The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker --Flat earth video game?

Sea charts don't make any assumption about the Earth.

Depends what scale they are at.
If it is just a tiny 1 by 1 km area, then it would probably be fine. But large scale ones do.
That is because these large scale ones would be massively distorted and broken if they tried to operate with a FE.

It shows where rocks are. That's it.

Do you even bother looking at your link?
It shows far more than that.
It shows were ports are, where various channels are. Where the land is (and cities).

But the truth is, until a map tries to "correct for a globe", it is completely neutral.

You mean until it tries to match reality over a large area.

Maybe stop trying to make raw data support your conclusions?

The map is not raw data.
Raw data would be distances and/or angles between locations.

The map you linked even has latitude and longitude and distance. And we can see how the distance around Earth following a line of latitude shrinks as you move away from the equator, at a rate matching that of a RE.

It's based on media cronyism and pressure to definance scientists who disagree. Not evidence.

Repeating the same lies wont make them true.
It is based upon evidence.
You not liking that will not change it.

Actually some scientists think the color blue doesn't exist, and it's a result of your eyes doing funny things with light. And one scientist named Wilhelm Reich thought the sky is blue from sexual energy. Consensus? No.

So you try to point to some people claiming all sorts of nonsense to claim there isn't consensus?
You a really are grasping at straws.
Consensus does not require complete agreement.

Again, where are all the people, holding people at gunpoint to try to force a consensus that the sky is blue?
No where.

Consensus does not mean it is not supported by evidence.

Golly, supposedly all scientists agree. But here's 30k scientists who very much do not agree.

No, it isn't.
Here is a person claiming that.
Elsewhere it was claimed by him that of his 31k people, only 9k hold a PhD.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110205020750/http://www.mndaily.com/2008/05/28/climate-change-petition-pits-scientists-against-each-other

There is no indication on if these people are actually scientists, or just random people.
If you go into it deeper, you can find more information, including that these are taken from all over the place, including those who did any degree related to science.
i.e. if you went and did a math degree, you can sign the petition, with only an undergrad degree in a tangentially related field (including medicine, math and computer science).
Looking at the breakdown, you have 693 people who did math who signed it, 242 who did computer science, 3046 who did medicine, 9833 who did engineering (either unspecified, electrical or metallurgy), and so on.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120601110230/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/pdf/Appendix%204%20Petition.pdf

Not to mention you can easily just fake it and sign as whoever you want.
Past "signatories" include people like the spice girls and Charles Darwin.
They even say they have no way of filtering out fakes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121007010858/http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

In short, the petition is crap.

The reason they can say there's a consensus has more to do with the fact that people who practice any kind of science (even totally unrelated to climate change)

You mean the reason your garbage petition claims there isn't?

But there's a trick being played here. Because not all scientists are at all involved in the climate, you're asking "man on the street" opinions of people who are not actually in the field.

Yes, that is one of the big problems with the petition you are appealing to.

I don't hate evidence.

You only hate evidence when it shows you are wrong.
It really is quite simple, the evidence demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs IR radiation emitted by Earth and re-emits it in all directions.
This means IR radiation that would be escaping Earth and going into space it absorbed, and reemitted back down to Earth (a portion goes down to Earth and a portion goes off to space).

When the majority of the radiation coming into Earth is visible radiation, and the majority going out is IR, this is a very significant effect. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be frozen, at least at night. With it, Earth can be habitable. But if it goes too far, you end up like Venus.

The evidence is also quite clear that we are taking carbon out of the ground and burning it, meaning the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise because of what we did.

The logical consequence of this is that the temperature will rise.

That is what the evidence shows.

You not liking that is your problem.

And if we scrub the yes votes that do not work in a field relevant to climate change and it cannot be shown that their research  at least indirectly proves or disproves climate change (actual climate scientists), the number probably goes closer to 10-25%.

So if you be incredibly dishonest; pitting scientists who work in a relevant field who recognise the effects of global warming, vs all "scientists" who think it isn't real.

If you are going to trim the yes votes, you should also trim the no votes.

In science, you don't listen to the mob of consensus. You listen to the smartest people in the room.

No, you listen to the evidence.
When the evidence clearly shows the climate is changing, and mankind is at least responsible in part, you out to listen.

But because you care more about your "freedom" to do as you please, you look for whatever pathetic excuses you can to ignore it.

Meanwhile...
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/the-bogus-consensus-argument-on-climate-change/

And more dishonest BS and cherry picking.

Of those who made a position clear one way or another, 97% indicated humans are contributing to climate change.

I also see you dropped the rest to focus your irrational hatred onto climate change. Does that mean you accept the rest of your claims are pure BS?
And that evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that Earth is round?

All, this is not a thread about whether the earth is flat. Stay on topic in the upper forums.

Jack if you don't stop with this constantly insulting behavior and rhetoric, you will be given a permanent vacation.

This is also not a debate forum. Do so in the correct forum.

This board is for discussion about the Flat Earth Society or the Flat Earth movement in general. For example, if you want to ask questions about The Conspiracy, flat earth believers and their beliefs, or anything else not related to Flat Earth Theory, this is the place for it. If you wish to discuss Flat Earth Theory itself, you should go to Flat Earth Q&A or Flat Earth Debate. Keep in mind that although somewhat relaxed, this forum is still subject to the Forum Rules.

I don't see your point. It's a video game. So what?

Having played through TotK some more:
The low gravity regions are not related to a different fluid being present.
This is seen in one of the shrines where you can toggle it on and off.
If that was due to the fluid you should expect to see the fluid fly in or fly out. Link can be significantly affected by wind, and a denser wind would affect him more.

And due to all the islands which appear without the spire (there are quite a lot of them), it appears that the spire is not the cause of the levitation.
Instead, it is likely used as a support for the more "natural" looking islands, to hold up the dirt and loose stones.

There's a bubble effect when he enters the layer.  How can it be anything other than sandwiched layer of viscous (is that the word I'm looking for?) gas? Not only is Link's jumping higher but it appears to be slower, as though he's jumping through something thick like molasses.

There's a bubble effect when he enters the layer.  How can it be anything other than sandwiched layer of viscous (is that the word I'm looking for?) gas? Not only is Link's jumping higher but it appears to be slower, as though he's jumping through something thick like molasses.

He doesn't appear to go slower.
The only "slow" part is the overall appearance of the jump due to it taking longer to fall back down.
He still runs around the same, and paraglides (horizontally) the same.

How can it be a layer of high density vicious gas, when you can turn it on and off with no apparent fluid flowing in or out?
It behaves as a region of low gravity, which can be toggled on an off.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 18, 2023, 11:39:27 AM

Quote from: Username on September 18, 2023, 10:28:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 15, 2023, 08:18:23 AM

Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?

Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.

Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality.  Not feel, actually are.

Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.

Quote

But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.

Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.

Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.

On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.

Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.

It's obvious.  Which is why I said it.  I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars.  Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings.  You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again?  Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for. 
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart.  We think you are OK as you are.  Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales. 

All, this is not a thread about whether the earth is flat. Stay on topic in the upper forums.

😂😂😂😂

What thread ever stays on topic of late?  FE is reduced to derailing threads. 

So ummmm, I figured out how to transfer pictures from Switch to PC. Lacking a cable, I basically had to pull out the memory card and pop it into my computer. Anyway, I got this.



So yay, I can export pictures now!

Quote from: Username on September 18, 2023, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 18, 2023, 11:39:27 AM

Quote from: Username on September 18, 2023, 10:28:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 15, 2023, 08:18:23 AM

Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?

Because someone would argue that his ass is a hole in the ground if it meant it would make him feel smarter than flat earthers.

Noone sane has to argue to have that be reality.  Not feel, actually are.

Regardless if that is true (it's not; case in point - TimeIsUp), that does not change the reality that it is exactly why we are arguing so much over whether a game that clearly depicts a flat planet is round. I imagine your response might be that Time is not a true Scotsman.

Quote

But sure, delusions of grandure are the main reason for arguments here, just from FE supporters who want to feel like they aren't losers, you aren't but I see why you would think that you are and desperately cling to something that would make you feel special.

Being a flat earther is a liability, not some fun badge.

Being a Flat Earther isn't a form of personal validation; instead, it's a belief system with a range of motivations, much like any other worldview. Saying we all just wish to feel special is like saying a person chooses a particular career path solely for personal recognition, ignoring the multitude of reasons that drive career choices.

On the other hand, me pointing out one person who clearly has those motivations is another story all together.

Also if you think I think poorly of myself and think of myself as a loser, you clearly haven't paid much attention to me. How dare you have the audacity to make such a claim. I've never even heard of you.

It's obvious.  Which is why I said it.  I have the audacity to state the truth in a den of liars.  Oh bother, I've touched a nerve again and hurt some feelings.  You gonna threaten to ban me again, so you can feel like you have power, again?  Sure, sure, you don't have anything you're compensating for. 
It's ok to be naive, you don't have to act smart.  We think you are OK as you are.  Either accept it or stop publically trying to convince yourself of fairy tales. 

Enjoy your vacation.

And due to all the islands which appear without the spire (there are quite a lot of them), it appears that the spire is not the cause of the levitation.
Instead, it is likely used as a support for the more "natural" looking islands, to hold up the dirt and loose stones.

I wouldn't say "quite a lot of them". Here's a side island and a main island.





More importantly, they are precisely at the spot where the object would need to be held up in order to keep from tipping over.

I wouldn't say "quite a lot of them". Here's a side island and a main island.

Now do it during the quest where you need to leave the temple of time, light a few campfires, and then return without touching the ground.

Notice something in common with basically all of these? They have soft dirt/rock above them. In your closeup of below we can see bits of rock where it looks like some may have broken off.

More importantly, they are precisely at the spot where the object would need to be held up in order to keep from tipping over.

That is an entirely baseless claim.
In order to claim that you would need to know exactly what the mass distribution is, and it would need to move around as link and other things on the island move around.

The wide angle shot is part of that story having done the "no touching the ground" thing.

What I noticed was that any islands that didn't have spires were tiny and typically very square. And yes, it is important about their shape. Too oblong means that pieces break off.

There are two other structures that don't have spires. They are: Lomei mazes (connection with underground Lomei), and the Spheres (funny how rotating keeps them airborne).

In order to claim that you would need to know exactly what the mass distribution is, and it would need to move around as link and other things on the island move around.

I could tell from a wide shot and a rough estimate of mass. They tend to be extending down from the center of the widest parts.

The wide angle shot is part of that story having done the "no touching the ground" thing.

But not during it.

What I noticed was that any islands that didn't have spires were tiny and typically very square.

They varied in size and shape.
What was important was that their base was solid, meaning they didn't need the extra spire for support.

There are two other structures that don't have spires. They are: Lomei mazes (connection with underground Lomei), and the Spheres (funny how rotating keeps them airborne).

The mazes have no physical connection with the land or underground mazes.
The spheres remain airborn regardless of if they are rotating.
There are also several small islands/fragments scattered around without a spire keeping them up.

I could tell from a wide shot and a rough estimate of mass. They tend to be extending down from the center of the widest parts.

A "rough estimate" is not enough to say they are precisely at the spot.

And I see you ignored the fact that things can move around, without the island toppling over or the spire moving.

Again, all this combined indicates that the spires are for supporting the soft land and holding it together. Not for levitation.

But isn't that the thing? These islands are NOT moving. There is no orbit, no rotation, and no movement in these islands besides the occasional falling rocks. The map shows them in a certain location, and you can predictably fly to the correct location. Lanaryu's Islands haven't moved to above the southernmost island in the east.

But isn't that the thing? These islands are NOT moving. There is no orbit, no rotation, and no movement in these islands besides the occasional falling rocks. The map shows them in a certain location, and you can predictably fly to the correct location. Lanaryu's Islands haven't moved to above the southernmost island in the east.

How does that in any way address what I said?
The point is the spikes are clearly NOT for levitation.
They are not in the perfect spot, as being in the perfect spot would require the spikes (not the entire island) to move around as objects on them move around.
Instead, they remain fixed in place.

Instead, they are more likely to be providing support for the softer material the islands are made out of.

How does it not? The spires clearly do hold up or at least balance these islands. The islands ought to follow the orbit of any RE, but they very much stay put. Hyrule is flat and nonmoving. So is Earth.

How does it not? The spires clearly do hold up or at least balance these islands. The islands ought to follow the orbit of any RE, but they very much stay put. Hyrule is flat and nonmoving. So is Earth.

The spires appear to provide structural support to the islands. But they don't appear to the cause of the levitation.
So it "holds it up" in the same way duct tape would if the islands were wrapped in duct tape.

What do you mean the islands out to follow the orbit of any RE?
The islands are not orbiting hyrule. They are floating above. You say that is due to technology, I say it is due to magic. As magic fits more in with the game.

Hyrule is certainly not flat, by any stretch of the imagination.
It is far more rough and irregular than any terrain on Earth.
It is only if you ignore all of that and just pretend it is flat, that you can say it is flat.
And we have no idea just how far the world extends beyond the border of the playable area.

As for moving; we have no idea if it is moving or not.
This is because we have nothing to directly measure the motion.
The best we have is the coordinates to measure the motion relative to Hyrule.
But all that tells you is that Hyrule isn't moving relative to Hyrule.
But that tells you nothing.

As for Earth, we have plenty of evidence it is round and moving. And a video game doesn't change that.

You're confusing terrain and shape.

Lemme show you something.



At all points, the hills and trenches conform to a flat area.  Think of the sky islands. The spheres floating in the sky, is it possible to mistake them for the islands? No, this is because the spheres have hard curves and equal 360, while the islands, even if they have hills, ultimately are flat on top.  You could have rock walls, hills, or other geological features, and it wouldn't change the shape, only the terrain.

I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.

You're confusing terrain and shape.

No, I'm not.
The terrain is the shape.
You can try to average it to get a better shape, but you aren't even doing that.
Instead, you are entirely ignoring the shape and drawing an arbitrary line.

At all points, the hills and trenches conform to a flat area.

No, they don't; at least not in the game.

The spheres floating in the sky, is it possible to mistake them for the islands?

There you go ignoring scale yet again.
Once more, the world that Hyrule is part of (and Earth) are not tiny balls you can hold in your hand.
A small enough area on a sufficiently large ball is indistinguishable from a flat surface.
If I zoomed in on the ball and just showed you a tiny fraction of it, you would not be able to tell if it is round or flat.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, including with examples. Stop playing dumb.

No, this is because the spheres have hard curves and equal 360, while the islands, even if they have hills, ultimately are flat on top.

No, if they have hills they are NOT flat on top.
Again, you are ignoring the actual shape and just pretending it is flat.

You could have rock walls, hills, or other geological features

And that would change the shape.

I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.

And which baselines would that be? I did a quick search and can't seem to find you mention "baselines" at all.

I have played a lot more of the game, and visited lots of areas.
And there is nothing to show the world Hyrule is on is flat.
The local area (that you can access) is rough and irregular, and not good enough to extrapolate to the entire world.

I'm pretty convinced that after enough playing if you don't see the "baselines" I was mentioning earlier you must be playing with braile controllers.

Inclined to agree.

Sorry, Jack. You blind.

Terrain is not shape.


Shape is a sphere. People work inside the death star, but we never see then walk on top of it. Terrain is smooth.

Shape is supposed to be a sphere. Terrain is rough.


Original sky islands. You can see hills, trenches, and even river troughs. I usually fall in the same river while running across town.

Terrain are the peaks and valleys, the rough or smooth parts within a given shape. They are not, however, the shape itself. Were I to make a map of Discworld, the presence of mountains would not invalidate the shape of Discworld.


Indeed, Discworld has at least two mountain ranges. The Ramtops and the mountains near Klatch. Yet someone in canon actually verified that indeed there is a turtle at the edge.

Terrain is not shape.

By the way, there is a fast spinning sphere in Zelda: TOTK. They did this just to troll ppl like you. If you stay put, you will fall off the side.
There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that lends itself to allow us to stick to its sides.
There is nothing intrinsic about rolling motion that gravity should be produced.
In fact, if I were to stay put on this sphere, Link would probably do his falling yell.

You are in your rights to believe whatever you bloody like, but you can clearly see when things are not so. Unless you are blind.

Sorry, Jack. You blind.

Why? You are the one continually repeating falsehoods.
You are the one entirely ignoring what is there, just to draw a straight through nothing.

Terrain is not shape.

Do you know what shape is?
The only way in which terrain is not shape is when you can average it out over a large area, or smooth it out.

If your object is small enough for the terrain to be significant, then it is the shape.

e.g. for Earth, an object roughly a sphere with a radius of 6371 km, even Mount Everest with a peak height of roughly 8.5 km, is 0.1% of the radius. So not much.

For the accessible portion of Hyrule, the vertical distance you can travel on the surface is around 1000 units, the horizontal distance is less than 10 000 units.
That means that height makes up 10% of the horizontal distance.
So Hyrule is not flat.

If you were to look at a sine wave over a single cycle it is clearly not straight.
If you were to look at it over 1 billion cycles (without any stretching), then it would appear as a thick straight line, with the ups and downs being insignificant compared to the length.

If you went to purchase something from a hardware store, and you wanted to purchase a flat piece of timber, and then gave you one with massive peaks and valleys, going to 10% of the length of the piece; would you accept that as flat?
I certainly wouldn't.

Here is a simple dictionary definition of shape for you:
"the external form, contours, or outline of someone or something."
Notice how that doesn't allow you to ignore the terrain?
A mountain makes up the external form, complete with maps often showing this with contour lines.

The terrain makes the shape. You cannot just ignore it if it is significant.

Shape is a sphere.

And your ability to tell it is a sphere depends upon how close you are to it, how much of it you can see, and how big it is; as well as how rough the surface is.
If you are close enough to it, viewing a small enough portion, and the surface is rougher than the drop due to curvature at that point, you are not going to be able to recognise it is a sphere.

People work inside the death star, but we never see then walk on top of it.

So you now yet again appeal to fiction, with fictional artificial gravity which can point whichever way they want.
Not all of it goes "down" the same way.
e.g. the docking ports on the equator are parallel to the equator, and the ships land like that; but the main laser of the death star is not parallel to the equator and yet people work parallel to that.
Artificial gravity points whatever way the plot demands.

Original sky islands. You can see hills, trenches, and even river troughs. I usually fall in the same river while running across town.

And I see that they are not flat.
Here is an example of a flat object:

Notice how the top surface appears flat and smooth (other than the cut).
There are no giant hills or valleys.

By the way, there is a fast spinning sphere in Zelda: TOTK.

Where, and why should I care?
Earth is not a fast spinning sphere.
Earth spins slower than the hour hand on a analogue clock.
Earth rotates at roughly 1 revolution every 24 hours (closer to 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds).

If you stay put, you will fall off the side.

You mean you will fall to Hyrule?

There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that lends itself to allow us to stick to its sides.

There is nothing intrinsic about a sphere that causes you to fly off.
As Username has said, this is not the place to discuss your repeated strawmanning of gravity and spheres.

There is nothing intrinsic about rolling motion that gravity should be produced.

This is not the place for you to repeat your lie about gravity magically being produced from rotation.
No one is suggesting that for the RE, so why do you insist on repeating this same pathetic lie again and again?

You are in your rights to believe whatever you bloody like, but you can clearly see when things are not so. Unless you are blind.

And I can clearly see your claims are not so.
So are you blind?

So suppose you made this board braille with tiny bumps and depressions. It tells you the space is A4 or C7. It also tells you whether the space is brown or blond. There is likewise little braille bumps on each piece, just for you.

Is this chess board round?  Is it anything but a square?

Are the pieces not their shape because they have tiny bumps?

This is a bishop.


This is also a bishop.


One is smooth. One is not.

Terrain is about smooth or bumpy. It does not define shape.

So suppose you made this board braille with tiny bumps and depressions. It tells you the space is A4 or C7. It also tells you whether the space is brown or blond. There is likewise little braille bumps on each piece, just for you.

Is this chess board round?  Is it anything but a square?

So you switch from flat to square?
For flat, the actual topic of discussion, that depends on how significant the bumpbs are.
If the bumps just stick out 1 mm, then you wouldn't be able to notice from a quick glance at it, so overall it would still be flat.
If the bumps are actually the pieces themselves, sticking out a quite substantial distance, then it is not flat.

As for round vs square; that would be more like you putting a large "hill" on each side of the chess board, and smoothing down the corners, so this "terrain" makes the board a circle; with you ignoring that and claiming it is a square.

Or alternatively, it would be like claiming it is just a circle, with 4 large hills which are just terrain, and that "terrain" being a square doesn't change the shape of the board actually being a circle.

Are the pieces not their shape because they have tiny bumps?

Again, we are not talking about tiny bumps.
For the islands, some of the hills you wish to ignore are as large as the island.

One is smooth. One is not.

Both are smooth, just to different levels.

What you are doing is like getting a horse, and claiming it is a bishop, just with some "terrain" which contribute to the shape.

Terrain is about smooth or bumpy. It does not define shape.

Terrain defines shape. Its effect on the overall shape depends upon how significant that terrain is compared to the rest of the object.

It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.

If I purchased land in North Dakota (one of the flatter states that isn't also filled with swamps like Florida), and the land was all flat except for a mountain, do we call this "mostly flat"? Or call it a mountainous area? You would call it mountainous, even though it's just the only mountain and no other hills for 50 miles.

Can you actually see the bumps if you're not looking? Do they noticeably affect gameplay?

Terrain most definitely gives or determines shape.  How significant that terrain defines a particular shape depends entirely on the frame of reference.

No, it doesn't.

The overall average terrain determines shape.



Shape is |\ a right triangle





Flat. And flat (with some hills and valleys, and a large building).



Equilateral triangle.

It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.

And what if it had a massive bump in the middle, as large as the board is wide? Is that still flat? NO!

Ignoring the parts of the shape you don't like to pretend it is flat is incredibly dishonest.

If I purchased land in North Dakota (one of the flatter states that isn't also filled with swamps like Florida), and the land was all flat except for a mountain

You mean level, following the curve of Earth?
I certainly wouldn't call that flat.

But regardless, this has nothing to do with what we are currently discussing.
The islands, and the playable region of Hyrule are nothing like that.

Can you actually see the bumps if you're not looking? Do they noticeably affect gameplay?

Yes, quite easily, and quite significantly.
e.g. For most locations in the game, you can warp to a sky island and glide/paraglide to it. But Death Mountain is so high you can't.

The overall average terrain determines shape.

The overall average terrain is a point.
You need to decide how you want to average it.

Can you tell us how you will average the height of locations in Hyrule to generate a flat surface, without just averaging it to a single point and constructing a flat surface through that point?

You can easily do this by taking the height map linked before and scaling it down.
For example, here is a link to an original file at some resolution:
https://github.com/MrCheeze/botw-tools/blob/master/heightmap.png

And here are some scaled down versions, scaling by a factor of 4 each time:




Even at the lowest resolution, it is still clearly NOT FLAT
That is what happens when you have such significant terrain.

In order to make it flat, you need to average out the height of Mt Hebra and Death Mountain and the Gerudo Highlands with the depths of the Tanagar Canyon and the Gerudo Desert.

That is not averaging or smoothing.
That is entirely ignoring what the terrain actually is to boldly proclaim it is flat.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 05, 2023, 06:43:18 AM

It's flat too. Flat square with bumps is not suddenly not flat.

And what if it had a massive bump in the middle, as large as the board is wide? Is that still flat? NO!

Listening is a key skill for you to learn in the future.

The overall average terrain determines shape.

Let's explain geometry to you.



A circle is equal to 360 degrees

What this means is that for something to be a sphere, it must have a 90 degree rise, or in other words, a rise that is equal in height to half the diameter.  Okay think about this. Suppose there even is this bulge that you have never been able to prove, so what? Does that prove Earth is a sphere? The Earth's diameter is 7000 MILES. Half of this is a midpoint curve so profound that it would cause water to hill in either direction like the Red Line.  Only worse. You have a curve that is taller than the tallest mountain.  Excuse me, but I have driven 3000 miles. I know for a fact that there was never any such curve in all that distance.

This is why RE liars always default to "The Earth is really an elliptoid not a sphere," after telling people up and down that it's a sphere.  But even if it was the eggiest egg with the longest curve possible to make 360, the figure doesn't work. Even a coin-shaped Earth has a profound side edge. Nice try though.

A chess board that has a huge mound of dirt on it, is nonetheless a chess board. If I drench it in water, and the wood bows, it is a warped chess board.  If you added more wood give it a large bump, you could maybe say it's a different shape by design, and call it a domed chess board. But this bump is not a thing, stop trying to make it a thing.