An proposal of a simple manual benchmark for the 3D editors

Future Game
1

I know, i know it is not exactly right for me to mention spore in every single one the posts i do here, but i would be removing a big part of the context relevant to this discussion, without mentioning the tech marvel spore creature editor was.
Being able to create your own creatures easily (in a time where 3D modelling software was more difficult and less accessible), with immense creative freedom, and play as them was one of the most magic and appreciated aspects of that game. However, few words are said on regard of its negative aspects. One of the most notoriousβ€”and the kick-start theme of this postβ€”is the colossal hardship it comes when trying to portray creatures from our planet on it.
Partly due to the cartoonish art vision spore had, and partly due to the limitations of late 2000s tech, attempts at recreating humans often looked like sleep deprived chimps[1], both fur and exoskeletons were impractical to create, and it is just generally hard to make something look better without external tools and cheats. Nonetheless, with some extra effort, you could make something cool with what you was given, and is still is considered a very impressive system to this day.

However, since its inception, Thrive’s main goal was to make a scientifically accurate evolution game, and that should always shine upon every aspect of its gameplay.
This means that our β€œcreature editor” should be an step above what spore created, enabling the creation of complex and biologically realistic lifeforms.

You probably already know all of this.
But how we even measure realism?

Trying to answer that question, i propose a simple, flexible β€œbenchmark” where beta testers and developers could use to quickly measure the current state of the editor.
Similar to standard test images used on the digital processing field[2], this system bases itself on recreating certain species from Earth in thrive, and taking notes on how difficult it was to build it, and how similar it looks to the real thing.
For the sake of efficiency, i attempted to few species for that list, said species which would cover most aspects that could need to be analysed.
So far, i up with 3:

  • Brown Crab (exoskeleton, non conventional body plan, chitin claws, and a little nod to thrive origins[3])
  • Giant Anteater (endoskeleton, quadruped body plan, extreme head and jaw adaptation, keratin claws)
  • Garden Snail (Hydrostatic skeleton, non biological element, tentacled eyes, unconventional motion)

(I’d like to hear suggestions about which other species could be added or removed to this list!)

Testers/Developers could choose one or two from that list to check an specific feature in development, and in a extensive test, the entire list.
Some could argue that it would be more practical to come up a single, fictional creature that fill all checklists, but we still don’t know all case scenarios that would need to be tested, and such creature would feel too bloated to be of any use in realism testing.

  1. β†©οΈŽ

  2. β†©οΈŽ

  3. β†©οΈŽ

5 Likes
2

What sort of metric would be used to measure the difficulty of creating the creatures? Would it be on a 0 to 10 scale?

3 Likes
3

Should we include other species for different range of sizes?

Like a Blue Whale (the currently largest known animal that also swims)? Or Bee hummingbird - Wikipedia (the smallest known dinosaur that also flies)?

3 Likes
4

also the minimum size is supposed to be 1 cm so I would assume small organisms around this boundary might have some problems with the finer details

3 Likes
5

Maybe the Crimson Topaz hummingbird would be a good hummingbird alternative, as it was the first (or one of the first) hummingbird to be recognized?

4 Likes
6

I think that’d make a good compromise. Should we also get a more conventional reptile on the list?

2 Likes
7

So like a Komodo Dragon, or a snake?

3 Likes
8

Maybe something like a gecko instead?

3 Likes
9

I believe that would be the ideal, since i began thinking about comparing the previous results with the current ones and averaging the previous results… too demanding for a system that is simple at its core

A blue whale would be great because it allows to test megafauna, filterfeeding and aquatic moviment
the other two, as aah pointed, might be too small for the game manage

good for small creatures, feathers, multicolor and beaks testing, yeah

4 Likes
10

What would we want for the non-lawk oddities?

2 Likes
11

Probably a Xenomorph? Or maybe the Iron-eating organism from Bulgasari? Maybe Manila from the Godzilla series (since he is small enough)? :person_shrugging:

2 Likes
12

I think it’d need to be a custom made

3 Likes
13

Or maybe something like the Horta from Star Trek? :person_shrugging:

2 Likes
14

The outward appearance (including but not limited to the Pharyngeal Jaw) of a Xenomorph would certainly be interesting, though I am guessing many people would be more interested in their life cycles and castes. As for an Iron-eating organism, personally, I wonder about their teeth and digestive track, but that may need a different line of testing and discussion.

3 Likes
15

Would a chemoautotroph be just like a tube worm or could they also be motile at a macroscopic scale?

3 Likes
16

They could probably achieve macroscopic motility on a simple, small scale. I am curious too see how big and complex they can get.

3 Likes
17

H2S isn’t the most efficient energy source so it’d take great amounts to keep a larger creature moving

3 Likes
18

and where does this h2s come from? hydrothermal vents? volcanoes? sulfate reducing organisms?

4 Likes
19

Mostly from the vents I think. But some could sustain themselves from the other 2 sources ig

3 Likes