RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 24 of 69«1222232425266869»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
General suggestions
FastFourierTransformDate: Wednesday, 27.08.2014, 13:01 | Message # 346
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 542
Status: Offline
Quote oregano ()
Optional 4X game aspect


eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate

This is exatly what we should avoid as I explained here. But I agree that, if this is unavoidable, this should be done with very accurate scientific background descriptions (and this is a difficult task, we would be so close to reality as Huygens when he scientifically predicted that XVII century european dressed alien-like humans were traversing the space beetwen the Jovian moons, or would be such an accurate program as to predict Venusian Dinosaurs and vegetation in the best case)

I have a very general suggestion about this issue:

There could be two softwares developed on the architecture of Space Engine. One for every general point of view as how this should be done. By now SE is a Science Planetarium with some game features that will be integrated in a final real game, but with time you will see that we tend to a game (beyond version 1.0 probably). Then we would have to split the game to accomodate the forms:

- Space Engine for Science (SES for now), would be an extremely accurate planetarium, showing all kind of phenomena backed with scientific papers and research on them (an unlimited amount of features to implement by the years). It would have a sober display (without all that gameish buttons and with a more informative and scientific HUD) with elegant structure. All the spaceships would be erased for SES and every aspect of the software would be elliminated if is not focused on the realism of the program and if it is unnecessary for the science part of SE.

- Space Engine Game (SEG for now), would be built on the architecture (engine) of SES and would add all the game part to the program: colonial empires, expansion of economic industries based on an immaginary mineral resource, chasing an interstellar criminal, killing other alien beings, exterminating or surviving the extermination, blowing up planets, cultivating food and developing a commercial traffic between galaxies, sucking exospheres for fuel, playing inside a dynastic strife in a galactic game of thrones (like in Star Wars, Dune, ect...), or simply fighting with other spacecrafts like in a combat flight simulator but located in space (No Man's Sky, Star Treck, Star Citizen, Elite ect...), trying to be the Globular Cluster Tycoon and other kind of extremely antropocentric and fun playable features.

Why splitting?

- SES is a Science Planetarium that can be used for eduactional purpouses. It would be a very usefull tool for making documentaries, conferences or planetarium shows, also is a good tool for teachers and for developing inside children's mind some concepts of science or to impress people with the vastness and diversity of the universe. Or maybe just to do some artisitcal work on it. SES would be as Starry Night or Redshift, predicting software but in a much greater scale and with other porpouses. It could inspire many people to do science, and would inspire scientist to change their perspective on some matters only by seen what the equations are telling us to be confident with the real dynamical aspect of the universe and the interconnection of different phenomena. Or it may be usefull for all the people that only what to explore in the relaxing vastness of space after work or university. SES would be aprovved and supported by scientist that would add new papers and scientific discoveries to the gallery of things that SES would shown.

- SEG is far more popular than the SES concept and because of that it has to be done separatedly, many people just want to play or to write novels based on what life they encounter on the game. The vast majority of people (even inside this forum) want something like this por Space Engine (even Vladimir I think).
Even if SEG could be free it would increase enormously the number of SE's followers and consequently the number of donations every month. SEG is necessary for financially support both SE's creations and to make people happy, but SES is necessary to make it something respectable and to give to this project immortality and accademic follow up and usage.

The splitting would not be a difficult task because SEG would be based on the SES's code in nearly every aspect (maybe SEG should be a very special and complex addon like Oregano has said)

It's important to talk about a splitting because by now we can make that decission. I don't want SE to become a game without knowing I can use it to explain others what I'm learning at University about Astrophysics. And I don't want an exquisitly accurate piece of art to be intoxicated by antropocentric space-combat-colonial empire shooting game bias if there is no option to have a pure Science and Education software.

What do you think? Is this possible for the time to make that decission?

By the way. Welcome to the forum oregano smile


Edited by FastFourierTransform - Wednesday, 27.08.2014, 13:03
 
DeathStarDate: Wednesday, 27.08.2014, 17:04 | Message # 347
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
No offense, but I don't get why you hate the idea of 4X so much.

First of all, SE will have a planetarium mode like now, completely seperate from the 4X game, which you can completely ignore if you wish to.

Second, SE isn't really planned to have huge space battles and planetary conquest(that's not the priority right now, at least) and it will mostly just be you, going around and colonising, researching and exploiting for resources.

Third, it would be extremely impractical to explore space for research without some kind of resource exploitation and colonies. Every time you would run out of fuel, for example, you'd have to go back home, essentially highly limiting how much the player can explore.

Fourth, I personally think that it would be unrealistic not to have colonisation/exploitation systems. Virtually any space-faring civilization would most likely want to expand to other planets for safety and resources - any civilization of this technological advancement would most likely need a lot of resource, some of which would probably be too scarce on their homeworld.

Ultimately, in my honest opinion, this split is completely unnecessary.
 
SplendyDate: Saturday, 30.08.2014, 19:03 | Message # 348
Observer
Group: Newbies
United Kingdom
Messages: 1
Status: Offline
Imagine if this amazing game was for mac. cool You should try to make it suitable for mac by making the folder a .jar folder! smile

Please do this because I run a mac. victory
 
DeathStarDate: Saturday, 30.08.2014, 19:12 | Message # 349
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
Read.the.faq.
 
werdnaforeverDate: Saturday, 30.08.2014, 21:37 | Message # 350
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Quote Splendy ()
Imagine if this amazing game was for mac. cool You should try to make it suitable for mac by making the folder a .jar folder! smile

Please do this because I run a mac. victory

Quote DeathStar ()
Read.the.faq.

Quote werdnaforever ()
Since most new users seem to head straight for the forum to make their suggestions without reading the FAQ, the best way to avoid redundant threads and suggestions would be to have a giant link to the FAQ at the index page of the forum. It should be the first thing there, before any of the categories.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Especially if it has words like WARNING or BAN emphasized somewhere in there.

(...or shorter version of rules on rules page as Harb suggested)



Maybe actual text would be better though, since non-native (or non-English) speakers can actually translate it to their own language.

Attachments: 4731816.png(27Kb) · 4731893.png(26Kb)


Edited by werdnaforever - Saturday, 30.08.2014, 22:38
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Saturday, 30.08.2014, 23:03 | Message # 351
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote werdnaforever ()
...or shorter version of rules on rules page as Harb suggested

http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/0-0-0-36





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
 
werdnaforeverDate: Saturday, 30.08.2014, 23:37 | Message # 352
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/0-0-0-36

Looks great! I think the last two sentences should be in yellow due to their importance.
 
bagra4uDate: Monday, 01.09.2014, 14:10 | Message # 353
Observer
Group: Newbies
Pirate
Messages: 3
Status: Offline
Hi.
As you can see I'm new here.
SpaceEngine is fabulous program and I'm blessed to cross my (virtual) path with it. smile
I got one question though, and if it's silly... just tell me.
Gently. biggrin
Can we have, beside all the others data - and escape velocity speed for (selected) space body ?
Maybe you'll feel that that's not important but since I often fly near surface, I got myself very often thinkg "oh, with this speed, would I reach the orbit, would I escape, or would I just hit the ground?" I think, imho, it would be cool to match that speed when flying low. There would be many surprises, since many bodies have big diameter but low mass etc...
It must be mentioned that I "fly" with just camera panning around and not with real ships, I'm not sure would they... solve this... problem by themselves, I mean their mass, energy vs gravity thing, you know, but I really love to just "fly" on my own way. Ships, in a way, blocking my view you know. biggrin
Thanks for reading everyone.


Edited by bagra4u - Monday, 01.09.2014, 15:07
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 01.09.2014, 17:04 | Message # 354
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
That information is already there: open the "wiki" information screen, using the left control panel or the [I] key. Go to the "Physical" screen. At the bottom, 1st cosmic velocity is orbital speed at the surface, and 2nd cosmic velocity is escape velocity at the surface.




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
 
bagra4uDate: Monday, 01.09.2014, 19:58 | Message # 355
Observer
Group: Newbies
Pirate
Messages: 3
Status: Offline
Oh it's already there. umnik
I should have know. Just that it wasn't too... shinny and I was too lazy to dig deeper so....
Thank you HD. I'm looking forward for some newly found entertainment in SE.


Edited by bagra4u - Monday, 01.09.2014, 20:00
 
SalvoDate: Wednesday, 03.09.2014, 08:24 | Message # 356
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
What about adding a black atmosphere to black holes to make them more smooth? rolleyes
Just a random idea came to my mind a while ago.





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Wednesday, 03.09.2014, 19:43 | Message # 357
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4799
Status: Offline
Why them must be smooth? This have no physical sense.




 
VeteinDate: Thursday, 04.09.2014, 00:16 | Message # 358
Observer
Group: Newbies
Brazil
Messages: 2
Status: Offline
I have a suggestion, a simple one.
You know, for example when you are in the bottom of the ocean and its very dark, so it would be good if we could have, like a "lantern" of something like this to iluminate.
Its very boring going to the Settings all the time and put more shining.
Thats my idea, its simple and a little stupid but it would be cool. wink
 
FastFourierTransformDate: Thursday, 04.09.2014, 01:30 | Message # 359
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 542
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
Why them must be smooth? This have no physical sense.


When I saw Salvo's message I thinked the same but with a bit of mental juggling I'm starting to consider the idea quite logical.

Space Engine accounts for geometrical distortion of light near the black hole but doesn't account for the wavelength distortions of light. Near the black hole, the light losses more energy. To arrive to our eyes it has been redshifted. In fact the engine should consider this changes in the frequency of light sooner or later. I suppose that the issue is a lot more complicated that what I'm going to say but maybe what Salvo said has somo truth in it.
From our point of view, the light sources that are near (near angularly) from the boundary of the black hole have to be more redshifted that the other sources. If we get the light source closer to the boundary the redshift is so high that light from stars enters the infrarred and then microwaves and so on. That passage from deep red to infrared must be like a gradient that makes light intensity vanish like if there where a black athmosphere around the black hole. I don't know what are the proportions, or if this is totally negligible and we can see only a sharp black edge for the black hole but is interesting to learn about this because maybe all the usual pictures of black holes are a bit non-rigorous.
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 04.09.2014, 04:04 | Message # 360
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
I was under the impression he meant to make the solid black circle part of the black hole (what people generally think of as being the event horizon, but it actually isn't) a more smooth in appearance. It should be a perfect circle, but graphics make it seem pixelated or aliased. Perhaps introducing a black atmosphere effect could improve the appearance.

At least that's what I think he's suggesting anyway. And I'm not sure how a black atmosphere could be used to simulate gravitational redshift. Light climbing out of the gravity well is redshifted, but light falling into it is blue shifted, as seen from perspective of a stationary observer. For an observer looking at a background object behind the hole, there is no shift at all because the two effects cancel each other.





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
Page 24 of 69«1222232425266869»
Search: