|
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
|
|
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 00:57 | Message # 196 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer (  ) arid - semiarid - marine - oceanic - global
This could be something like
arid, semi-arid, humid, and oceanic.
Perhaps this could be of some use when doing climates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
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
|
| |
| |
| AiioFlux | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 01:03 | Message # 197 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 32
Status: Offline
| This looks much more comprehensive. I just can't wait to fly around the more diverse universe with all of these! (Sorry this isn't a very useful comment, I just love space engine)
You are now breathing manually..
|
| |
| |
| FastFourierTransform | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 13:26 | Message # 198 |
 Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 542
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) dwarf - subterra - terra - superterra - ice giant - gas giant - supergiant
Thats definetly the most accurate classification of size.
By the way, this is only for displaying information? or this is also the classification of different types of planets that the engine would render? because if is the second case I think this need more planet variations to generate.
|
| |
| |
| Tac1017 | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 15:16 | Message # 199 |
 Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 167
Status: Offline
| I was thinking of calling Ice Giants Gas dwarfs...
The Terra Hunter of the Milky Way!
(By the way, I was born in 2001, NOT 1972 XD)
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 15:40 | Message # 200 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote FastFourierTransform ( ) By the way, this is only for displaying information? or this is also the classification of different types of planets that the engine would render? because if is the second case I think this need more planet variations to generate.
No. This system will be implemented with the new star system generator. It will model formation and evolution of the system, operating balls of various materials (iron, rocks, water, hydrogen etc). After complete, it will calculate surface composition, atmosphere composition, climate and trying to classify the final body. Unlike current generator, which generates planet class first (ie terra, desert, ice giant etc), and then trying to compute its surface appearance.
|
| |
| |
| RockoRocks | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 16:11 | Message # 201 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Belgium
Messages: 674
Status: Offline
| Quote Tac1017 ( ) I was thinking of calling Ice Giants Gas dwarfs...
This would not make sense because Ice Giants are not neccesarily smaller than Gas Giants. The name 'Gas dwarf' would imply otherwise.
I will be inactive on this forum for the time being. Might come back eventually
AMD AR-3305M APU w/ Radeon HD 1.90 GHz 6,00 GB RAM
|
| |
| |
| DeathStar | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 19:51 | Message # 202 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Croatia
Messages: 515
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) No. This system will be implemented with the new star system generator. It will model formation and evolution of the system, operating balls of various materials (iron, rocks, water, hydrogen etc). After complete, it will calculate surface composition, atmosphere composition, climate and trying to classify the final body. Unlike current generator, which generates planet class first (ie terra, desert, ice giant etc), and then trying to compute its surface appearance.
How in-depth would these simulations actually be? Would it also simulate gravitational interactions during the evolution of the system, i.e. there will be planetoids in orbital resonances with large gas giants, not because the generator just said so, but because it was the result of the simulation of the evolution of the system? I am assuming this will be in.
Will it take into account the collisions between bodies during simulation? For example, a large crater on the surface of a planet be due to an actual collision with an asteroid during the simulation. Or will a moon around a rocky planet be the result of an impact of another large body during the early history of the planet(Giant impact hypothesis)? I am also assuming this will be taken into account.
|
| |
| |
| Inarius | Date: Sunday, 17.08.2014, 21:28 | Message # 203 |
 Explorer
Group: Local Moderators
France
Messages: 237
Status: Offline
| What about Encelade or Mars ? Life on Europe is not 100% sure, (or do I missed something ?)
The classification for planets seems fine, what about comets, or meteorites ? Sometimes the difference between some dwarf planets (such as Ceres) and biggest meteorites is not very clear...
|
| |
| |
| NickWaterfall | Date: Tuesday, 02.09.2014, 15:00 | Message # 204 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 23
Status: Offline
| Quote RockoRocks ( ) This would not make sense because Ice Giants are not neccesarily smaller than Gas Giants. The name 'Gas dwarf' would imply otherwise.
The largest ice giant in SE is smaller than the smallest gas giant in SE.
|
| |
| |
| FastFourierTransform | Date: Tuesday, 02.09.2014, 16:06 | Message # 205 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 542
Status: Offline
| Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) This system will be implemented with the new star system generator.
Quote SpaceEngineer ( ) Unlike current generator, which generates planet class first (ie terra, desert, ice giant etc), and then trying to compute its surface appearance.
Wow!, that will be amazing (if you manage to perform all those beautifull surfaces and color palettes we have now inside the new context)
|
| |
| |
| Gondor2222 | Date: Tuesday, 02.09.2014, 20:41 | Message # 206 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 92
Status: Offline
| I think the classification should also indicate bulk composition, with any material composing more than 1% of a planet's mass shown. For solid planets materials would be grouped into three families of "rock", "metal", and "ice"/"volatile". For example, the Earth would be "rocky-metallic" and Titan would be "rocky-icy". For gas planets it should just indicate any chemical present in more than 2%- Jupiter and Saturn are "H-He" while Uranus and Neptune are "H-He-CH4". This system for gas plants also allows for all four of "ice giant/dwarf" and "gas giant/dwarf" because it makes the system "COMPOSITION-MASS".
I also agree with "frigid" as others have said for the coldest temperature class. "Frozen" seems to mean a solid surface of volatiles (which is probably usually the case, as planets far enough from a star to be in this class are probably composed of volatiles) , and "cryogenic" seems a bit too scientific compared to "Scorched-hot-temperate-cold".
Also, will there be a vote on which sets of classnames to use?
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Wednesday, 03.09.2014, 13:44 | Message # 207 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| Quote NickWaterfall ( ) Quote RockoRocks ()
This would not make sense because Ice Giants are not neccesarily smaller than Gas Giants. The name 'Gas dwarf' would imply otherwise.
The largest ice giant in SE is smaller than the smallest gas giant in SE.
Ice giants do, as far as we can tell so far, have a tendency to be smaller than gas giants, but this is not a good reason to call them gas dwarfs. They are not like smaller gas giants. Their composition and formation dynamics are different.
Gas giants have that name because hydrogen and helium gas are the primary contributors to their composition -- they accreted these gases directly out of the protoplanetary disk once they became massive enough. Ice giants on the other hand contain a lot of volatile substances like water and ammonia, which during their formation was in the form of solid "ice". This points to a distinctly different formation region as well -- ice giants form farther away from their suns because it has to be cold enough for the volatiles to condense into solid grains.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 03.09.2014, 16:13 | Message # 208 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote Watsisname ( ) Their composition and formation dynamics are different.
Actually, at least in the Solar system, gas giants and ice giants was born in the same way - accretion of ice particles into huge protoplanet ~10 Earth masses. After this, their evolution goes by different paths - Jupiter and Saturn was in the most dense region of the solar nebula, with a lot of H and He. They start accreting those gases because they have big enough mass to hold them. Uranus and Neptune accreate only few Earth masses of H and He, because they born in the edge of the nebula. If there would be more gas, they might become a "true" gas giants.
|
| |
| |
| Tenebristhedarkened | Date: Wednesday, 03.09.2014, 23:53 | Message # 209 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 29
Status: Offline
| How would planets such as Kepler-10c rank? It is around the size of Neptune, but, is denser than Earth, thus meaning it might be rocky.
|
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Thursday, 04.09.2014, 01:10 | Message # 210 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| SpaceEngineer:
Certainly, nobody denies that ice giants would become gas giants if they were more massive and there was more gas available -- those are the conditions for creating a gas giant. The initial formation phase you're describing is also true for all planets (with possible exception of gas giants formed through a disk-instability scenario). But we certainly do not say that Earth is a gas dwarf? 
The point I'm getting at is the divergence of evolution beyond that initial core-accretion. Formation of gaseous envelopes requires availability of large amounts of gas in the nebular environment, and sufficient mass to retain it. Failure of these conditions leaves us with rocky planets near the sun, and ice giants beyond the snow line. Ultimately the evolutionary path is determined by the properties of the disk where the planet is forming -- density, composition, and temperature vary with solar distance. Evolution can be further complicated by planetary migration, resonances and all sorts of chaos.
Added:
Quote Tenebristhedarkened ( ) How would planets such as Kepler-10c rank? It is around the size of Neptune, but, is denser than Earth, thus meaning it might be rocky.
It lies (roughly) here on this diagram and is probably a rocky planet with some water content. Not liquid water of course, but ice under high pressure. According to SpaceEngineer's planet classes it could be called a warm (hot?) superterran.
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Pirate 
United Kingdom 
Spain 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Belgium 
Croatia 
France 
Norway