Earth model

admirison

This is something that has bugged me for ages, even though it's a pretty minor thing.

It's obvious that the pattern of lights on the model of Earth is based off of current satellite imagery. But there are some problems with this:

1. "Dark spots" like North Korea and Haiti. In 2015, these countries are undeveloped, standing out on a satellite map alongside the bright lights of China and South Korea (in the former case) and the Dominican Republic (in the latter case). In 2410, Earth has been under one world government for about three centuries, poverty and war have been eradicated, and Earth's inhabitants enjoy incredible prosperity. So why does it still look like nobody has paid their power bills in these countries?

2. Africa. Again, in the present day, it struggles with underdevelopment and poverty. In 2410, its population centers should be lit up as bright as Europe or North America or East Asia.

3. Los Angeles. Apologies to Angelenos, but it was established in "Voyager" that Los Angeles crumbled into the sea in the mid-21st century and is now a rather spectacular coral reef. Yet in 2410, its city lights still outshine those of San Francisco and San Diego.

4. Pixellation. This is an issue for a lot of the older planet models in STO; they simply haven't kept up as the special effects, ship models, environmentals, etc., have improved since launch. As a result, and probably because the appearance of the planet's surface is based off of satellite photos, Earth looks patchy and grainy; it's especially noticeable in the Midwestern United States and Canada.

Anyway, it's a minor quibble, but I do think some renovations of the Federation's capital world would be nice.

senatorvreenak

For points 1 and 2 lights everywhere wouldnt necessarily equate to progress and advancement.
I'd like to think that by the 25th century Humanity has become enlightened enough not to try to destroy nature and build huge cities absolutely everywhere.

zbzzn

senatorvreenak wrote: »

For points 1 and 2 lights everywhere wouldnt necessarily equate to progress and advancement.
I'd like to think that by the 25th century Humanity has become enlightened enough not to try to destroy nature and build huge cities absolutely everywhere.

It could also be that many humans live in arcologies by that time. Seems futuristic to me

admirison

senatorvreenak wrote: »

For points 1 and 2 lights everywhere wouldnt necessarily equate to progress and advancement.
I'd like to think that by the 25th century Humanity has become enlightened enough not to try to destroy nature and build huge cities absolutely everywhere.

Maybe so, but in the case of big cities like Lagos, Addis Ababa, Kinshasa, Nairobi, Pyongyang, Omdurman, etc., that bird has flown. They're just woefully underlit.

markhawkman

that or they have developed tech to reduce Earthshine. :P

maxvitor

markhawkman wrote: »

that or they have developed tech to reduce Earthshine. :P

This is supposed to be a more "responsible" era, I would assume they would be doing things to restore Earth's natural environment. Antigrav technology means a reduced need for things like highways. Advanced building technologies would allow for taller buildings as well as subterranean and undersea facilities making cities much more compact and with major industry moved off world, colonization etc. there just aren't as many people cluttering up the planet.
Even in the movies when they are showings scenes of what's supposed to be the San Fransisco area there sure seems to be a hell of a lot more green than you see nowadays.

senatorvreenak

Also take in account that Earth was pretty devestated after the Third World War, where most major cities had been destroyed.

mli777

It does look like most of the cities destroyed in WWIII appeared to be rebuilt.

Unknown

This content has been removed.