RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 6 of 17«12456781617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 20.04.2012, 18:40 | Message # 76
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
BTW, "temperate" class have very narrow temperature range, only 50°. This looks like "earth-chauvinism".

I think that the Temperate range should not be too wide. I think the way that it is now makes sense. The current basis for Temperate may be Earth-chauvinist, but really the entire scale is too. If we don't base the scale from a human perspective then what would be our frame of reference? wink

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
I want fix "hot" to most hot planets, as it made in science now.

I understand the desire to keep with scientific terminology on this, and I completely agree that SpaceEngine should always stay true to real science. But since the rest of the scale is made to give the user a sense of perspective with regards to temperature, shouldn't the entire scale reflect this and be as intuitive as possible? If astronomers had a continuous and universal temperature scale describing worlds from 3000 K to 0 K then I would say we should use it, and that would be great. But to the best of my knowledge no such scale exists. So I think that if most of the scale has to be invented by you, then the entire scale should be, unless it can be easily combined with the existing terminology (i.e. "Hot").
I've tried to find ways of tastefully arranging scale-terms so that Hot can be at the top and integrate well with a 7-tier scale, but I don't think it can work. The only way would be if English had a common word between Warm and Hot, which unfortunately it does not. The word Torrid comes to mind, but it is hotter than Hot is, and is also rare, so again it would just cause confusion.

I don't think that the scale can remain with "Hot" at the top without seeming awkward. Hopefully someone will think of something though 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
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 00:01 | Message # 77
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Well, what do you suggest for higher temperatures than "hot", if I move "hot" class down to Venus temperature?




 
apenpaapDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 00:44 | Message # 78
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I would suggest 'Infernal', 'Searing', 'Blazing', or something like that.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 02:15 | Message # 79
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I still think that "Scorching" would make the most sense. To a native English speaker it says "extremely hot" more than any other word without being dramatic or implying anything about physical properties. In the scale it should be written as "Scorched" because of the way "Frozen" is written (if Scorching was used then Frozen would have to be changed to Freezing to keep it grammatically consistent). I'd also say that I've heard "Scorching" used to describe extremely hot ambient temperature more than any other word, so again it fits the criteria of being a common English word with one major definition (extreme heat).

So scale would be:
Scorched
Hot
Warm
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Frozen

If you decide to keep "Hot" at the high end of the scale, then the ONLY way it would be intuitive to a native English speaker would be:
Hot
Very Warm
Warm
Temperate
Cool
Cold
Frozen

The problems with this though are that a) it has a two-word term in a list of single words, and b) 'Hot' and 'Cold' are not opposite each other, which is slightly counter-intuitive since they are antonyms.

So ultimately it depends on whether it is more important to have a list that is elegant and intuitive for English-speakers, or a list that begins with 'Hot'.





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
 
mustafa2812Date: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 05:44 | Message # 80
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
HarbringerDawn, I like your first group of classifications. While i understand the grammatical significance of "scorched" and "frozen", I think that it would still make more sense as "scorching". When you describe the weather outside, you don't say its "scorched" you say it's "scorching". A Scorched planet seems to connotate that something scorched it, while "scorching" seems to refer to the temperature more, I'd say. I think English users would find "scorching" more fluid even though it doesn't fit with "frozen" grammatically.




PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 06:44 | Message # 81
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
mustafa2812, you wouldn't say it's "frozen" outside either, you would say it's "freezing" smile But you're right. I don't mind one way or the other, just as long as it's consistent (scorched/frozen, or scorching/freezing). The only problem I have with scorching/freezing is that it makes it sound like an incomplete process, when in fact each of these planets is millions to billions of years old and has withstood these temperatures for eons. If I look in SpaceEngine and it says "Freezing Gas Giant", it makes me thing that the whole planet is in the process of freezing into a solid, which it isn't.

Quote (mustafa2812)
A Scorched planet seems to connotate that something scorched it

Also don't forget, that something did scorch it: the heat of the star(s).





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
 
mustafa2812Date: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 07:57 | Message # 82
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
Quote
you wouldn't say it's "frozen" outside either, you would say it's "freezing"

Quote
Also don't forget, that something did scorch it: the heat of the star(s)

Touche!

I guess my point was that it seems more fluid in English to have a frozen planet than a freezing one (like you said) but to me it sounds more fluid as scorching than scorched (scorched would sound weird with a gas giant, ice giant, or oceana or something i think).





PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 20:29 | Message # 83
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
I believe you found right grammar form guys:) I am not native English and don't understand all niceties. But I thought that "-ing" suffix describe a process, and can't be used here. Just think how that words will be seen in the engine: "Scorched desert", "Frozen ice world". BTW, in Russian localization I use "cryogenic" insted of "frozen" - I think it better desribes temperature range, because "frozen" in Russian is associated with water freezing, but water is frozen already at cool and cold classes. Second note - is "scorched" have good fit for melted lava planets?




 
apenpaapDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 20:39 | Message # 84
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
I think scorching sounds better than scorched. Scorching is the form it usually is used in to describe temperatures (a scorching desert, for example), while scorched sounds more like the planet was once really close to its sun and got scorched really badly, and now you can still see the signs of it. I like the word 'infernal' better than scorched, though. (Though maybe a better place to use it would be if you add magma planets to name their planet type 'Inferno'.)

Frozen sounds much better than cryogenic in English; the word cryogenic is really only used for the practise of freezing in the corpses of people with more money than sense who hope a cure for death will one day be found and want to preserve their bodies for that. Frozen is somewhat associated with freezing water, yes, but also very much gives the impression of an extremely cold world in this case.





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 21:14 | Message # 85
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
Frozen sounds much better than cryogenic in English; the word cryogenic is really only used for the practise of freezing in the corpses of people with more money than sense who hope a cure for death will one day be found and want to preserve their bodies for that.

LOL, I never thought about it smile Maybe its my scientific education taking force - I think of "cryogenic" as a term for cryogenic technologies - liquid nitrogen and helium, superconductors, cooled CCD sensors for telescopes.

*





 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 21:23 | Message # 86
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
"Scorched oceania" and "Scorched ice giant" sounds really bad... Such planets really exist. Still bad terminology...




 
apenpaapDate: Saturday, 21.04.2012, 21:46 | Message # 87
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Well, should scorched Oceanias really exist at all? It seems rather odd to me. As for the scorched Ice Giants, yes that does sound weird, but so does hot ice giant and warm ice giant. It's more of a problem with the name ice giant than with scorched.




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
mustafa2812Date: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 02:03 | Message # 88
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
Quote
It's more of a problem with the name ice giant than with scorched

AGREE!
Maybe i need to be informed more about what a "hot" or "very hot" ice giant would be. Cause from my limited understanding, it doesn't make sense for ice to be hot.
I still see scorching as better than scorched.





PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 02:13 | Message # 89
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
"Scorched oceania" and "Scorched ice giant" sounds really bad... Such planets really exist.

How could you have liquid surface water at >800K surprised

Quote (apenpaap)
I like the word 'infernal' better than scorched,

I prefer to stay away from infernal because it has religious connotations (from the word for Hell) and also has other meanings than just temperature. It would be less appropriate than other terms.

Quote (apenpaap)
I think scorching sounds better than scorched. Scorching is the form it usually is used in to describe temperatures (a scorching desert, for example)

True, but as SpaceEngineer and I have pointed out, "-ing" implies and ongoing or incomplete process and may be counter-intuitive to some people, especially those who use English as a second language.

Quote (apenpaap)
Frozen sounds much better than cryogenic in English

I agree with this. Cryogenic makes much more sense to describe the temperature, but it also sounds awkward and many people are not familiar with the word. Frozen should remain here.

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Just think how that words will be seen in the engine: "Scorched desert", "Frozen ice world"

That is how I look at it too, and I agree, Scorched/Frozen sounds much more natural than Scorching/Freezing.

Quote (apenpaap)
As for the scorched Ice Giants, yes that does sound weird, but so does hot ice giant and warm ice giant. It's more of a problem with the name ice giant than with scorched.

Agreed. With Ice Giants it's just the chemical composition, not the matter phase, that yields the name (methane, water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc are all called "ices" in planetary science). So it still makes sense.





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
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 22.04.2012, 02:20 | Message # 90
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (mustafa2812)
I still see scorching as better than scorched.

I somewhat agree with this. My biggest problem is that it sounds weird to have "Scorching" and "Frozen" on the same scale, they are in two different tenses, and is grammatically awkward. But maybe it is better to have "Scorching" than "Scorched"... maybe we should alter some screenshots with -ed and -ing and have some votes?





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
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 6 of 17«12456781617»
Search: