Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 3 of 17«123451617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 19:30 | Message # 31
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I agree with curiousepic. There must be better classes to use than names of Sol system planets. I thought Gas Giant and Ice Giant were acceptable.
The problem I have with the "Titan" classification is that the thing that sets Titan apart as a world in its own class is its very thick atmosphere, and bodies of surface liquid. If the only definition of "Titan" class is ice world with atmosphere, then that qualifies Pluto and Triton as "Titans", even though their surfaces are probably much more similar to typical ice worlds.
I think that "Titan" could be an okay class to add, but only if it described truly Titan-like worlds, which do not exist currently in SpaceEngine.





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
 
ChrisDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 06:42 | Message # 32
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Denmark
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
Why do you have 7 temerature classes?
I don't know, there might be another reason but maybe you have seven classes to describe the planets better than you could with just three classes.
But if your purpose for scanning the universe is to look for habitable planets then 3 temperature classes should be enough.
That would be, "Too Hot" - "Habitable" - "Too Cold".
The rest is just flavour that could be picked up by reading the actual temperature off the planetary window.
Then you could get rid of a couple of the classes currently in the simulator.

Now after all, if you do need more than 3 temperature classes, then i would prefer "Very Hot", "Hot", "Temperate", "Cold" and "Very Cold" over the current ones that i don't find to be logical.

"Cool" and "cold" are not different enough and clear enough to describe two different classes of temperature in my opinion.
The planetary class called "Frozen Selena", is that class called "Frozen" just to sound colder than "Cold", or is it actually frozen? Meaning covered by an icy crust , and would that mean that a "cold icy selena" isn't actually frozen and infact icy. I guess not.
But in that case i think "Frozen" in some way.
I can understand that besides size or mass and temperature, you also want to deliver info about the surface of the planet and if the planet has an atmosphere. Icy, Oceanic, arid, rocky etc. I'm just saying that the way it is classified now is not perfect.

I really like the word Selena, it's a word i did not know before i found this site. Selena did not imediately bring the same meaning to me as Moon or Luna would. Those two words would automatically spell out; satellite going around a planet, to me. So Luna or moon wouldn't fit very well for a planet like Mercury.
Today I have learned the meaning of Selena, so i'm aware that there's a problem here too.

More suggestions..

Oceania could be called Oceanic terra.

"Very Warm", could be called "Hellish".

"Desert" could be called "Arid terra". It seems you define a terra as a planet with liquid water and an atmosphere.
To me it's just a planet with an atmosphere and a mass roughly the size of planet Earth.

An ice world with an atmosphere like titan, i'd call a Frozen Terra. (In the planetary window i could read about the bodies of liquids on the surface).
An ice world without atmosphere, Frozen Selena.

I think "Gas Giant" and "Ice Giant" were better names than "Jupiters" and "Neptunes".
I too would avoid using solar system names to classify every new planet we discover. We would do better by inventing an open system of classification.

I still like the solution they agreed on using on this site https://sites.google.com/a....catalog
I'd advice you to go with the simplest system, and only name the classes after what properties are essential. The rest of the info you could let the user read off the UI using various colors or plain text.
Have you thought about using colored borders around the planets in the UI?

Thanks for this wonderful program.





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: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 11:35 | Message # 33
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4798
Status: Offline
Hi Chris, thanks for the detailed answer.

Quote (Chris)
But if your purpose for scanning the universe is to look for habitable planets then 3 temperature classes should be enough. That would be, "Too Hot" - "Habitable" - "Too Cold".

I want to subdivide hot planets to really hot - like hot jupiters with effective temperature > 800 K, and not very hot, but still warm, like Mercury or Venus. Warm planets can support some extremophilic life, while on hot planets even metals are melted. In a similiar way, I want to subdivide cold planets into two categories. First - less cooler, below water freeze line, but under ammonia or methane freeze line; some exotic ammonia life can exist on these planets. Second - very cold planets where even ammonia or methane freezes. So, we get 5 classes:

Hot - Warm - Temperate - Cold - Very cold.

But I dislike "Very cold" - as it uses two words. I don't know which word is suitable in English, maybe "Cryogenic" is better than "Frozen"?

Next, I subdivide temperate class into 3 subcategories - more warm and more cool than Earth. Liquid water can exist on surface of planets of all these subcategories, and category name gives information of its major state. I.e. temperate terra has much liquid water; a more warm temperate terra has huge arud areas, a more cool temperate terra has huge glaciers, but a "more warm temperate" and a "more cool temperate" is too long, so I'll name it as "calid" and "cool". In Russian language, we have good distinction between word pairs "cool"-"cold" and "warm"-"calid"; I could not find good pairs in English. Of course, I can just remove this little subdivision and call it all "Temperate".

Quote (Chris)
The planetary class called "Frozen Selena", is that class called "Frozen" just to sound colder than "Cold", or is it actually frozen? Meaning covered by an icy crust , and would that mean that a "cold icy selena" isn't actually frozen and infact icy. I guess not.


Next, about the structure classes. I divide planets by classes based on their interior composition and surface state (not clear classification, I agree).

Gas giant - composed by 80-100% of hydrogen and helium.
Ice giant - composed by 80-90% of water and ammonia ices, with 10-20% of hydrogen-helium atmosphere.
Oceania - composed by 50-80% of water, with relatively small iron-rock core.
Ice world - the same as Oceania, but with frozen ice crust.
Terra - big rocky body with iron core and relatively small amount of water: it should have seas and land masses together.
Desert - the same as Terra, but without water.
Selena - the same as Desert, but without atmosphere.

"Ice world" can be subdivided on "Titan" (Ice world with atmosphere and probably liquid hydrocarbons on surface) and some called "Icy" (icy an analog of Selena - it is almost all big satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). I don't like "Icy" - it is not a noun and is not a good translation to Russian.

So, moving away from this classification, I can suggest this one:

Gas giant (or Giant) - greater than 100 Earth's mass
Ice giant (or Subgiant) - between 10 and 100 Earth's mass
Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass
Selena (or Dwarf) - between 0.0001 and 0.01 Earth's mass
Asteroid - lower than 0.0001 Earth's mass

But the subdivision is based not only on mass, but on relative amount of various materials too (this info wll be generated by new planetary system generator). I.e. if Superterra has 15% of its mass in form of hydrogen-helium atmosphere, it becomes an Ice giant. This classification doesn't show composition of a planet, I.e. Titan and Mars will be called "Subterra", despite the huge difference in their nature. Venus and Earth will be called "Terra" too... I like to have a separate class called "Terra" for Earth-like planets, almost Earth's twins.

*





 
DevonXDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 12:05 | Message # 34
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass


I like this idea allot. This makes it faster to find the planet you are looking for. But this should only be applied to planes that is already classified as terras, as a sub genre. (current classification)


Edited by DevonX - Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 12:08
 
curiousepicDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 14:54 | Message # 35
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
I do like splitting terras into sub- and super-. But is there a programming reason you don't want two-word descriptors, like "very hot" and "arid terra"? I think many of us prefer this to using obscure words like "calid". I like "arid terra" for desert and "oceanic terra" for oceania.

When talking about whether a world is frozen or not - it would depend on the composition, right? Worlds with different atmospheres will have a frozen surface at different temperatures. So it might be best to not use "icy" and "frozen"; another reason to shift the scale and use "very cold". Also "cold/very cold oceanic terra" instead of "ice world" or "titan/titanian".

But again, do you not anticipate that changing the planet formation simulation will necessitate changing the classifications?





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


Edited by curiousepic - Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 15:14
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 18:20 | Message # 36
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4798
Status: Offline
Quote (curiousepic)
But again, do you not anticipate that changing the planet formation simulation will necessitate changing the classifications?

Classification is needed for surface texture generation system. For now it has 6 different types:

star
gas giant clouds layer
terrestrial clouds layes
terra surface (terra, desert, oceania)
selena surface (selena, ice world)
asteroid

Combining them into one will make the shader too huge - it won't compile on some computers.

Quote (curiousepic)
I do like splitting terras into sub- and super-. But is there a programming reason you don't want two-word descriptors, like "very hot" and "arid terra"? I think many of us prefer this to using obscure words like "calid". I like "arid terra" for desert and "oceanic terra" for oceania.

I simply dislike descriptions that are too long. It will be much better if any word in the description made special sense, for example "warm desert": "warm" is the temperature class, "desert" is the surface class. If we add double-word classnames, it will look like "very warm arid terra": "very warm" is the temperature class, "arid terra" is the surface class...
BTW, Mars is a desert, but not arid, because it has a lot of water in the form of ice. How do you suggest to name this planet?

Quote (curiousepic)
Also "cold/very cold oceanic terra" instead of "ice world" or "titan/titanian".

I dislike that too. Naming of icy moon "cold oceanic terra" is wierd...

*





 
TalismanDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 19:25 | Message # 37
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 409
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Gas giant (or Giant) - greater than 100 Earth's mass
Ice giant (or Subgiant) - between 10 and 100 Earth's mass
Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass
Selena (or Dwarf) - between 0.0001 and 0.01 Earth's mass
Asteroid - lower than 0.0001 Earth's mass


Yes, I like this. And I think temperature classifications are fine. The more the better in my opinion.

Also, Frozen would be much better then cryogenic.

Also, I like the terra classifications, perhaps also have one for terra's (or desert) planets that have frozen over, some planets may be in a sort of ice age, where life is still suitable, they could be called "Ice Terra" or "Winter Terra" or Arctic, Boreal, or Glacial Terra.

I think there should be many more different planet classifications. cool





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 20:12 | Message # 38
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4798
Status: Offline
Quote (Talisman)
Also, I like the terra classifications, perhaps also have one for terra's (or desert) planets that have frozen over, some planets may be in a sort of ice age, where life is still suitable, they could be called "Ice Terra" or "Winter Terra" or Arctic, Boreal, or Glacial Terra.


So, Mars should be called "Cool arid glacial subterra": it's cool, and has no huge amount of water, all the water is frozen (and enveloped with dust), and it's a small terrestrial planet.

Earth is a "Temperate normal (?) terra"

Venus is a "Warm arid desert"

*





 
DevonXDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 21:47 | Message # 39
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Earth is "Temperate normal (?) terra"
Temperate habitable terra. I like the other names too ^^
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 22:56 | Message # 40
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4798
Status: Offline
Quote (DevonX)
Earth is "Temperate normal (?) terra"
Temperate habitable terra. I like the other names too ^^

How to name non-arid, non-wet, non-glacier, non-water, non-habitable, and all other "non" terras? "Normal" is bad a class name.

*





 
DevonXDate: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 23:59 | Message # 41
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
non-arid: floressent or something like that, non-wet not shure what you are meaning by that. non-glacier: need to think about this one, non-water: dry ?, inhabitable terra. I think its just to find the right names on the non terras smile
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 12:26 | Message # 42
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
How to name non-arid, non-wet, non-glacier, non-water, non-habitable, and all other "non" terras?

What would such a world be like? If it's not arid, then must it not be glacial/wet/water?





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
 
gpaw5765Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 13:52 | Message # 43
Astronaut
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 40
Status: Offline
I think a good way to classify planets could be by using three attributes (Temperature, Composition and Size) and using one descriptor for each attribute:

Temperature:
Hot
Warm
Calid
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Very Cold

Composition:
Gas
Ice
Methane/Hydrocarbonic
Oceanic/Water
Oxygen/Fertile/Rocky/Wet
Iron
Desert/Barren/Arid

Size:
Giant
Subgiant
Superterra
Terra
Subterra
Selena
Asteroid

Using this system any planet and moon could be classified easyly, although more descriptors may need to be added for the "Composition" attribute. I particularly don't like the descriptors I've put for the Earth's composition, but I coudn't think of anything better. Of course some combinations would be impossible: for example a Gas Subterra cannot exist because the planet's gravity couldn't hold the atmosphere, etc.

In this classification, the main bodies of the solar system would be more or less like this:

Mecury: Hot Iron Subterra
Venus: Hot Iron Terra
Earth: Temperate Fertile Terra
Moon: Cold Desert Selena
Mars: Cool Desert Subterra
Jupiter: Cold Gas Giant
Saturn: Cold Gas Subgiant
Titan: Cold Hydrocarbonic Subterra
Uranus/Neptune: Very Cold Ice Subgiant

This system for planet classification has the advantage of being more flexible than having a small group of predefined planet types.





Check my Space Flight Simulator for Android!
 
DevonXDate: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 14:22 | Message # 44
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
Quote (gpaw5765)
I think a good way to classify planets could be by using three attributes (Temperature, Composition and Size) and using one descriptor for each attribute:

But this dont cover if the planet is habitable or not.
Quote (gpaw5765)
Size:
Giant
Subgiant
Superterra
Terra
Subterra
Selena
Asteroid

I dont think you should use terra as a size parameter as the word terra defines the composition of the planet.


Edited by DevonX - Thursday, 29.12.2011, 14:33
 
ChrisDate: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 16:53 | Message # 45
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Denmark
Messages: 22
Status: Offline
This planetary formation simulation is the feature i'm looking the most forward to seeing.
Along with the classification of planets you decide to use, you could add a single number to the terrestrial planets, to easily decribe the earth similarity.
I definately think the (ESI) would be useful for that purpose.
Once the more important work is done, and you start working on UI.
I think a good tool for the user would be to let them set their own weight exponents for the various properties of a planet.
The end result would be read as a single number like the Earth Similarity Index, tailormade for just the search the user has in mind.

Funny how interesting this cassification discussion is.

Temperature.
Hot, More than 127C. No chance of life.
Warm, 27C to 127C. Class for extremophiles.
Temperate, -23C to 27C. Habitable for man.
Cold, -73C to -23C. Class for extremopiles.
Very Cold, Less than -73C. No chance of life.

Class.Mass. Atmo. Composition. Surface Water.

Asterioid. Mass. Less than 0.0001. No Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron. Less than 50% Ice.
-Icy(Comet). Composition. Silicate, Iron. More than 50% Ice.

Selena. Mass. 0.0001 to 0.01. No Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron. Less than 50% Ice.
-Icy. Composition. Silicate, Iron. More than 50% Ice.

Subterra. Mass 0.01 to 0.5. Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Terra. Mass 0.5 to 3. Atmo. Composition. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Superterra. Mass 3 to 10. Composition. Atmo. Silicate, Iron or Ice. Surface Water. 10% to 50% Water.
Icy. Surface Water. More than 50% Ice.
Arid. Surface Water. Less than 10% Water.
Oceanic. Surface Water. More than 50% Water.

Ice Subgiant. Mass. 10 to 100. Atmo. Composition. More than 80% Water, Ammonia.
Gas Giant. Mass. More than 100. Atmo. Composition. More than 80% Hydrogen, Helium.

Class Terra = Atmo
Subclasses Icy, Arid and Oceanic are related to surface water availability, not interior compositon. Life or habitability is the objective.

Class Selena = No Atmo
Subclass Icy, related to interior compositon for Asteroid and Selena classes.

Using the above..
Mercury. Hot Arid Subterra.
Venus. Hot Arid Terra.
Earth's Twin. Temperate Terra with Life.
Mars. Cold Arid Subterra. Water may be present but not in liquid state.
Europa. Very Cold Icy Selena. Posibly an Oceanic microterra, certainly covered by an ice crust.
Titan. Very Cold Subterra. Pools of liquids present, not water.

Quote
But the subdivision is based not only on mass, but on relative amount of various materials too (this info wll be generated by new planetary system generator). I.e. if Superterra has 15% of its mass in form of hydrogen-helium atmosphere, it becomes an Ice giant. This classification doesn't show composition of a planet, I.e. Titan and Mars will be called "Subterra", despite the huge difference in their nature. Venus and Earth will be called "Terra" too... I like to have a separate class called "Terra" for Earth-like planets, almost Earth's twins.


I'd separate Selenas from Subterras at the point where the mass is too low to retain a breathable atmosphere for man.
That way terra does become very common, if you want to reserve them for earth's twin's i understand.
But on the other hand terrestrial does mean solid bodies as opposed to gasseous bodies like Gas giants.

A way to go around the problem could be to create two classes Terrestrial and Gasseous, related to interior composition only, not mass.
Then put in the other classes we have above, accordingly.

Terrestrial
-Asteroid
-Selena
-Subterra
-Terra
-Superterra
Gasseous
-Subgiant
-Giant

I have no better idea how to separate Venus and Earth than to do it with a (ESI) or make the user read the detailed data window.
Can't think of a fitting class name or system.





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
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 3 of 17«123451617»
Search: