Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 2 of 17«12341617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2011, 06:37 | Message # 16
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote (gpaw5765)
3) Why not just use "cold selena", "cold desert" and "cold terra"? Aren't the icy planets you propose just colder versions of already existing planet classes?


No, it's not colder versions. I described it in detail in my previous post.

*





 
RodrigoDate: Wednesday, 07.09.2011, 21:11 | Message # 17
Explorer
Group: Local Moderators
Brazil
Messages: 285
Status: Offline
I think you could include a volcanic-type world. They could be random (as relative new planets) or perhaps planets very near to stars or near to giant planets could have more chance to be voulcanic. Think about volcanic cold selena (io) or volcanic icy world (triton). I think you could insert a terrain funcion to create cone-shaped mountains and valleys. They could apear normally in other worlds but in volcanic ones they could be more common.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Thursday, 08.09.2011, 12:55 | Message # 18
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
I think it is not necessary to separate them into a new class. Volcanoes can be on every planet - desert, terra, selena, icy world. Its activity just depend on the age of the planet and its place in the space neighborhood.

*





 
JabberwockxenoDate: Saturday, 22.10.2011, 22:46 | Message # 19
Observer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 10
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
I think it is not necessary to separate them into a new class. Volcanoes can be on every planet - desert, terra, selena, icy world. Its activity just depend on the age of the planet and its place in the space neighborhood.


I think he means the entire surface is like volcanic, with contients being seprated by cracks filled with rivers of lava. Hellish. Like mustfair or whatever it's called from star wars.

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Dark matter worlds, Dark energy worlds and negative matter worlds are impossible. Modern physics says that dark matter are non-baryonic particles, i.e. it's not atoms. It can't form a rigid or gas body like a planet or star. Dark energy is not matter at all, it is the property of space-time. Negative mass matter does not exist in nature, but even if it did, it obviously can't form a planet due to anti-gravity, that would prevent accretion.


Juest because it can't exist according to what we think now, doesn't mean it can't. After all, don't the laws of physics kinda break down when you get into a very small (quantum physics) and very large (universal)?

Besides, there are producerally created planents so it deosn't have to stick to reality.

At least make it a option for player created worlds.

Anyways, by carbon worlds, you guys mean like those planets that are theorectly made of pure carbon/diamond?

Anyways, I have a few ideas:

-Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?

- destroyed/ruined worlds. Like after a huge impact, the world could have peices floating off of it, etc shaped irregularly.

Also, i'd like jungles, etc. Maybe alien ruins. As of now, everything is just mountains or ocean.

*
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:30 | Message # 20
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Quote (Jabberwockxeno)
Juest because it can't exist according to what we think now, doesn't mean it can't. After all, don't the laws of physics kinda break down when you get into a very small (quantum physics) and very large (universal)? Besides, there are producerally created planents so it deosn't have to stick to reality. At least make it a option for player created worlds.


I don't like the idea of creating things that are impossible according to modern science. SpaceEngine is focused on realism from the very beginning of its developement.

Quote (Jabberwockxeno)
-Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?


Gravity potential of any spherical-symmetry mass distribution is equivalent to the same point mass, placed in its center. So dense spherical envelope will collapse at its center. Or have I misunderstood you?

Quote (Jabberwockxeno)
- destroyed/ruined worlds. Like after a huge impact, the world could have peices floating off of it, etc shaped irregularly.


This requires support of simulating planetary collisions, and rendering tons of debris, which is very computationally expensive. Anyway, this is also in my TODO list.

*





 
Donatelo200Date: Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:45 | Message # 21
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
Quote (Jabberwockxeno)
-Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?

Are you reffering to neutron stars? They are about as dense as the nucleous of an atom witch is something like 4×1017 kg/m³. Neutron stars also have superfluid mantel and a solid outer crust.





CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)


Edited by Donatelo200 - Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:47
 
ChrisDate: Monday, 31.10.2011, 19:56 | Message # 22
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Denmark
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
I use my time on SpaceEngine, because i like to explore the idea of encountering alien life, and the propability of it. So in creating a classification for planets, that would be my emphasis. The planetary classes should be focused around whether or not the planets can harbor life as we know it. The system would quickly get very complicated if you begin add too many properties to name after.
SpaceEngine is currently showing diameter and temperature in the system window. I think you should base the classifications on mass and temperature. Conincidently that is also what they do in this project.
Link.
https://sites.google.com/a....catalog
They divide planets into different classes based on mass. Asteroidan, Mercurian, Subterran, Terran, Superterran, Neptunian and Jovian.
Then by temperature, Hypopsychroplanet, psychroplanet, mesoplanet, thermoplanet and hyperthermoplanet.
You get a Letter system too, based on temperature and habitability, hP,P,M,T,hT and NH for not habitable.
So Earth would be classified as a Terran mesoplanet. Class M.

I think you should pick this system. I'ts simple, and i like the presentation of the planets in the examples.
The problems that arise when you try to classify frozen waterworlds or barren planets with or without amospheres should be solved by UI in SpaceEngine. It would be very nice if you could somehow boil all the info about a planet into 1 or two words and still be logic and intuitive. But i haven't seen any good solutions.

Instead i would prefer a handy UI to quickly and easy present me with the relevant info about a given planet.
If you look at Titan
You could add randomly generated info about Surface temperature (we already have that), type of hydrosphere (water or methane, etc), form (frozen, in the case of Titan), percentage of liquid surface, and soild landmass. Put all this info into a window called Surface placed ontop of the image of the planet, just like the one we already have when we press F2. The user could then cycle through various windows with info on atmosphere, surface structure, habitability, orbit, population(in case its inhabited), etc.

I guess it's already planned to be implemented at some point but i would love to have endless amounts of details like the composition and quality of the atmosphere, planetary albedo, cloud cover, ice cover, escape velocity, density, magnetic field, core composition, vulcanism, plate tectonics, tidal lock status, Lifeform, single-, multicellular, intelligent, Base of life (carbon,silicate), DNA,RNA, population, civilization level, tech level, sentience level, government etc.

The detailed physical properties that can be based on science should be calculated, the rest could be generated randomly within given rules like roleplaying and exist for the user to give variety and depth.

I realize that just the work on such an UI would be immense, and then programming how to calculate the various properties would be an even greater work. However the properties that can be created randomly would be easier to make.

At this point in the development, i don't think that the UI or the depth in details is what is most important.
In my oppinion you should continue to focus on the graphic engine itself and continue to bring more realistic details and variations into the graphic simulator.





Core i7 920 @2.67 GHz, AsRock x58 Deluxe, 3x2GB DDR3 1066MHz RAM, GeForce GTX 560 Ti DCII 1024 Mb VRAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Monday, 31.10.2011, 23:46 | Message # 23
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Right now SpaceEngine has very poor simulation of planet physics: it uses only the mass and temperature caused by solar illumination. Mass is generated randomly, so gas giants and terrestrial planets are mixed in solar system. Amosphere properties are generated based only on random initial relative mass of the atmosphere. Then dissipation of atmosphere is calculated based on exosphere temperature and surface gravity of the planet. Surface types are based on temperature and mass (as you suggest), and internal structure of the planet: metals, silicates, water and hydrogen/helium. For example, Terra has a metal core + silicate mantle + tiny amount of water, ice world or oceanida is a metal core + silicate mantle + water or silicate core + water or pure water.

I plan to make a scientific based simulated formation of a planetary system. It will be done in a analytical (not numerical) way; generating a disk around star, fragmenting it into planetesimals, then merging them, consuming the gas, and compute migration effects, obtaining finally, several planets in a stable orbit and several planets thrown-out of a system, or can even fall into a sun. Some protoplanets will collide during migration and merge, form a binary planet or planet with a massive moon, or even gets destroyed and forms as an asteroid belt.

Such a simulation will use chemistry intensively, so the information about compositon of the entrails, surface, atmosphere and hydrosphere will be available automatically (and not generated randomly!). Then physical conditions on the surface might be calculated: climate, tectonics, radiation level, meteorite bombardement rate, etc.

This amount of data reqires more improved GUI: several windows about planet parameters, orbital parameters, atmosphere parameters etc - like you suggested. All this will be caclulated based upon physics, and random here is only initial distribution of the matter in the protoplanet disk! The only really randomly generated parameters will be life. This is a very speculative part, more philosophical than scientific...

*





 
curiousepicDate: Saturday, 10.12.2011, 23:47 | Message # 24
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
When you create the planetary formation simulation, I'm sure you will tweak it to ensure a wide variety of systems and hence planets, as opposed to aiming for strict realism. I would also urge you to have a small chance of ignoring the formation simulation, and use another random system creator, similar to or unchanged from the one currently used, or use extreme numbers in the new simulation. I feel like the cornerstone of this program (and, I hope, as it evolves as a game) is finding unique systems and planets, and leaving these in allows us to be surprised and wonder about what kind of enigmatic process caused them to form in such a way.

About classification, I'm not sure if this is what you do already, but instead of creating the planets top-down (choose class, then specifics), they should be from bottom-up (generate specifics, then classify them). I feel like the classification system is very unimportant in such a scheme; in fact part of the fun could be in the user generating their own classification system. But of course for convenience, I don't mind the game classifying them, as long as it's after they have formed smile

I actually found this game while researching for my own text-based random world generator (which I will probably never finish, I'm addicted to the first 10% of a project), and had trouble finding any sort of official classification system that used anything more than Sol-system analogues, or just wasn't very descriptive. I suppose this is because we know every little about any exoplanets. I like the PHL nomenclature that Chris suggested, it's closer to what I think we're looking for, but agree that it is too specifically focused on habitability.

PS: I also think "cryogenic" is a little strange next to the less formal "cool" and "cold', etc. Also, "calid" is a word very rarely used in English - I've seen it used maybe two other times, ever.





My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality


Edited by curiousepic - Saturday, 10.12.2011, 23:59
 
Lazarou_Monkey_TerrorDate: Thursday, 15.12.2011, 03:20 | Message # 25
Observer
Group: Newbies
United Kingdom
Messages: 2
Status: Offline
Quote
I use my time on SpaceEngine, because i like to explore the idea of encountering alien life, and the propability of it. So in creating a classification for planets, that would be my emphasis. The planetary classes should be focused around whether or not the planets can harbor life as we know it. The system would quickly get very complicated if you begin add too many properties to name after.
SpaceEngine is currently showing diameter and temperature in the system window. I think you should base the classifications on mass and temperature. Conincidently that is also what they do in this project.
Link.
https://sites.google.com/a....catalog
They divide planets into different classes based on mass. Asteroidan, Mercurian, Subterran, Terran, Superterran, Neptunian and Jovian.
Then by temperature, Hypopsychroplanet, psychroplanet, mesoplanet, thermoplanet and hyperthermoplanet.
You get a Letter system too, based on temperature and habitability, hP,P,M,T,hT and NH for not habitable.
So Earth would be classified as a Terran mesoplanet. Class M.


I like this idea, I realism is the way forward and week by week we are seeing new and exciting worlds thanks to Kelper and the subsequent theorising about what other kind of worlds there are out there.

Might I recommend the Planet Classification List http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html a comprehensive and methodical body of work by John M Dollan which details well over a hundred types of worlds believed possible according to current theory. I'm sure he would be fascinated in this project and it's potential about would be more than happy to contribute ideas if asked.
 
curiousepicDate: Thursday, 15.12.2011, 04:07 | Message # 26
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
Quote
Might I recommend the Planet Classification List http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html a comprehensive and methodical body of work by John M Dollan which details well over a hundred types of worlds believed possible according to current theory. I'm sure he would be fascinated in this project and it's potential about would be more than happy to contribute ideas if asked.


Great find. This gets my vote.





My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 21.12.2011, 10:36 | Message # 27
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
Scientists are working on program that would generate scientifically-accurate image of planets. It will be open-source.

http://www.wired.com/wiredsc....enderer






 
curiousepicDate: Wednesday, 21.12.2011, 17:34 | Message # 28
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
Wow, surprised to see a few unique ones. That hot Jupiter looks like the surface of oil mixed with water, very cool.




My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 18:11 | Message # 29
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
New updated planets classification chart (click to open 3.6 Mb full-res image):



In this chart I've renamed some of these:

gas giant -> jupiter
ice giant -> neptune
ice world (with atmosphere) -> titan
ice world (without atmosphere) -> icy

What do you think about these class names guys?

*





 
curiousepicDate: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 18:29 | Message # 30
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
I dislike using Solar planet terms for classification. It makes it seem like we expect all planets to fit neatly into the types we have here at home.

But, using the terms "Jovian, Neptunian, Titanian, etc." is *much* preferable to calling planets a "Jupiter" or "Titan".

I still think you should not worry about further changes to the planet class names until you expand the planet formation simulation.





My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 2 of 17«12341617»
Search: