|
Addon Development Thread
|
|
| NovaSilisko | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 00:43 | Message # 196 |
 Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
| I can't find any reference to the stellar classification of Kepler-69, nor its distance. I'm seeing conflicting figures, 2700 lightyears on wikipedia, 1,040 ly on a NYT article... The kepler catalog page lacks both of these parameters as well.
Edit: The official NASA article says 2700, so let's go with that. Still need the spectral class though.
Edit 2: I'll just go with G since it's said to be nearly identical to the sun.
Edit 3: Nice view of the galaxy from K69
Edit 4: nevermind, I forgot SE uses parsecs not lightyears, so it's much farther away than it should be 
Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:00 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:05 | Message # 197 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (NovaSilisko) I can't find any reference to the stellar classification of Kepler-69
That information was in the post I made about the system, and in the article I linked from the post.
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
|
| |
| |
| NovaSilisko | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:24 | Message # 198 |
|
Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
| <-- basically blind 
Anywho, there aren't any documented eccentricity values for K62's planets, so I've added some of my own (nothing too extreme)
K-69b is a gas dwarf like SE's rendition of K-22b, while K69c is a thickly atmosphere'd ocean planet.
I'm letting SE determine the masses based on the planet classification, as the mass values given are Maximum Mass, and as such are quite on the high end. I'd rather let SE calculate it than guess myself and be beyond wrong.
Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:28 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:33 | Message # 199 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (NovaSilisko) there aren't any documented eccentricity values for K62's planets, so I've added some of my own
Any values that are not known should be left as zero (this is the standard adhered to in the exoplanet catalog). You can still customize it if you want, of course, but then it would be in conflict with the 0.97 exoplanet catalog when it is released.
EDIT: There are eccentricity values for Kepler-62's planets... http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
Quote (NovaSilisko) I'm letting SE determine the masses based on the planet classification
You should not input a planet classification. Simply input the radius and the mass and classification will be determined procedurally (unless I have forgotten something).
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, 19.04.2013, 01:36 |
| |
| |
| NovaSilisko | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:39 | Message # 200 |
|
Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
| Well, what should be done for the mass then? Using the maximum mass is a bad idea, since SE will try to generate things based off an absolute high-end estimate, instead of a more realistic value.
For example, K62c, 0.54 earth radii, max mass of 5 earth masses... that's insane. What could it possibly be made of?
For that matter, K62f's max mass is 50 earth masses, which would be a density of 98 g/cc, over ten times that of earth.
Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:42 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 01:59 | Message # 201 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (NovaSilisko) Using the maximum mass is a bad idea, since SE will try to generate things based off an absolute high-end estimate, instead of a more realistic value.
Do not input mass if it is not available, just put radius. No mass, no planet class, just radius. Let SE decide the rest on its own. See the exoplanet.sc catalog for examples if you want to see what works (and how little you really need).
Quote (NovaSilisko) What could it possibly be made of?
Must be unobtainium. Pack up the ISV.
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
|
| |
| |
| NovaSilisko | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 02:01 | Message # 202 |
|
Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
| Alright, just parent name, radius, and orbit params then. On it.
Edit: Interestingly, the density given on that catalog for K62c is higher than that of the center of the sun. Either the numbers or off or we're looking at a REALLY strange object.
Edit 2: There's another issue, the inclination in SE is relative to the star, while the inclination given in kepler data is relative to the sky itself... what should the values be? I'm just rotating them by 90 degrees (ex. kepler inc of 89.5 becomes 0.5 degrees)
I suppose it doesn't matter too much, though...
Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 19.04.2013, 02:15 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 09:35 | Message # 203 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (NovaSilisko) There's another issue, the inclination in SE is relative to the star, while the inclination given in kepler data is relative to the sky itself...
Input the inclination listed by NASA.
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
|
| |
| |
| NovaSilisko | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 09:45 | Message # 204 |
|
Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
| I'm just worried that it's interpreted incorrectly, see the note on the kepler page here:
Quote *** The inclination is the tilt of the orbital plane of the planet with respect to the plane of the sky, so 90 degrees is viewing the planet's orbit edge-on. All transiting planets with long-period orbits have this inclination very close to 90 degrees, and even close-in transiting planets have inclinations above ~ 80 degrees.
From what I can tell, it's not the actual inclination relative to a given reference point (ex. the star's equator, or another planet's orbit), but the apparent angle to the viewer. From what I can discern, SE uses the star's rotation axis as a reference plane, which would result in incorrect angles when given the inclinations on that chart (also the interesting prospect of a planet being in a circular polar orbit around a star)
Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 19.04.2013, 09:55 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 11:22 | Message # 205 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (NovaSilisko) it's not the actual inclination relative to a given reference point but the apparent angle to the viewer.
Yes
Quote (NovaSilisko) From what I can discern, SE uses the star's rotation axis as a reference plane
I don't know what SE uses for reference, but it does not seem to be the star's equatorial plane. Nor does it seem to be the ecliptic. It's strange.
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
|
| |
| |
| Darkcloak | Date: Friday, 19.04.2013, 18:17 | Message # 206 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 73
Status: Offline
| Quote (Shnoog) The Death Star 2 still needs a lot of work. I have only mapped one of about 10 textures so it looks pretty bad. However you can get an idea of the scale of it compared to the ships at least.
So, I downloaded that Death Star 2 model, as well. However, try what I may, I can't make the thing show up in game. Not with any texture whatsoever. No matter what I do, it crashes SE like a caffeine addict quitting cold turkey. Would you mind letting us know how you got it to show up? It's likely my lack of knowledge of 3D modeling: I wouldn't know if it's even UV mapped. Silly me. 
|
| |
| |
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Saturday, 20.04.2013, 00:16 | Message # 207 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| Quote (Darkcloak) I can't make the thing show up in game.
Import the obj as a single mesh, export then add to SE. You may also want to reorient the model in editing software because it isn't centered. I already have it setup for when 97 is out so you might as well wait until then.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
|
| |
| |
| Darkcloak | Date: Saturday, 20.04.2013, 00:26 | Message # 208 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 73
Status: Offline
| Quote (DoctorOfSpace) Import the obj as a single mesh, export then add to SE. You may also want to reorient the model in editing software because it isn't centered. I already have it setup for when 97 is out so you might as well wait until then.
I tried...er... actually... when I tried to go look at the OBJ in Milkshape... it comes up empty. There is no other working download link on that site, either. I've looked. Every other Death Star II I've downloaded comes up with having too many faces.
|
| |
| |
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Saturday, 20.04.2013, 00:33 | Message # 209 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| Quote (Darkcloak) There is no other working download link on that site, either
I downloaded this one
http://animium.com/2008/07/deathstar/
Was able to get it in game just fine.
Quote (Darkcloak) Every other Death Star II I've downloaded comes up with having too many faces.
I had that same issue with every other model including the one from Orbiter.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
|
| |
| |
| Darkcloak | Date: Saturday, 20.04.2013, 00:37 | Message # 210 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 73
Status: Offline
| Hmm, yep. That's the one I got. For whatever reason, at least in Milkshape, the obj file comes up empty. I've no way to check the .max file. I'm sure it's a problem on my end, though. I'll keep working at it. Thanks for the help! 
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Pirate