Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 12 of 17«1210111213141617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 01:36 | Message # 166
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2608
Status: Offline
I'm not sure how I feel about specifying if a planet is habitable (but not inhabited), since it begs the question of what makes a planet habitable. This is still an open question in science.

If the presence of liquid surface water is the only requirement then all terras in Space Engine are potentially habitable, but of course reality is more complex and we should also consider chemistry, the availability of elements / complex organic molecules, and various other things, which aren't currently modeled. The current method of taking some percentage of terras and giving them life seems to be the best solution at present.

I like Voekoevaka's idea of splitting the classifications into multiple lines, rather than having one long string of words. One change I would make to it is have the lines for Liquid Composition and Coverage combined together, e.g. "Laky Hydrocarbons" for Titan, and "Marine Water" for Earth.

Describing the surface composition does seem like the most challenging part, especially for planets like Earth. I have some ideas floating around in my brain but I've yet to form them into any solid, consistent (or even sensical) picture. wacko





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 05:26 | Message # 167
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
5 atmosphere pressure classes (not used for giants):

You only listed 4 tongue

Also, I agree with Voekoevaka, I don't think these are necessary. If we are going to have a lot of tags like this, then I think each should have its own line on the info table, which would make it very long. For planet classes displayed the way we do it now we should try to make it less than 4 words long (excluding the "with life" tag).

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Here I use 10 mass classes

Why have a mass class? It doesn't seem to make much sense as it does not describe very well the surface or interior of the planet, and we already have mass in the info table.

Also, your choices for listing masses relative to Earth and the Moon make the system very terracentric and arbitrary. I think that in SE we should try to stay away from that.

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies)

This would require SE to analyze the liquid coverage of procedural worlds, which might require generating a specular map and analyzing it, or something else. Planet generation times would probably increase.

Also, laky is not a good word, or even a real word as far as I know. But we can figure out the best words after we figure out the system smile





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SalvoDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 08:40 | Message # 168
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
We may use more classes to describe surface type, ocean type, atmospheric conditions, and some additional words to mark a worlds with an ocean under surface ("sub-oceanic"), tidal-locked, with life etc. But would it sound good?

Here I use 10 mass classes:
asteroid - subselena - selena - superselena - subterra - terra - superterra - subgiant - giant - supergiant

7 temperature classes:
scorched - hot - warm - temperate - cool - cold - frozen

4 surface classes (not used for bodies fully covered with ocean):
metallic - carbonic - rocky - icy

4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies):
arid - laky - marine - oceanic

3 ocean composition classes (not used for airless bodies):
lava - water - organic

5 atmosphere pressure classes (not used for giants):
airless - hypobaric - mesobaryc - hyperbaric

Additional words:
tidal-locked, volcanic, subsurface, habitable


I'm a bit late, but I really like this new kind of classification, mainly for subterran/superterran/subgiant... stuff that it's pretty common, also, now we have a wiki, so even if we use mass-classes rather than surface-classes we can still keep the old one in the wiki wink





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 10:18 | Message # 169
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (Voekoevaka)
When it is habitable, but there is no life, it should be written just "habitable".
But when there is life, there's no need to write "habitable" (because it is already habitable), so you can write "with life".

How world may me habitable, but without life? This have no sence for me. Maybe because Russian word denoting habitability implies some life forms, at least human.

Quote (Watsisname)
One change I would make to it is have the lines for Liquid Composition and Coverage combined together, e.g. "Laky Hydrocarbons" for Titan, and "Marine Water" for Earth.

I agree with this too.





 
apenpaapDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 10:30 | Message # 170
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Well, habitable in English just means it could support life, irrelevant of whether or not there is life. A completely sterile planet with liquid water, about 20% oxygen at 1 bar pressure, no harmful radiation etc. would be habitable, despite the lack of life.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 10:31 | Message # 171
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2608
Status: Offline
I believe it is meant for a planet with surface properties (temperature, pressure, liquid water) that are appropriate for life to develop, but for whatever reason it didn't work out and there is not any life there.

And yeah, one needs to be clear if it is meant as being habitable for humans, or just any form of life in general. The former would be a lot easier to specify.

edit: Whoops, ninja'd by Apenpaap.





 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 12:06 | Message # 172
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1668
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
A completely sterile planet with liquid water, about 20% oxygen at 1 bar pressure, no harmful radiation etc. would be habitable, despite the lack of life.

Unrelated to your point, but are there any known "sterile" processes that could give a 20% oxygen atmosphere?

I also agree that class name mustn't become too long and specific. Then it's better with separate tags. The classification is hard, since the boundaries are not clear anyway. Vague classifications could dodge a number of these problems.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
apenpaapDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 12:19 | Message # 173
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
Unrelated to your point, but are there any known "sterile" processes that could give a 20% oxygen atmosphere?


As far as I know there isn't; I was just explaining the term.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 17:34 | Message # 174
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
Unrelated to your point, but are there any known "sterile" processes that could give a 20% oxygen atmosphere?

Oceanias are assumed to have an atmosphere composed by water vapor, oxygen and helium. Oxygen is formed by decomposition of water to oxegen and hydrogen by solar UV radiation. Hydrogen leaves the planet, oxygen remains. It couldn't be used to oxidation of minerals, because oceania have no minerals on its surface.





 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 18:13 | Message # 175
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html

Taking a little bit of inspiration from that, how about Pelagic Titan?





 
Joey_PenguinDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 18:47 | Message # 176
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 311
Status: Offline
It'd be a Teathic world.

Quote (smjjames)
Harbs suggestion of carbonia or carbonian would be a good one.

But wouldn't that suggest a carbon or diamond planet?





Careful. The PLATT Collective has spurs.

Edited by Joey_Penguin - Saturday, 08.06.2013, 01:12
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 07.06.2013, 19:12 | Message # 177
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
If it were geologically active, yes, but that listing has far more detail than SE can do right now, ranging from how geologically active it is, composition, geological cycle, etc. Then again, Teathic is the only one that is actually described as a global ocean of methane.

Tartarian could work if it weren't for the fact that the name would describe it as hellish (tartarus, hades) and the description says it would be a life bearing world. There are others with hydrocarbons or methane in the description, but they are situational on one way or another.

Harbs suggestion of carbonia or carbonian would be a good one.

Quote (Joey_Penguin)
Quote (smjjames)
Harbs suggestion of carbonia or carbonian would be a good one.

But wouldn't that suggest a carbon or diamond planet?


Good point, although we don't actually have that planet class yet.







Edited by smjjames - Tuesday, 11.06.2013, 16:59
 
BlackArkDate: Thursday, 20.06.2013, 12:45 | Message # 178
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 137
Status: Offline
http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html

All diffent types of class planets,comet and Asteroid bodies types.
 
TimDate: Thursday, 20.06.2013, 14:07 | Message # 179
Explorer
Group: Users
Belgium
Messages: 296
Status: Offline
That looks very interesting for future releases I believe. smile
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Thursday, 20.06.2013, 15:01 | Message # 180
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (BlackArk)
http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html

All diffent types of class planets,comet and Asteroid bodies types.


This was discussed here a lot of times. This classification have no clear system.





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 12 of 17«1210111213141617»
Search: