|
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
|
|
| midtskogen | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 19:10 | Message # 151 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| Well, there could be hydrocarbon terra/oceania and water terra/oceania, and terra/oceania alone would simply be lazy shorts for water terra/oceania. That would also solve my concern that "terra" contradictively implies water.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 19:23 | Message # 152 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (midtskogen) That would also solve my concern that "terra" contradictively implies water.
Terra is the Latin name for Earth. As in many languages the same word can be used to mean dirt/soil/land, but in the context of planet-classification - the subject of this discussion - the dominant meaning of the word terra is "Earth-like". Therefore there is no contradiction, and I don't see how it should be confusing.
Also, using the terra label for titans too would not change the fact that it refers to planets with liquids, thus it does not address your complaint.
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
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 20:06 | Message # 153 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| While many languages might borrow the Latin word for "land" as a name for "Earth", in Latin "terra" really means "land" (as opposed to the ocean) rather than "Earth". The proper Latin for the Earth as a planet is "orbis terrarum" - "the circle of the lands" (besides "tellus"). But semantics aside, what I try to propose is something more orthogonal and with fewer names, so:
Water terra (or terra for short): World with surface water and dry land
Water oceania (or oceania for short): World completely covered by water
Hydrocarbon terra: World with liquid hydrocarbons on the surface and dry land
Hydrocarbon oceania: World completely covered by liquid hydrocarbons
I do not attempt fully to address every weakness of the current naming system.
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 20:13 | Message # 154 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| I feel that the fact that the "dry land" in the hydrocarbon scenario is actually ice needs to be addressed. Also, I don't see that this addresses many if any of the shortcomings of the current naming system, and introduces quite a few new ones. Until we completely overhaul the current system we should try to stay within the pattern it has established, otherwise it will become a mess.
World classes should be made as single-word names unless it is absolutely impossible or impractical (such as with ice worlds and gas/ice giants). They should also be both descriptive and good-sounding. I agree that titan should be changed. So let's try to come up with names for both that fit within the current system.
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
|
| |
| |
| midtskogen | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 21:46 | Message # 155 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1674
Status: Offline
| I don't think a shortcoming of English, which is bad at making compounds, should be too instructive. So the single word requirement is more a nice to have thing IMO.
It might also be worth considering the implications of the different suggestions in other languages. For instance, the German translation of oceania is Wasserplanet, which works fine now, but wouldn't work in my system (Kohlenwasserstoffwasserplanet?). Wasserplanet would have to change into something like Ozeanplanet, and then hydrocarbon oceania could be rendered as Kohlenwasserstoffozeanplanet (phew) - unless people here who unlike me actually knows German have more eloquent suggestions.
EDIT: Wasserozeanplanet sounds corny, but Wasserplanet could be considered a more convenient short as oceania is for water oceania.
Organia, while slightly odd, might work in English because English likes to coin new words (perhaps to compensate for the reluctance to form compounds). But organia sounds really odd in other languages, like German, in my opinion (likewise, Wasserplanet works better than Oceania).
NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
Edited by midtskogen - Thursday, 06.06.2013, 21:52 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 21:50 | Message # 156 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| We may use word "terran", like here http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
This is a word describing a mass/size of the planet. Thier classification is based on 5 mass classes (mercurian, subterran, terran, superterran, neptunian, jovian) and 3 temperature classes (hot, warm, cold):
http://www.hpcf.upr.edu/~abel/phl/PT_Confirmed.jpg
(forum breaks the link)
I like a classes "subterran" and "superterran", and looking for a way to introduce them in SE. However, these class names would be pronounced wierd in Russian (literally "sub earth" and "super earth").
So maybe using in SE a separate mass and surface classes instead of a single one? Anyway we use a separate class for temperature already.
There may be several variants for mass class:
Selena - Subterra - Terra - Superterra - Ice Giant - Gas Giant
Selena - Subterra - Terra - Superterra - Subgiant - Giant - Supergiant (for brown dwarves?)
Selenial - Subterran - Terran - Superterran - Neptunian - Jovian - Superjovian (for brown dwarves?)
Surface classes:
Dusty - Dry - Wet - Icy - Hydrocarbonian
Dusty - Arid - Humid - Glacial - Petrol 
Surface class is a vague thing. Earth have all 4 first types of surface. Mars is Dusty and Icy. Tidal locked oceania may be Wet and Icy.
I'm confused.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 22:01 | Message # 157 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| The names of the classes do not need to translate literally into other languages. A good-sounding name which expresses the same concept is sufficient. This already exists to an extent. For example, the temperature class we call "frozen" is actually "cryogenic" when translated from the Russian version, but we did not use that for English since too few people are familiar with the word, so we had to choose a different word. Things will not always translate perfectly, nor do they have to.
Quote (SpaceEngineer) I like a classes "subterran" and "superterran", and looking for a way to introduce them in SE.
I don't like this system. Using Earth as an arbitrary benchmark to describe characteristics of other planets with is a very lazy and terracentric way of doing things. There must be a better way.
Really we should describe planets only by their surface conditions and bulk composition (all other info, such as size/mass relative to Earth, are given in the HUD and so don't need to be included in the classification titles). Since SE does not calculate the second one yet, we should focus just on good ways to describe worlds by their surface conditions.
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, 06.06.2013, 22:02 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 22:50 | Message # 158 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| We may use more classes to describe surface type, ocean type, atmospheric conditions, and some additional words to mark a worlds with an ocean under surface ("sub-oceanic"), tidal-locked, with life etc. But would it sound good?
Here I use 10 mass classes:
asteroid - subselena - selena - superselena - subterra - terra - superterra - subgiant - giant - supergiant
7 temperature classes:
scorched - hot - warm - temperate - cool - cold - frozen
4 surface classes (not used for bodies fully covered with ocean):
metallic - carbonic - rocky - icy
4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies):
arid - laky - marine - oceanic
3 ocean composition classes (not used for airless bodies):
lava - water - organic
5 atmosphere pressure classes (not used for giants):
airless - hypobaric - mesobaryc - hyperbaric
Additional words:
tidal-locked, volcanic, subsurface, habitable
Planets:
Warm airless arid rocky superselena (Mercury)
Warm hyperbaryc arid rocky terra (Venus)
Temperate mesobaryc water-marine rocky habitable terra (Earth)
Cool hypobaric arid rocky subterra (Mars)
Cold giant (Jupiter, Saturn)
Frozen subgiant (Uranus, Neptune)
Dwarf planets:
Cold airless icy subselena (Ceres)
Frozen hypobaric arid icy subselena (Pluto)
Moons:
Temperate airless rocky selena (Moon)
Cold hypobaric arid rocky volcanic selena (Io)
Cold airless water-subsurface-oceanic icy selena (Europa)
Cold airless icy superselena (Ganymede, Callisto)
Frozen mesobaryc organic-laky icy superselena (Titan)
Frozen hypobaric arid icy subselena (Triton)
Worlds not replresented in the Solar System:
Temperate hyperbaryc water-oceanic habitable superterra (Some big oceania with life)
Cold mesobaryc water-subsurface-marine icy terra with life (The snowball Earth)
Cold hyperbaryc organic-oceanic icy superterra (Super-titan fully covered with ocean)
Cold mesobaryc water-subsurface-oceanic organic-marine icy subterra (titan with hydrocarbonic seas and subsurface water ocean)
Temperate mesobaryc organic-marine carbon terra (Diamond planet)
Scorched mesobaryc lava-marine rocky tidal-locked terra (Alpha Centauri B b)
Scorched hypobaryc lava-marine metallic superterra (Planet near a pulsar)
|
| |
| |
| apenpaap | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:05 | Message # 159 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
| That sounds like a good system, though the eventual planet descriptions end up being a rather long string of words.
Quote (SpaceEngineer) 4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies):
arid - laky - marine - oceanic
Personally, I would use semi-arid or something like that over laky, which just sounds odd to me.
I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
|
| |
| |
| Voekoevaka | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:07 | Message # 160 |
 World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
| Adding ammonia as a possible ocean should be great.
The names will be to long, what about separating these in different tags, for example :
Planet RS-...
Class Warm Terra
Ocean Water
Surface Rocky and Icy
...
Edit : there could be a confusion with "habitable". When a world is habitable, there is not necessary life.
Want some music of mine ? Please go here !
Edited by Voekoevaka - Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:08 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:14 | Message # 161 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Voekoevaka) The names will be to long, what about separating these in different tags, for example :
This is a good idea, it might work. But it makes an info table much more long:)
Quote (Voekoevaka) Edit : there could be a confusion with "habitable". When a world is habitable, there is not necessary life.
Maybe inhabited then?
|
| |
| |
| Voekoevaka | Date: Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:20 | Message # 162 |
|
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Maybe inhabited then?
In my opinion, inhabitable worlds should be not marked (as now).
When it is habitable, but there is no life, it should be written just "habitable".
But when there is life, there's no need to write "habitable" (because it is already habitable), so you can write "with life".
About new tags, I suggest :
Class = [tidal-locked] [volcanic] [habitable] temperature(scorched/.../frozen) + mass(asteroid/.../supergiant) [with life]
Surface = metallic/icy/rocky(silicon dioxide)/carbonic
Ocean = Water/Hydrocarbon/Ammonia/Lava/...
Liquid coverage = Arid/Laky/Marine/Oceanic
[Subterran ocean = Water/Hydrocarbon/Ammonia/...]
[] means optional.
Atmosphere pressure class is not a priority in my opinion ; there's already the value of pressure that gives all the information to find an atmospheric class.
So we have 5 tags instead of 1...
So it makes :
Earth :
Class : Temperate Terra with Life
Surface : Rocky/Icy
Ocean : Water
Liquid Coverage : Marine
Titan :
Class : Frozen Subterra
Surface : Icy
Ocean : Hydrocarbons
Liquid Coberage : Laky
Europa :
Class : Cold Ice World
Surface : Icy
Subterran Ocean : Water
Io :
Class : Cold Volcanic Selena
Surface : Icy/Rocky/Sulphuric?
Encelade :
Class : Cold Cryovolcanic Ice World
Surface : Icy
Subterran Ocean : Water
Jupiter :
Class : Cold Giant
Neptune :
Class : Frozen Subgiant
CoRoT-7 b :
Class : Scorched Volcanic? Superterra
Surface : Rocky/Metallic?
Ocean : Lava
Liquid Coverage : ?
...
Want some music of mine ? Please go here !
Edited by Voekoevaka - Thursday, 06.06.2013, 23:44 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Friday, 07.06.2013, 01:36 | Message # 163 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I'm not sure how I feel about specifying if a planet is habitable (but not inhabited), since it begs the question of what makes a planet habitable. This is still an open question in science.
If the presence of liquid surface water is the only requirement then all terras in Space Engine are potentially habitable, but of course reality is more complex and we should also consider chemistry, the availability of elements / complex organic molecules, and various other things, which aren't currently modeled. The current method of taking some percentage of terras and giving them life seems to be the best solution at present.
I like Voekoevaka's idea of splitting the classifications into multiple lines, rather than having one long string of words. One change I would make to it is have the lines for Liquid Composition and Coverage combined together, e.g. "Laky Hydrocarbons" for Titan, and "Marine Water" for Earth.
Describing the surface composition does seem like the most challenging part, especially for planets like Earth. I have some ideas floating around in my brain but I've yet to form them into any solid, consistent (or even sensical) picture. 
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 07.06.2013, 05:26 | Message # 164 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) 5 atmosphere pressure classes (not used for giants):
You only listed 4 
Also, I agree with Voekoevaka, I don't think these are necessary. If we are going to have a lot of tags like this, then I think each should have its own line on the info table, which would make it very long. For planet classes displayed the way we do it now we should try to make it less than 4 words long (excluding the "with life" tag).
Quote (SpaceEngineer) Here I use 10 mass classes
Why have a mass class? It doesn't seem to make much sense as it does not describe very well the surface or interior of the planet, and we already have mass in the info table.
Also, your choices for listing masses relative to Earth and the Moon make the system very terracentric and arbitrary. I think that in SE we should try to stay away from that.
Quote (SpaceEngineer) 4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies)
This would require SE to analyze the liquid coverage of procedural worlds, which might require generating a specular map and analyzing it, or something else. Planet generation times would probably increase.
Also, laky is not a good word, or even a real word as far as I know. But we can figure out the best words after we figure out the system
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
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Friday, 07.06.2013, 08:40 | Message # 165 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) We may use more classes to describe surface type, ocean type, atmospheric conditions, and some additional words to mark a worlds with an ocean under surface ("sub-oceanic"), tidal-locked, with life etc. But would it sound good?
Here I use 10 mass classes:
asteroid - subselena - selena - superselena - subterra - terra - superterra - subgiant - giant - supergiant
7 temperature classes:
scorched - hot - warm - temperate - cool - cold - frozen
4 surface classes (not used for bodies fully covered with ocean):
metallic - carbonic - rocky - icy
4 ocean coverage classes (not used for airless bodies):
arid - laky - marine - oceanic
3 ocean composition classes (not used for airless bodies):
lava - water - organic
5 atmosphere pressure classes (not used for giants):
airless - hypobaric - mesobaryc - hyperbaric
Additional words:
tidal-locked, volcanic, subsurface, habitable
I'm a bit late, but I really like this new kind of classification, mainly for subterran/superterran/subgiant... stuff that it's pretty common, also, now we have a wiki, so even if we use mass-classes rather than surface-classes we can still keep the old one in the wiki 
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...)
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Norway 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Antarctica 
France 
Italy 
