Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 9 of 17«1278910111617»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
smjjamesDate: Sunday, 11.11.2012, 19:54 | Message # 121
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (RobertJ)
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Actually, SpaceEngine does render life with different colors besides green, including red, depending on the conditions of the planet.

Research suggest that plants on exoplanets would colored by the amount of light (energy) and the wavelengths wich are most abundant. Here on earth most plants use the blue and red wavelenght photons and reflect the green ones wich makes plants look green to us. The blue ones have the most energy and the red ones not so much but there are lots of those photons.

But plants could also be blue, brown and red or even black when light conditions are poor with most of it in the red and infrared range. The research also suggests that plants could even be like a mirror reflecting most of the light on planets orbiting brighter stars.


Also, they could be black as well around binary and other multiple star systems (depending on the conditions).

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Quote (Voekoevaka)
Note that the colour of an ocean made of translucent liquid is not necessarily blue : it just reflects the colour of the atmosphere

Not necessarily true. Water does preferentially scatter blue light more than red, just like our atmosphere does, so even if it were reflecting a neutral color it would still have a blue color, it would just be less noticeable.

Quote (Voekoevaka)
every planet with life is represented by a Terra with green forests

Actually, SpaceEngine does render life with different colors besides green, including red, depending on the conditions of the planet.


You know, I'm wondering what would color a planets oceans green in the absence of life? Iron saturated water would be reddish (I believe), but what would color oceans green (aside from being filled with life), copper?







Edited by smjjames - Sunday, 11.11.2012, 20:17
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 07.02.2013, 22:54 | Message # 122
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
[Moved from this thread]

Quote (HarbingerDawn)
The definition by which they were classed in SE. The class was made with the intent that the liquid would specifically be water. Unless I'm just completely insanely wrong, in which case I welcome SpaceEngineer to correct me.

I just found it very counter intuitive that the name terra should imply water. Just like the related English words dry and thirst don't exactly imply any abundance of water. It might not be a problem unless you've studied linguistics, though.

Of course, if terra is to mean Earth like (which I suppose is the intention), water makes sense. So it's kind of ambiguous, then. That can be avoided by using the Tellus name for earth-like. Tellurian would be the adjective.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 07.02.2013, 23:25 | Message # 123
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
I just found it very counter intuitive that the name terra should imply water

The word itself doesn't imply water specifically, terra in this case just refers to an Earth-type world.

Quote (midtskogen)
It might not be a problem unless you've studied linguistics, though.

Most likely.

Quote (midtskogen)
That can be avoided by using the Tellus name for earth-like. Tellurian would be the adjective.

That would actually be more confusing since so few people have heard of it. Terra is very well known, and as far as I know no one has been confused about its intended meaning except for you. On an unrelated and less important note, I personally am not a big fan of Tellus/Tellurian. Terra/Terran has always held more appeal to me, I guess I have popular sci-fi to thank for that.





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


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Thursday, 07.02.2013, 23:35
 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 08.02.2013, 06:46 | Message # 124
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
That would actually be more confusing since so few people have heard of it. Terra is very well known, and as far as I know no one has been confused about its intended meaning except for you. On an unrelated and less important note, I personally am not a big fan of Tellus/Tellurian. Terra/Terran has always held more appeal to me, I guess I have popular sci-fi to thank for that.

I prefer terra as well. For me Tellus is Earth only. Terra is more generic simply meaning dry land.

So I think terra is fine, but there is nothing in the name that implies that it can only be used for planets with oceans of water. What if terra is instead used for any rocky planet with at least some dry land. That is, also include what's called deserts today. Then, planets with significant water oceans could be called aquatic terras. That would imply temperate or warm (so perhaps there could be aquatic terras (like Earth) and warm aquatic terras, but there is a limit for how warm it can be and still have liquid water). Colder such terras where the water is mostly ice covered, could be glacial terras. I don't think that should apply to Mars, since there is neither pure ice exposed and there are no oceans beneath the ice.

This would open up for classes for planets with oceans other than water. If they have hydrocarbon seas like Titan, they could be called hydrocarbon terras.

Speaking of Titan. I find it confusing how Space Engine uses the word. To me titans are pretty synonymous with giants. When used for planets it doesn't make me think of Saturn's titan at all.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Friday, 08.02.2013, 06:55
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 08.02.2013, 07:54 | Message # 125
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
I prefer terra as well. For me Tellus is Earth only.

Even for Earth I prefer Terra. Tellus is a nice name, but it's just so uncommon that I've never felt particularly comfortable with it.

Quote (midtskogen)
So I think terra is fine, but there is nothing in the name that implies that it can only be used for planets with oceans of water. What if terra is instead used for any rocky planet with at least some dry land.

I disagree. I know that you associate the term "terra" with land, for linguistic reasons, and I can understand that. But most people associate it with Earth as a planet, and by extension planets of Earth-type (rocky worlds with water oceans). Terra does essentially mean dirt, but Latin is a dead language, and the true meaning of the word is unknown to all but the few like us who have taken an interest in it. The word earth means the same as terra, yet I have no problem referring to this planet as Earth or to worlds similar to it as Earth-like worlds or even as Earths on occasion, and English is a thriving language spoken by hundreds of millions of people, unlike Latin.

It is for a similar reason that the term "frozen" is used for the coldest planets rather than "cryogenic". Cryogenic is more precise and correct, but so few people know it and it has certain connotations that make it an undesirable choice, so frozen was chosen instead. Ultimately societal and cultural considerations must be taken into account when weighing different name options.

Also, what "type" of land is extremely important: is it rocky, metallic, icy, etc. In an astronomical sense the composition of the surface in general - regardless of phase of matter - is more important to classifying the planet than simply determining whether it has liquid and what kind it is. So terra would be an insufficient term to represent a planet's land.

Quote (midtskogen)
Speaking of Titan. I find it confusing how Space Engine uses the word. To me titans are pretty synonymous with giants. When used for planets it doesn't make me think of Saturn's titan at all.

I agree, a better term would be desirable, but nobody could think of one that worked, so titan stuck. I am generally opposed to using the names of Sol system worlds as the basis of classes, so hopefully that can be changed in the future.

Concerning your idea of characterizing planets by multiple criteria (and thus having multiple-name classes) I think this is a good idea and it must inevitably be implemented. My early thoughts on such a system are listed here, though it was only meant to express a basic concept and certainly needs a lot of work. A few other ideas for new systems - including by SpaceEngineer - are floating around in the thread too.





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


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Friday, 08.02.2013, 07:58
 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 08.02.2013, 10:41 | Message # 126
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
First, I think we must limit the scope of the classes. It seems reasonable that they should mainly describe major surface features. At least: no solid surface, all rocks, all ocean or partly rocky, partly ocean. Am I correct that this basically is today's classification? That is: gas (giant), desert, oceania and terra. I'm challenging that terra implies that water is present. The linguistic concerns were just that terra implies dryness, which we don't need to worry too much about, but I'm a bit surprised that you say that terra is most associated with the planet Earth. There are several internationally well known expressions including terra in the sense "land": terra firma, terra incognita/ignota, terra nullius, terra australis, terra nova.

Back to the fundamentals: Apart from surface features, SE also aims to indicate temperature and size. So in order to name all possible combinations easily, there should be an orthogonal naming systems. That is, the name used for one of these three axes should not imply or exclude another axis. Well, it would be ideal, but we run into some issues. First, some combinations are impossible. Like moon or asteroid sized gas bodies. Gas doesn't quite imply a specific size, just a size range (which I suppose also is temperature dependent to make thing more complex), so it might not be a big problem. Some combinations will simply not be used. More of a concern is that established names like asteroids and comets wont fit in. They would become something like "tiny deserts" in the current naming scheme, which is silly, so there must be exceptions. Or rather that some of the established names will act as aliases when the naming scheme would give a silly name.

As for oceans, perhaps it would be too specific if the name should imply anything about the liquid present. Terra could then be used for bodies with hydrocarbon lakes or whatever, if terra is kept.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
kairunotabiDate: Sunday, 28.04.2013, 23:18 | Message # 127
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
Some list of Planet Classes that we should have

Semi-Fictional Planet Classes

and

Currently known Planet Types





 
Joey_PenguinDate: Sunday, 28.04.2013, 23:29 | Message # 128
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 311
Status: Offline
As good a game Star Control 2 is, the planets there are not based on hard science, and most of the planets on wikipedia are already modeled in SE. We already have a topic about planet types. Please be sure to search for the topic you're looking for to see if it's already been brought up. wink




Careful. The PLATT Collective has spurs.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 28.04.2013, 23:36 | Message # 129
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
kairunotabi, you should have made your post here. I'm pretty sure I've reminded you before about looking for an appropriate place to post before making a new thread. Look at the sticky threads and use the search function.

Neither list of planet categories you listed is applicable to SE. They generally don't characterize worlds by their surface environments, which is what SE currently does.





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
 
kairunotabiDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 00:10 | Message # 130
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
Ok, just want to know your opinions about it and sorry about bad posting cool




 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 00:11 | Message # 131
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Kairunotabi, the semi-fictionnal planetary classification looks messy for me. I don't understand exactly how the planets are classed (minerals ? color ? chemestry ?).

My suggestions for new planetary types are (I'm not pressed to see them. Maybe for a far release...) :

♦ Methania :

The equivalent of Titan, but fully covered by hydrocarbon oceans.

♦ Ammonia world :

A cold planet with ammonia oceans. Liquids should be orange, and clouds should be white. An Oceania version could be possible.

♦ Io :

Like Titan, Io is so unique that it deserve its own planetary class.

♦ A kind of world between the superterras and the gas giants. It will have several layers of clouds, with some of them opaque (viewed from far, il will look like a gas giant, or an ice giant). But under the clouds, we could find an ocean, and light from the star is still visible. Maybe there can be some rare islands. In very rare cases, the ocean could be low, or absent.

I haven't found a name for this kind of planet. If anyone have an idea, it would be a pleasure to discuss about it.





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !



Edited by Voekoevaka - Monday, 29.04.2013, 00:15
 
kairunotabiDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 02:54 | Message # 132
Astronaut
Group: Users
Philippines
Messages: 70
Status: Offline
Quote (Voekoevaka)
♦ A kind of world between the superterras and the gas giants. It will have several layers of clouds, with some of them opaque (viewed from far, il will look like a gas giant, or an ice giant). But under the clouds, we could find an ocean, and light from the star is still visible. Maybe there can be some rare islands. In very rare cases, the ocean could be low, or absent.

I haven't found a name for this kind of planet. If anyone have an idea, it would be a pleasure to discuss about it.


May I suggest Maelnia for your planet type?

Definition of Maelnia:
♦Obscured in Mist
♦Between the Stars
♦Clouds







Edited by kairunotabi - Monday, 29.04.2013, 02:58
 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 07:25 | Message # 133
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Quote (kairunotabi)
May I suggest Maelnia for your planet type?

Nice name. Wher dous it come from ?

Quote (kairunotabi)
Definition of Maelnia:
♦Obscured in Mist
♦Between the Stars
♦Clouds

This seemed to be the definition of a rogue planet (planemo). I think this kind of planet don't necessary need an entire type ; you can just class it by "frozen gas giant".
In my case, I deal with planets we can find in all systems, which are enough big to harbor a gasgiant-like atmosphère, but which are enough small to have an ocean and a rocky surface.





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
SpaceEngineerDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 09:05 | Message # 134
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4798
Status: Offline
According to modern models, Neptune have an ocean, and Uranus have a solid surface (not rocky, but icy).




 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 29.04.2013, 09:19 | Message # 135
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
According to modern models, Neptune have an ocean, and Uranus have a solid surface (not rocky, but icy).

I hope to see this in Space Engine (maybe in ten years).





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Development Status » SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
Page 9 of 17«1278910111617»
Search: