Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 15 of 69«1213141516176869»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
General suggestions
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 31.12.2013, 13:55 | Message # 211
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote RockoRocks ()
because it is so big it easily makes notepad crash

It has never caused any such problem for me. Use WordPad or download Notepad++ (for editing SE catalogs, I highly recommend Notepad++).





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
 
QuontexDate: Friday, 10.01.2014, 17:48 | Message # 212
Explorer
Group: Users
Australia
Messages: 155
Status: Offline
This is a rather simple suggestion for a button to return to parent object in te browser, been playing around with gas giants and its a pain to scroll through back to the planet.




 
midtskogenDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 21:23 | Message # 213
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1671
Status: Offline
May I suggest that SE prefer more featureless planets? It would not be so sexy, but likely more realistic. If we look at our own solar system, we have Venus, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune which are pretty featureless to look at in visible light. It seems likely that there are many "boring" worlds out there, but I find these pretty rare in SE.




NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 21:40 | Message # 214
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Venus is mostly featureless only because of its full cloud coverage, and even the clouds have some visible features. Its surface is not featureless. Saturn is not featureless; its features are somewhat low contrast, but it certainly has many notable and visible features. Titan's atmosphere is (mostly) featureless due to haze, but again, its surface is quite interesting and varied. Uranus is featureless only near solstice; at other times of year it has many clearly visible features. Neptune has never been observed to be featureless. It always has visible clouds and banded zones, like Uranus does for much of its year.

So I see no reason for "featureless" planets to be made more abundant, as we know of none that exist in reality. At most the way worlds are generated should be expanded and refined to produce a wider variety of results, and ones that more closely match reality, but it should be taken as a given that this will be done anyway.





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 - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 21:43
 
DeathStarDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 22:03 | Message # 215
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
HarbingerDawn, I think by featureless he actually meant featureless atmospheres, but as you said Neptune is not featureless at all.
 
midtskogenDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 22:24 | Message # 216
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1671
Status: Offline
I'm of course referring to features seen from space. I didn't say Venus etc are completely featureless, but pretty featureless. Relatively featureless, that is. They certainly have less features in SE than the random procedural planets and moons.

I realise now that "more featureless planets" is ambiguous. "More" as an adverb, not as an adjective. By it I meant planets that are more featureless (i.e. have less features, more often having opaque, uniform atmospheres), not more planets that have no features. It could have been written better.

EDIT: Half of the planets in our solar system look like this:


My point isn't that they're all featureless, but they certainly have fewer features than most procedural planets. Can anyone find a solar system in SE where half of the planets have as few features as these? Of course, our solar system might be one in a million, but until we know that, I think the assumption should be that it isn't.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 23:05
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 15.01.2014, 23:37 | Message # 217
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Basically what you mean is that some worlds should have features which are more complex and subtle. To which I reply with my earlier quote:

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
the way worlds are generated should be expanded and refined to produce a wider variety of results, and ones that more closely match reality, but it should be taken as a given that this will be done anyway.





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
 
neutronium76Date: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 12:34 | Message # 218
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
Just a few thoughts/Suggestions concerning SE0.9.7.1 game mode:

1. When flying with a spacecraft (game mode number ''4''), it would be useful if the engine used the celestial body with the predominant gravitational influence on the spacecraft as the reference body, and not calculate/select it based on the closest distance to it only. Or allow the user to select the desired reference body as before (a suggested reference body could be displayed as well based on the above)

2. When hyper-jumping to a selected object:

a) if the object is another spacecraft it would be handy to sync orbital parameters (velocity, eccentricity, inclination, etc..) with that spacecraft (especially useful when spacecraft is in low planetary orbit around a planet or massive object in general as current auto-sync with mass.object's velocity is impractical/useless).

b) if the object is a celestial body above a certain mass/gravity force it would be handy if the user-controlled spacecraft is put in auto-orbit around it. A dialog/menu could ask for desired orbit type: low, medium, high and/or desired eccentricity and inclination (sliders to adjust).

3. periapsis and apoapsis in altitude above surface and time to periapsis and apoapsis.

Added (16.01.2014, 15:34)
---------------------------------------------
Quote midtskogen ()
My point isn't that they're all featureless, but they certainly have fewer features than most procedural planets. Can anyone find a solar system in SE where half of the planets have as few features as these? Of course, our solar system might be one in a million, but until we know that, I think the assumption should be that it isn't.


Again midtskogen (and others) you (and we as a species I should say) are biased. Our solar system is just one drop in the ocean of space (actually much less than that). It should not be taken as a representative example of how planets in other star systems look like.
Also these wiki photos are all pretty low resolution and/or out of focus. Also our solar system planets in SE are based on limited resolution photos. I bet that if we were at the same distance looking at these planets with our won eyes (and provided we had good vision wink ) they would look much more detailed.
Also if we had a very high LOD map of venus (and even higher for earth, mars and mercury and the terrestrial moon of the gas&ice giants and our moon) they would look like the procedural worlds of SE. Just take a look at Mars from phobos altitude. Does it look featureless? I don't think so wink





PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2


Edited by neutronium76 - Thursday, 16.01.2014, 12:40
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 18:09 | Message # 219
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1671
Status: Offline
I would love to dive into the clouds of Jupiter and Saturn, and they would not be featureless. But that's beside the point. No, we don't know if our solar system represents the average solar system. Assuming that half or so of our planets aren't totally unique in the universe isn't really a bias, though, just a reasonable assumption.

Mars isn't featureless since we can see it's surface very well most of the time.

Another thing to consider in SE: While the list of stars with exoplanets is growing, the search for planets around several nearby stars has been fruitless meaning that planets over a certain size (reasonably close to the stars) are impossible around them. For stars with no known exoplanets, perhaps SE could use their distance to Earth to create an upper limit for procedurally generated stars? For instance, Barnard's star has a planet in 0.97.1 much greater than what we know is possible, and also Proxima Centrauri has a couple of huge planets in tight orbits which no doubt had been discovered a long time ago if anything like them had existed.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 18:45 | Message # 220
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote neutronium76 ()
2.

Hyperflight physics in SE aren't supposed to be like that. It's not just a "go-to" for spacecraft, it's supposed to preserve your velocity, so you still have to make corrections when you get there. SpaceEngineer has described the physics in more detail in a few places, and though this is just an alpha, I think it is supposed to use those same physical concepts.

Quote neutronium76 ()
I bet that if we were at the same distance looking at these planets with our won eyes (and provided we had good vision ) they would look much more detailed.

No. We have very good close-up photos of Venus and Titan from space, and they are quite bland-looking compared to many other objects. Titan especially, except for the poles, which have very interesting and dramatic vortex features. He was correct when he stated that there are a few places with little (atmospheric) detail..





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
 
neutronium76Date: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 20:17 | Message # 221
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
We have very good close-up photos of Venus and Titan from space


Can you provide evidence for that? Because as far as I know there is not a single high-detail image of these worlds...
Also these worlds are covered with clouds - I am refering to their geological features. The only pictures we have from their surface are from the russian venera missions for venus (which provide limited field of view but quite dramatic detail for their era) and from the descent of the Huyigens probe on titan which is more detailed but again obsured by Titan's atmospheric fog/haze and limited light (but fortunately the light scatering is enough to provide some dramatic details from the surface. So both Venus and Titan probably have very dramatic land features but their dense atmosphere and opaque cloud layers are obscuring our view.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Hyperflight physics in SE aren't supposed to be like that. It's not just a "go-to" for spacecraft, it's supposed to preserve your velocity, so you still have to make corrections when you get there


Yes you are correct. Sorry I forgot about preservation of initial inertia/momentum. However I am not sure if this is preseved in current version - probably it will be implemented in the future unsure





PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 21:29 | Message # 222
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1671
Status: Offline
Quote neutronium76 ()
Because as far as I know there is not a single high-detail image of these worlds...

What is high-detail to you?

Is this good enough?


Quote neutronium76 ()
Also these worlds are covered with clouds - I am refering to their geological features. The only pictures we have from their surface are from the russian venera missions for venus (which provide limited field of view but quite dramatic detail for their era) and from the descent of the Huyigens probe on titan which is more detailed but again obsured by Titan's atmospheric fog/haze and limited light (but fortunately the light scatering is enough to provide some dramatic details from the surface. So both Venus and Titan probably have very dramatic land features but their dense atmosphere and opaque cloud layers are obscuring our view.

Both Venus and Titan have been mapped by radar. The Pioneer Venus orbiter arrived in 1980 and used radar, and ten years later Magellan mapped the surface in great detail. Titan has been mapped by Cassini using radar.

Also, if you look in other parts of the spectrum, infrared or close, it's possible to see deeper into the clouds and even to the surface of Titan.

Here's one radar image from Titan:





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
neutronium76Date: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 21:34 | Message # 223
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
Quote midtskogen ()
Is this good enough?


No.

Quote midtskogen ()
Here's one radar image from Titan:


Now we are talking cool

Is this featureless for you?....
And Venus radar topographic map:

Featureless?





PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2


Edited by neutronium76 - Thursday, 16.01.2014, 21:52
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 21:51 | Message # 224
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1671
Status: Offline
Quote neutronium76 ()
No.

So you believe that if we get even closer all kinds of fantastic features will appear?
Quote neutronium76 ()
Is this featureless for you?....

I thought it was pretty clear from the discussion above that the features in questions were those visible from space in visible light.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
neutronium76Date: Thursday, 16.01.2014, 21:57 | Message # 225
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
Quote midtskogen ()
I thought it was pretty clear from the discussion above that the features in questions were those visible from space in visible light.


I thought that you were talking about surface features. Anyway, until we get extremely high topographic maps for all solar system planets, procedural planet features in SE will always make them more attractive than real ones smile





PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
Page 15 of 69«1213141516176869»
Search: