I wrote an alg to cut some 2d cave systems by using a random walk with some occasional forking, and then digging out the walls with some noise. It generates one room at a time, but now I have an issue of what I should do when a room cuts to the edge up against a room that is already generated.

https://preview.redd.it/ijyje5k1zcge1.png?width=396&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2526a690ea88a68dd71204e6fc4ab72229cc20f

In this example there are 4 rooms. The top left quadrant was generated first, then I went clockwise. Each room looks at the existing digger heads on its edges and continues them. But in the bottom left, you see the digging crashed into the top left quadrant which is already generated, so I have a flat wall.

I can't modify the existing room because it's already explored - it would be odd to see a wall and then come back later and there's new tunnel there. Should I add some kind of resistive force from the existing room to stop the digging heads from getting too close and causing this effect, or is there some more general change I could make to my alg to fix this?

Hey there, i am wondering how I can make the surface openings of deeper non-vertical perlin noise caves where the openings are modified to go straighter up, so there aren't huge cutouts of surface terrain. Any help is appreciated greatly, thank you.

so im taking 1- the absolute value of the noise, and its just giving me regular perlin noise
what horrible mistake am i making

A bit open ended, I have a raycast based system I'm using to generate a surrounding starscape and want high density of stars and whatnot. I'm not totally sure the best way to approach it, baking some sort of texture seems like the most realistic implementation? I also considered programmatically placing them in hashed cells so that I can check which the collision location of the cell(s) and do a dot product check for light density.

Any advice?

tl;dr: i think all of these 3 methods will retain their own unique strengths compared to other twos in future too.

we don't need to argue for first one - it's not procedural generation.
at least for me, weak AIs seem unlikely to replace human experts(who be good at inspiration, creativity, and so on, and be able to visualize images in their own minds into digital 2d or 3d via blender, photoshop, unreal, etc., without huge dependence of generative algorithms).
not sure for agis or artificial consciousnesses.

I haven't found many use cases for third method, called machine learning, in this subreddit, but I think it will be used wider and wider as time goes...
My opinion is that a sufficiently well-trained generative model will greatly reduce “drawbacks(too repetitive and artificial-looking)” of traditional procgen algos.

However, the “drawbacks” could be viewed as strengths of traditional procgen.
they'are hard to imitate, even by human experts.
We can find geometric patterns in “procedural-generalizedness” and it is pleasing to our eyes.

I'm not sure if the analogy is appropriate, but cyberpunk:edgerunners can't replace the visual impact of minecraft.

So, all three approaches have their own unique advantages.

I have a 2d grid of cells and a voronoi algorithm to assign them to a plate in Unity. But how do I actually turn this into a tectonic simulation and a heightmap? I am trying to make a more realistic world generation system for a history simulator I am working on and so far I havent found anything too helpful. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks!

Am doing research into using noise to create fire in a 3D environment, and was wondering if anyone knew the actual starting point of this technique seen so often in video games? (I have created a simple gif to explain what I mean). Specifically referring to the technique of multiplying constantly offset noise by a vertical gradient, then ramping to achieve the desired 'flame' effect.

My demo of the effect