remember how many stamps there are for that. I want to think "two." I could see where lake stamps might get tromped on by mountain stamps, or vice-versa, so maybe they don't work out well.
If you don't mind lakes (ponds?) being less than 150x150, they can be put onto Tiles. TFP does have a set of Tiles with a bridge over a small lake. I've got one with a causeway over a lake in my POI pack as well.
The map edges can represent larger bodies of water. Unfortunately, there's no way to signal to RWG that a POI is (or can be) placed on a coast line or even out in the water, so we don't see POIs integrated with the water. That said, when you make a custom Tile you can make POIs that integrate with a fixed coastline in the Tile. For instance, the Navezgane has a few POIs that do not appear in an RWG world because they're integrated into a lake. I've got a custom tile in my pack that does that so those POIs are now possible. We could do similar with a "coastline Tile" if RWG supported that.
RWG is fascinating. I love to talk RWG.
Riamus
Well-known member
Unfortunately, as long as they continue to use stamps for rivers, they just aren't going to be very interesting. And using an algorithm for it would increase map generation time, which they seem to be trying to avoid. Maybe they'll do it eventually, but I really don't think it'll happen before gold. There are just too many things they are trying to complete for gold and they are already running behind (2.0 was supposed to be out in Q4 2024 and now it'll be late Q1 2025). I don't think they'll add in more things that will delay stuff even more.
In the meantime, if you are using PC, you can use Teragon to get some really nice rivers and lakes that are randomly generated. It has a steep learning curve and you shouldn't go in expecting to make a very specific type of map before learning how it works, but it can make some really nice maps without needing to do anything other than choose a preset and change the seed.
In the meantime, if you are using PC, you can use Teragon to get some really nice rivers and lakes that are randomly generated. It has a steep learning curve and you shouldn't go in expecting to make a very specific type of map before learning how it works, but it can make some really nice maps without needing to do anything other than choose a preset and change the seed.
I could have waited a couple more years for the game to come out of alpha haha
I think essentially this game is truly still in alpha, maybe beta stage. When you think of a 1.0 release game it should be feature complete, no?
I've been playing a bit since really early alphas and have several thousand hours in the game and still really like playing it.
It's pretty much always had issues with water, from it not flowing properly when it has empty space next to it, to not flattening out properly when some is removed to it acting like mud when you try to swim in it, but that didn't matter that much, the water was there and it basically looked like water. TFP reworked the water a bit not too terribly long ago and it was a bit better, but then poof it was gone.
I really do like how fast the maps generate, but I can wait a little longer for the map to generate so I can have rivers. Maybe TFP could implement it sooner by introducing a toggle in the world generator that can turn on off rivers with a warning that says it'll take significantly longer to generate the world. Just for now
If stamps are used to generate the rivers my assumption is that they'll have to make a bunch of different variations (size, length, shape, direction) of them to make them look like they flow properly and randomly across the map.
@zztongwhat is your poi pack called? I haven't played in Navezgane in so long should probably play in it again. I always liked every games map to be different so I've mostly played RWG, but I do remember it had some poi connected to the water that I've never seen in RWG. I think there was one along a river in a canyon that had a nearby bridge at the top of the canyon spanning the canyon.
@Riamus they are always running behind which is fine if it wasn't I wouldn't still be playing the game
Wasn't 1.0 originally supposed to be gold? TFP could stop changing core game mechanics (learn by doing/crafting, Etc) to get other things finished. Although it is their game so they can do whatever they want
I just started hearing about Teragon recently when I was searching about river stuff and I didn't think I'd heard of it before. Is there somewhere people can share maps they created? Might have to spend the time to learn how it works.
I think essentially this game is truly still in alpha, maybe beta stage. When you think of a 1.0 release game it should be feature complete, no?
I've been playing a bit since really early alphas and have several thousand hours in the game and still really like playing it.
It's pretty much always had issues with water, from it not flowing properly when it has empty space next to it, to not flattening out properly when some is removed to it acting like mud when you try to swim in it, but that didn't matter that much, the water was there and it basically looked like water. TFP reworked the water a bit not too terribly long ago and it was a bit better, but then poof it was gone.
I really do like how fast the maps generate, but I can wait a little longer for the map to generate so I can have rivers. Maybe TFP could implement it sooner by introducing a toggle in the world generator that can turn on off rivers with a warning that says it'll take significantly longer to generate the world. Just for now
If stamps are used to generate the rivers my assumption is that they'll have to make a bunch of different variations (size, length, shape, direction) of them to make them look like they flow properly and randomly across the map.
@zztongwhat is your poi pack called? I haven't played in Navezgane in so long should probably play in it again. I always liked every games map to be different so I've mostly played RWG, but I do remember it had some poi connected to the water that I've never seen in RWG. I think there was one along a river in a canyon that had a nearby bridge at the top of the canyon spanning the canyon.
@Riamus they are always running behind which is fine if it wasn't I wouldn't still be playing the game
Wasn't 1.0 originally supposed to be gold? TFP could stop changing core game mechanics (learn by doing/crafting, Etc) to get other things finished. Although it is their game so they can do whatever they want I just started hearing about Teragon recently when I was searching about river stuff and I didn't think I'd heard of it before. Is there somewhere people can share maps they created? Might have to spend the time to learn how it works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riamus
Well-known member
It is the belief of many (most?) of us that they changed to 1.0 because Microsoft and/or Sony required it if they wanted to release on console. They had been using A22 and then suddenly switched without explanation. They wouldn't be allowed to say if that was the reason, and it makes sense. So, no. 1.0 is not gold or feature complete. It is essentially A22.2 right now. It will not be gold until their roadmap is complete.I could have waited a couple more years for the game to come out of alpha haha
I think essentially this game is truly still in alpha, maybe beta stage. When you think of a 1.0 release game it should be feature complete, no?
I've been playing a bit since really early alphas and have several thousand hours in the game and still really like playing it.
It's pretty much always had issues with water, from it not flowing properly when it has empty space next to it, to not flattening out properly when some is removed to it acting like mud when you try to swim in it, but that didn't matter that much, the water was there and it basically looked like water. TFP reworked the water a bit not too terribly long ago and it was a bit better, but then poof it was gone.
I really do like how fast the maps generate, but I can wait a little longer for the map to generate so I can have rivers. Maybe TFP could implement it sooner by introducing a toggle in the world generator that can turn on off rivers with a warning that says it'll take significantly longer to generate the world. Just for now
If stamps are used to generate the rivers my assumption is that they'll have to make a bunch of different variations (size, length, shape, direction) of them to make them look like they flow properly and randomly across the map.
@zztongwhat is your poi pack called? I haven't played in Navezgane in so long should probably play in it again. I always liked every games map to be different so I've mostly played RWG, but I do remember it had some poi connected to the water that I've never seen in RWG. I think there was one along a river in a canyon that had a nearby bridge at the top of the canyon spanning the canyon.
@Riamus they are always running behind which is fine if it wasn't I wouldn't still be playing the game
I just started hearing about Teragon recently when I was searching about river stuff and I didn't think I'd heard of it before. Is there somewhere people can share maps they created? Might have to spend the time to learn how it works.
There are some who will say that the times have changed and people don't consider 1.0 to be gold anymore. Certainly there are some who think that was, but I disagree with it. I think the cat majority of gamers who hear a game has reached 1.0 consider it gold/complete. Of course I have no stats on that. And those who say that also often refer to DLC and expansions and patches and such as proof that the gaming industry doesn't consider 1.0 to be gold anymore. But again I will disagree. There is a difference between saying a game is complete, yet still putting out patches and even adding content, or making DLC and expansions versus not consider the game to be gold just because they are still doing those things. I think that if you asked most developers whose game is at that point if it is gold or still in development, they will say it is gold.
But that is just my opinion. And it really doesn't matter here. Assuming I am correct and it was because of the console release, they had a choice to call it 1.0 and tell everyone it is really still in development regardless of the version or else not release it to console. Obviously they wanted to release to console, so they didn't have a choice and I can't really fault them for that.
In any case, they have a roadmap of stuff that will be done leading to gold. Once they finish that, the game will essentially be complete. They could create DLC or release updates and patches after, including potentially some more content, but I wouldn't expect much before then that isn't on the roadmap.
As far as the rivers, they would need to spend time creating an algorithm to generate rivers. It is an entirely different process to just dropping a stamp on the map here and there. I'm not sure they will take the time to do that, though it is possible.
zztong
Well-known member
"ZZTong's Custom Prefabs" (aka ZZTong-Prefabs) and it is found on Nexus Mods...
https://www.nexusmods.com/7daystodie/mods/1434/
That's still in the game, but it isn't a large-scale solution. It works fine if you want water to flow in a house. It takes too much processing if you want to flood a 150x150 Tile with something like a dam failure caused by player actions. While entertaining, it isn't a real-time flood. It underscores the difficulty in supporting things like water and buildings collapsing.
I think it is healthy to think software is always under development. Consumers seem to expect everyone to use an old numbering system when there really are no rules, so sure "1.0 should be feature complete", except that it probably never is. For myself, I largely worked on software developed for internal use, not consumer use, and we always just numbered releases and left it at that.
You can kind of see how the sillyness of focusing on a 1.0 plays out. MS/Sony insist on not accepting a non-1.0 release, so developers just number whatever they have as 1.0 because what they have is quite playable and they're more into an iterative development approach instead of a gated milestone approach (or whatever we're calling the waterfall method these days).
I would be happy with speed vs feature choices in RWG. I can only speculate as to what TFP is weighing as priorities. My speculation then is that priorities for development are probably not putting any (or very much) time towards RWG at the moment, so it doesn't matter which approach we think might be best as the dev's are working on other things. That's my guess, anyways. I don't have any inside information.
Dead Smarty
Active member
There used to be a time when after 1.0 a software product was considered not alpha, beta or early acces anymore. Day 1 patches were the start of sliding down the slope. I have played multiple games from 0.8 stage and it can be a realy rewarding experience if a dev (team) is responsive and informative about the goals and the community is patient and helpfull.
All that said, I played a little with RWG and I hope the rivers will improve over time. I would not mind a little extra generation time since it is only once each map.
All that said, I played a little with RWG and I hope the rivers will improve over time. I would not mind a little extra generation time since it is only once each map.
Riamus
Well-known member
Yeah, things are certainly more gray these days. But I think the thing to keep in mind with it is that a developer will still consider a game to be "gold" at a certain point in development, even if they will continue to release updates. And I think that most would say that it's reached that point when the version number is 1.0 (or something like 1.01 or whatever) or at whatever point they release the game if it's not early access (and that's probably also going to be called 1.0). It is true that because it's so easy to release updates and patches and stuff these days, developers can choose to consider a game to be gold and still easily release more updates. That doesn't mean it isn't gold, though.
Take something like Paradox's Crusader Kings or Stellaris games (and most of their games, for that matter). They have a base game release, which would be considered by them to be gold. Yet they will continue to put out both paid DLC and free content/feature updates for many years. But the base game is still considered gold when it's released even though the plan is for many years of updates to it. It isn't really missing features at that point even though they'll add some new features in the free content updates that relate to the DLC. Now, many people (including myself) may consider that original release to be pretty bare bones compared to what it is by the time they stop releasing updates and DLC. But even that doesn't mean it's not considered to be gold by the developers.
Or you can consider an app. Pick any software that continues to receive regular unpaid updates. Even something like your web browser, though for a better comparison, you may want to consider something that required you to purchase it for the first version but was then free for all future updates. This software would have been considered gold when it was originally released even though they chose to continue to provide free updates for one reason or another - perhaps to keep it current with competition or they just want to keep adding new things they think of that they think will be good. This can go on for years, but doesn't change that the original release would have been considered gold.
Developers can choose to require you to pay for these extra updates (take something like Microsoft Office, back before it was a subscription). Other than bug fixes, you really didn't get much in the way of new features or improvements without paying for the next year's version. But just because a developer chooses to make these updates free instead of paid doesn't change whether or not the software (app or game) is considered to be gold.
Now, yes. It is possible for the gold release to be a version other than 1.0. It's pretty rare for it to be less than 1.0... Even if it's released in an earlier version to the public, the developers likely would not consider it to be gold yet at that point and are just offering it earlier either to make money or to make it available for testing and suggestions or something similar. It can also be after 1.0, though that is usually because there were some problems with the 1.0 release that needed to be fixed (this is when you see something like 1.01 for a gold version). It is also possible to have multiple "gold" releases, where they make a new version that is significantly improved and it is then considered to be gold for that version. These are normally major version changes - 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc. In many cases, these end up being sequels or entirely new versions rather than just an update to the original, though that isn't always the case.
And then there will always be people (and developers since they are people) who refuse to follow any standards and just want to be different and so will use any version they want as gold. This can be seen more often with indie developers, but can also be seen with larger developers sometimes as well. Just because some refuse to use some form of standard doesn't mean using standards is wrong or bad or should be ignored and forgotten. Standards are there for a reason. It helps people to understand where things are in development (for software). Can you make a gold release and call it Alpha or Beta? Sure. Will it confuse everyone? Yes. But you can do it. Can you make your gold release v8.1.5.7? Sure. But that doesn't mean you should.
Anyhow, that's my view on it. TFP has chosen to make 1.0 still be an Alpha version, likely due to requirements to release on console. That's understandable even if I'm not a fan of it. They have also chosen to make each main update a new main version - 2.0 for what is really Alpha 23, 3.0 for what is really Alpha 24, etc. I personally think this is a bad choice. It won't change anything, no matter what version numbers they use. But these new updates aren't significant changes to the game to warrant an entirely new main version number, imo. Doing so makes it seem to someone who isn't following what TFP is doing that it's a significant change to the game. But it isn't. Adding the weather update will be nice, but it won't significantly change the game, even if it does help to keep players out of the higher biomes until later in the game. I think they should have used 1.1 for the weather update, 1.2 for the next update, and so on. And then use the lower tier of versions for the updates between those - 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc. for updates between 1.0 and Storm's Brewing, for example. And even 1.0.1.1 for minor bug fix releases. But I think they got so used to each Alpha changing the version number that they are stuck in that mindset and so aren't following any standard at all anymore for versions. I don't like their decision, but it doesn't really matter in the end. The releases will be the same, no matter what they call them. I just prefer standardization because it is good to have a standard way of doing things and makes things more clear for everyone. There have already been many people who have posted who were confused about why the game isn't done now that it's 1.0, and I'm sure there are many more who haven't posted who are just as confused.
Last edited by a moderator:
zztong
Well-known member
Of course it will vary from team to team and product to product. There isn't an industry standard for this kind of thing. You might call it a common convention, but like "common sense" it really isn't all that common.
EDIT - I'm not suggesting anyone in this discussion is lacking common sense. What I meant was when I talk to my friends and family about what "common sense" means, it's hard to pin down an exacting description. Folks will basically say "it's things everyone should know" but then can't agree on what those things are. Classically, they'll say it's a high school education, but then realize the most adults have forgotten how the government works. They'll say it is a middle school education, but then realize many adults have forgotten basic math's order of operations, leaving common sense somewhere around the second grade. So these days when a politician says "We need a common sense solution!" I just roll my eyes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dead Smarty
Active member
The standard was the product in the box was a working product that did not require any internet to install or run, it just worked. No variation.
Riamus
Well-known member
My definition of common sense would be something that should be obvious to people in the local area. I say local area because what is normal in one place isn't normal somewhere else, though some things are normal everywhere. So a couple very basic examples of common sense are that you will be fired if you don't go to work (and don't have a remote job) or that you don't park on train tracks if the tracks are still being used. These are things that should be obvious, and so are common sense. But I would say that a lot of people call things common sense that probably shouldn't be called common sense.
Well.... Even back in the late 90s, there was some software that still used the Internet for things and needed it in order to run. And I don't fault a developer for using an Internet connection as a way to reduce piracy. And I certainly don't care that you can download and install stuff without needing to go find and buy a physical copy. I don't think that needing an Internet connection really has anything to do with versioning or gold status.
The more I think about it, the more I think it isn't that there is a change to what version people consider to be gold, but a move away from a software product ever even being considered gold or finished.
Last edited by a moderator:
zztong
Well-known member
So only commercial, shrink-wrapped software for personal computers before around 1999?
I can see that perspective, though the entire world of software is/was bigger and older. Still, I can see why you might focus on 1980-1999 (approximate), though I think of that as a subset of the industry and historical.