Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 33 of 44«1231323334354344»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Bug Reports for Version 0.96 (Please post here any bugs you find in SpaceEngine)
Bug Reports for Version 0.96
SpaceEngineerDate: Thursday, 05.07.2012, 19:52 | Message # 1
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Please post here all of your reports about bugs or crashes in SpaceEngine. Attach to your message a screenshot (if possible) and a log file (it's called the "se.log" and is located in the SpaceEngine's directory). Only the log file will help me to understand your problem and find a solution.

*
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 19.10.2012, 15:50 | Message # 481
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Quote (smjjames)
maybe we can make planet formation a minimum of 10 million years of age for the star system?

Better to make it around 100 million years. The formation of planetesimals/early protoplanets is complete after around 10 million years, but it could take up to 100 million for those to consolidate into a final set of planets.


If we do that, we should bump up the minimum system age limit for life to be present to 200 or 300 million since life might not start right away, but there are signs that life had already begun just a few hundred million years after the oceans had formed (or maybe after the late heavy bombardment ended, or maybe the oceans formed after that event, not sure the exact sequence).







Edited by smjjames - Friday, 19.10.2012, 16:01
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 19.10.2012, 17:14 | Message # 482
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (smjjames)
we should bump up the minimum system age limit for life to be present to 200 or 300 million since life might not start right away

We don't know enough yet about the origin of life to place any kind of constraints on it. If the planet exists and has conditions suitable for life, then it should have a chance at having life.





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
 
smjjamesDate: Friday, 19.10.2012, 18:01 | Message # 483
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Quote (smjjames)
we should bump up the minimum system age limit for life to be present to 200 or 300 million since life might not start right away

We don't know enough yet about the origin of life to place any kind of constraints on it. If the planet exists and has conditions suitable for life, then it should have a chance at having life.


I was trying to say that we should adjust the 'LifeMinAge 0.10' to account for the fact that the planets need a minimum of 100 MY to generate (or maybe if the system is younger than that, generate a whole bunch of protoplanets or a protoplanetary disk? Having a protoplanetary disk would be cool actually) and right now, the life minage is treating it like the planets formed at year 0 (or 1) of the procedural system. So, if we make planetary formation 100 MY later, we should move the life minage the same amount. At least that's how I see the whole thing. But yeah, I can just edit the setting myself.

Anyways, what about the odd diameter gap that I have observed? There aren't any procedural planets between 2.5 and 4 Earth diameters. The masses are fine though as I've seen the whole range up to the 10 Earth mass threshold.

Edit: I looked around a bit and while I don't see any reports of single red dwarf stars being odd (besides what I posted), so maybe it is an old and known bug.







Edited by smjjames - Friday, 19.10.2012, 18:25
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 03:30 | Message # 484
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
Is there a way to combine the method? To generate a planet and then have the engine check whether its PericenDist > Rp + Rs ?

SE already do this, as I said:

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Quote (HarbingerDawn)Something in the planet generator which prevented the planet's pericenter distance from being less than the radius of the planet plus the radius of the star would solve the collision issue.
This is used


Collision is occurs because high eccentricity "anomaly" is generated after all tests. I'll probably remove this "anomaly" at all, until I made a new planetary system generation code.

Quote (smjjames)
Point taken. While the diamond planet might be a bit of an outlier, maybe increase the limit to 2500K to reflect what we have seen in real life?

Did you know, which uncertainty have that temperature value (2422K)? Despite on uncertainty in planet's orbit radius, star's surface radius and temerature, we know anything about planet's surface albedo, rotation rate and atmosphere. All these parameters affect temperature drastically. I would say, it's surface temperature is 2400 +/- 1000 K.

Quote (smjjames)
Anyways, what about the odd diameter gap that I have observed? There aren't any procedural planets between 2.5 and 4 Earth diameters. The masses are fine though as I've seen the whole range up to the 10 Earth mass threshold.

SE generates planets based on their mass, and then calculates radius according on some complex equations that takes into account the internal composition of a planet (amounts of iron/rock/ice). SE don't generate terrestrial planets massive than 10 Mearth. And according to these equations, surface radius of 10 Mearth planet is around ~2 for rocky world and ~3 for oceania. Real superearth planets probably appears bigger due to thick atmosphere, or maybe they are small neptunes. I'll made the mass ranges for terrestrial planets and neptunes overlapping, maybe this will solve the problem.





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 03:37 | Message # 485
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Collision is occurs because high eccentricity "anomaly" is generated after all tests.

What I was saying was that the tests should be done after the orbital elements are calculated (hence using PericenDist rather than SMA). If the test failed then SMA would need to be increased or eccentricity would need to be decreased. I don't know how easy that would be to implement though.





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, 20.10.2012, 04:05 | Message # 486
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
I'm looking on StarGen-like generation system, "semi-simulation". With some improvements, including modern knowledge, it would generate realistic systems.




 
smjjamesDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 04:30 | Message # 487
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Quote (smjjames)
Point taken. While the diamond planet might be a bit of an outlier, maybe increase the limit to 2500K to reflect what we have seen in real life?

Did you know, which uncertainty have that temperature value (2422K)? Despite on uncertainty in planet's orbit radius, star's surface radius and temerature, we know anything about planet's surface albedo, rotation rate and atmosphere. All these parameters affect temperature drastically. I would say, it's surface temperature is 2400 +/- 1000 K.


I had trouble understanding what you said initially due to grammar and missing words, but I get it now and I won't go all grammar nazi on ya smile Anyways, I was just stating what the article said the temperature was and it does seem on the high side to me.

Quote (SpaceEngineer)
Quote (smjjames)
Anyways, what about the odd diameter gap that I have observed? There aren't any procedural planets between 2.5 and 4 Earth diameters. The masses are fine though as I've seen the whole range up to the 10 Earth mass threshold.

SE generates planets based on their mass, and then calculates radius according on some complex equations that takes into account the internal composition of a planet (amounts of iron/rock/ice). SE don't generate terrestrial planets massive than 10 Mearth. And according to these equations, surface radius of 10 Mearth planet is around ~2 for rocky world and ~3 for oceania. Real superearth planets probably appears bigger due to thick atmosphere, or maybe they are small neptunes. I'll made the mass ranges for terrestrial planets and neptunes overlapping, maybe this will solve the problem.


Yeah, I do know that the threshold mass (more like critical mass) between a gas/ice giant and a rocky planet is at 10 Earth masses, but the procedural generation tends to avoid edging right up at the 10 earth mass threshold (like 9.9876 or 10.0123) and we have Neptune, a 17 Earth mass and 3.8 Earth diameter world. Also, since the mass isn't a problem since I'm seeing the full range, maybe make the diameters overlap (if possible), but I suppose having the masses overlap would also work as long as SE recognizes that 10 Earth masses and up is a gas/ice giant and everything below that is a rocky planet.

Plus there could very well be transitory planets that straddle the line around the transitory point which aren't true rocky planets, but they aren't true gas/ice giants either. Who knows what we will find out there.





 
ShnoogDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 14:27 | Message # 488
Observer
Group: Newbies
Australia
Messages: 4
Status: Offline
Not sure if it's the way i imported the ship or if it has already been reported but as you can see a planet's ring system clips in front of the ship model.

 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 17:56 | Message # 489
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4796
Status: Offline
It has already been reported.




 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 20.10.2012, 18:18 | Message # 490
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Hello Shnoog, and welcome to the forum. Please take a moment to read the forum rules.

Where did you get that nice model (Sovereign-class, yes)?





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
 
anonymousgamerDate: Sunday, 21.10.2012, 05:50 | Message # 491
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
Is this normal? (obviously not)


Attachments: 8158157.jpg(150Kb)





Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
apenpaapDate: Sunday, 21.10.2012, 11:15 | Message # 492
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
A brown giant? :O No, I'd say that's not normal XD




I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
 
anonymousgamerDate: Sunday, 21.10.2012, 13:25 | Message # 493
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
Quote (apenpaap)
A brown giant? :O No, I'd say that's not normal XD


I was screwing with star modding to see what I could come up with.

Then a brown dwarf shows up that looks really screwed up. It's scary looking.





Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
ShnoogDate: Sunday, 21.10.2012, 16:02 | Message # 494
Observer
Group: Newbies
Australia
Messages: 4
Status: Offline
Quote

Where did you get that nice model (Sovereign-class, yes)?


I ripped the model from the hw2 mod star wars warlords. The older version had a lot more ship models than the latest version of it. I think models were removed due to quality and unbalanced game play.
 
smjjamesDate: Wednesday, 24.10.2012, 18:08 | Message # 495
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
Has anybody noticed whether procedural yellow giant stars outside of globular clusters are often times G0 spectral class? Not sure if it's just me encountering a string of them today or if it's actually a bug, possibly related to the several billion year old blue main sequence bug that I found and Space Engineer fixed as these ones are several billion years old. One is 1.8 billion years old, two are about 5 billion, and one is 12 billion.

Maybe I'll wait until after the new build gets released since it could be the same bug as the one that got fixed.

Edit: Hrm, there is a single yellow giant star that is also a G0, but it's 156 million years old, so maybe it's not the same bug? I've also noticed that they're all about the same size, temperature and luminosity. Anyways, one bug at a time I guess....

Edit2: Okay, found a G0 giant with a 4.9 luminosity, since the other ones I had seen were about 2, that much of a jump should bump the number up at least one, right? Not sure what the scaling is that's used for giant star luminosity. Checking out a globular cluster to see what the numbers would be for higher spectral luminosity for yellow giants.

Edit4: Wait, the luminosity sequence for giants seems to be backwards?? I mean, for main sequence stars, the higher the spectral number, the lower the luminosity, however, for giants, it's in reverse and sometimes seems to be a bit all over the place...... I know the size and temperature plays into it, but something isn't making logical sense about the classification here..... Also the stars with luminosities of 1.5 (maybe? I don't know the exact starting point) to 10 should be subdwarfs, but I know SE doesn't support that for procedural stars yet.







Edited by smjjames - Wednesday, 24.10.2012, 18:44
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Bug Reports for Version 0.96 (Please post here any bugs you find in SpaceEngine)
Page 33 of 44«1231323334354344»
Search: