RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 5 of 17«12345671617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngineerDate: Monday, 13.02.2012, 13:01 | Message # 61
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Ok, can you for example make analysis of this classification and create a list of parameters, needed to implement it? SE doesn't have volcanic, tides, and other parameters yet. I should implement those first. Then we can create a script for this classification and look at how it will work. BTW, is is better to use the SE script format, so I won't need to change the script engine:
Code

Group "Small Body Group"
{
      Class "Vulcanoidal"
      {
          State "rock"
          Radius (0, 50) // 0...50 km
          OrbitEccentricity (0.2, 1.0) // 0.2...1.0
          ...
      }

      Class "Asteroidal"
      {
          Subclass "Metallic"
          {
              State "rock"
              Composition
              {
                  Metals (0.4, 0.8) // 0.4...0.8
                  Rock   (0.2, 0.6) // 0.2...0.6
                  Ice      (0.0, 0.0)
              }
          }

          Subclass "Silicates"
          {
              State "rock"
              Composition
              {
                  Metals (0.0, 0.3) // 0.0...0.3
                  Rock   (0.6, 1.0) // 0.6...1.0
                  Ice      (0.0, 0.0)
              }
          }

          ...
      }

      ...
}


*





 
TetoDate: Tuesday, 14.02.2012, 23:08 | Message # 62
Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
OK. I'm not an astrophysicist. So I took time to read the classification, and I don't know if it is used by "professionals". If it's the case, I think that you have a very complete classification, so keep it. I have just few remarks :

- This classification doesn't mention mass of the planets, or range where you can have this or that type. I'm not astrophysicist, as I said, by I know that solar systems has rules with planets/moons, orbits, size, mass and type of planets depends of their number, location and so on. That misses in this classification, but maybe you know what to do. smile By the way, do you follow those rules when you make procedural solar systems ?

- For each type you have composition of the planet, but again you don't have proportions, thickness of atmosphere, and so on. Maybe it can be calculated.

- If this classification is OK, and you don't want to let modders to change it as they want, I think that the BIG file with all classification is good, and let you to use your script language. But, maybe, keeping the tree by repertories is good to add easily script files (for gameplay, special planets, ...)

Now, my help is the best I can do so far, I don't know how your engine is working (well, a little, if it works like Celestia), but if classification is important (for procedural behaviors, gameplay, rendering), yep, you must be perfect since the beginning (thanks Captain Obvious ! biggrin )

By the way, a question off-topic (a little) : Are the planets always spherical ? In Celestia, for example, moon of Pluto is not a sphere, because of its rotation speed (if I remember well). Is it the same thing with your engine ?
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 15.02.2012, 08:12 | Message # 63
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote (Teto)
by I know that solar systems has rules with planets/moons, orbits, size, mass and type of planets depends of their number, location and so on. That misses in this classification, but maybe you know what to do. By the way, do you follow those rules when you make procedural solar systems ?

Current classification divides planets into 3 groups by mass - terrestrial planets, ice giants and gas giants. I plan to add subdivision for first one - subterras, terras and superterras.
Rules of our Solar system do not work for other systems in reality. We've discovered gas giants that are closer to their suns as Mercury is to ours; gas giants in hi-eccentric orbits, very compact systems build of ice giants.

Quote (Teto)
By the way, a question off-topic (a little) : Are the planets always spherical ? In Celestia, for example, moon of Pluto is not a sphere, because of its rotation speed (if I remember well). Is it the same thing with your engine ?

What? Which moon of Pluto? smile
Currently all planets are spherical (except landscape and extreme landscape on asteroids), because terrain engine and atmosphere does not want to work with ellipsoidals (I plan to fix it).

*





 
TetoDate: Wednesday, 15.02.2012, 17:28 | Message # 64
Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
Forget it. smile
I think I've read that, not watching. I've found Juno, but it's an asteroid. Never mind. But changing the shape of a planet, according its speed would be great.
 
apenpaapDate: Wednesday, 18.04.2012, 21:51 | Message # 65
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I personally like the current classification system for the most part. The one thing I would change are the names of temperatures above Temperate: the problem is that 'Warm' seems to me to be associated with the temperature of a summer's day or a warm bath or something, not temperatures like Mercury and Venus have; I would associate that with 'hot'. So I think the calid class should be renamed to warm, warm to hot, and hot to infernal or a similar word. Warm just doesn't bring associations with a place where it is far too warm for life to exist and where organic materials spontaneously combust.

Aside from that, I love the idea of adding Titan-type worlds. As for magma worlds, wouldn't terrestrial planets in extremely close orbits (like a hot Jupiter type of orbit) get molten and become magma worlds even if the system was quite old?





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Thursday, 19.04.2012, 10:03 | Message # 66
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
So I think the calid class should be renamed to warm, warm to hot, and hot to infernal or a similar word.

No, becuase "hot" is already used in planetary science for very close to sun and very hot planets (remember term "hot jupiter"). So we need two other words for Mercury like planets (not such hot, 300-800°) and more temperate planets (30-300°). Any other suggestions?

Quote (apenpaap)
As for magma worlds, wouldn't terrestrial planets in extremely close orbits (like a hot Jupiter type of orbit) get molten and become magma worlds even if the system was quite old?

Yes, this is possible. But I should implement magma rendering and generation first.

*





 
apenpaapDate: Thursday, 19.04.2012, 10:33 | Message # 67
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Ah, that's indeed a good point. I do think Calid should be renamed as Warm, but that leaves what to call Warm... Looking at a thesaurus, 'scorching', 'searing', 'blazing', and 'igneous' seem good terms to suggest the fact that these planets are similar to a fire in temperature.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Thursday, 19.04.2012, 23:16 | Message # 68
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
I may simply remove Calid and Cool classes, expanding Temperate to their temperature range...
In Russian, we have three good words to describe gradual increasing of temperature - тёплый (calid), жаркий (warm), горячий (hot). The dictionary shows that translation of all our words intersect with two major words in English - warm/calid and hot. Does English have only two words for gradation of heat?

*





 
TalynDate: Thursday, 19.04.2012, 23:40 | Message # 69
Explorer
Group: Users
Portugal
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
I am not an expert here, but in my opinion, those words generate some confusion , especially the word calid.
My suggestion is:
Temperate, warm and hot





PC: Intel Core2Duo E6850 @ 3.00 GHz & 4GB DDR3 @ 1333 - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS with 640 MB VRAM
Laptop: Intel Core2Duo T9400 @ 2.53 GHz & 4 GB DDR @ 1066 - NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
 
apenpaapDate: Thursday, 19.04.2012, 23:57 | Message # 70
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I rather like calid and cool, they suggest that while the planet is not really suitable for humans, it is suitable for life in general and the difference with a human's temperature is not so big you'd die instantly. I guess calid could be renamed tepid, which is a rather more common word, but I still think warm is the category that is the real problem. Unfortunately, I don't really think there's a third word between warm and hot in english, though I think a word like searing or blazing would be a decent name for the warm class, while warm could probably better be applied for the current calid class.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
TalynDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 00:47 | Message # 71
Explorer
Group: Users
Portugal
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
I only suggested the word temperate because in english it is the word that better describes a temperature range where we as humans, find it more comfortable to live in.

Scientifically, it is also a word used to describe one of the 5 earth zones as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_zone

Maybe we need to re-think the scale for a future more precise classification as:
Irradiated/molten/searing
Hot
Warm (Calid is a synonym in English :/ )
Temperate
Tepid (not sure about this one because it is almost a synonym of temperate)
Cold
Frozen





PC: Intel Core2Duo E6850 @ 3.00 GHz & 4GB DDR3 @ 1333 - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS with 640 MB VRAM
Laptop: Intel Core2Duo T9400 @ 2.53 GHz & 4 GB DDR @ 1066 - NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT


Edited by Talyn - Friday, 20.04.2012, 00:53
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 02:05 | Message # 72
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I think that on the colder side of the scale that Temperate-Cool-Cold-Frozen is fine the way it is. But I agree that Warm is too easily confused with Calid, so I think that it should replace it. So on the hot side of the scale it should be Temperate-Warm-Hot-?

The main issue is if Warm replaces Calid, and Hot replaces Warm, then what replaces Hot? Searing and Scorching are decent candidates to replace Hot. Irradiated/Molten/Igneous would not work because they imply properties of the physical environment aside from temperature. Blazing isn't bad, but I haven't often encountered it as a lone description of temperature in spoken English; it is usually combined with another word when used (i.e. "blazing-hot"). Blazing generally identifies a superlative case of something hot or fast or even sexually attractive (anything that gets the adrenaline or hormones flowing wink ).

Ultimately, Scorched is probably the most appropriate word in English for the hottest category. That would leave the scale like this:

Scorched
Hot
Warm
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Frozen

This makes the most sense from an English-language point of view and is much more intuitive than the current scale. Cool and Warm, and Cold and Hot, are antonyms of each other so they belong directly opposite each other on the scale.





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
 
TalynDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 10:41 | Message # 73
Explorer
Group: Users
Portugal
Messages: 207
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Ultimately, Scorched is probably the most appropriate word in English for the hottest category. That would leave the scale like this:

Scorched
Hot
Warm
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Frozen


I like this scale, but just to make it more clear, Cool would be a Planet like Mars, Temperate like Earth and warm like Venus?

I think it makes sense, since the 3 Planets are all "within the habitable zone". Then SpaceEngineer could expand the "Temperate" planets to their temperature range





PC: Intel Core2Duo E6850 @ 3.00 GHz & 4GB DDR3 @ 1333 - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS with 640 MB VRAM
Laptop: Intel Core2Duo T9400 @ 2.53 GHz & 4 GB DDR @ 1066 - NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 12:11 | Message # 74
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (Talyn)
Cool would be a Planet like Mars, Temperate like Earth and warm like Venus?

Orbital distance is not the determining factor in assigning a temperature class. Stellar irradiance, planetary albedo and atmospheric greenhouse effect all factor in. For example, if Venus did not have a strong greenhouse effect its temperature might be tolerable to humans. But because of its thick CO2 atmosphere it causes lead bricks to turn into puddles smile

The ranges that the temperature classes span now should probably be left as they are. If we narrow them too much then we would need too many names, and if we broaden them too much then they become meaningless.

So under the new scale, Venus would be Hot, Earth would be Temperate, and Mars would be Cool. No bodies in SpaceEngine's catalog for our solar system would be in the Warm category.

To convert SpaceEngine's current temperature scale to the one I listed, simply change Hot>Scorched, Warm>Hot, and Calid>Warm. You can fly around the universe looking at different worlds' temperatures and see if you think that the new scale works better for them, and just to get a feel for what the boundaries are if you want.





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
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 13:44 | Message # 75
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
I want to fix "hot" to most hot planets, as it's made in science now. But your scale is more logical. However, I can simply replace "calid" with "warm" and "warm" with "very warm", as it was in old versions, but single-word classname will be better.

BTW, "temperate" class has very narrow temperature range, only 50°. This looks like "earth-chauvinism". Maybe expanding it to cover "warm" and "cool" has sense. Temperate should cover planets that can support liquid water on the surface. Their average temperatures may vary from -50 to +150 °C, on the lower end planet have only little liquid water on the equator and all other surfaces are frozen, at the higher end, liquid water can exist only on the poles while all other surfaces are a dry desert (this looks like Titan, but there is liquid hydrocarbons insted of water). But subdividing this into 3 sub-classes has its own meaning... frozen planets are almost good to call "cool" and almost dry to call "warm".

*





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 5 of 17«12345671617»
Search: