|
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
|
|
| Rodrigo | Date: Wednesday, 07.09.2011, 21:11 | Message # 16 |
|
Explorer
Group: Local Moderators
Brazil
Messages: 285
Status: Offline
| I think you could include a volcanic-type world. They could be random (as relative new planets) or perhaps planets very near to stars or near to giant planets could have more chance to be voulcanic. Think about volcanic cold selena (io) or volcanic icy world (triton). I think you could insert a terrain funcion to create cone-shaped mountains and valleys. They could apear normally in other worlds but in volcanic ones they could be more common.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 08.09.2011, 12:55 | Message # 17 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| I think it is not necessary to separate them into a new class. Volcanoes can be on every planet - desert, terra, selena, icy world. Its activity just depend on the age of the planet and its place in the space neighborhood.
*
|
| |
| |
| Jabberwockxeno | Date: Saturday, 22.10.2011, 22:46 | Message # 18 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 10
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) I think it is not necessary to separate them into a new class. Volcanoes can be on every planet - desert, terra, selena, icy world. Its activity just depend on the age of the planet and its place in the space neighborhood.
I think he means the entire surface is like volcanic, with contients being seprated by cracks filled with rivers of lava. Hellish. Like mustfair or whatever it's called from star wars.
Quote (SpaceEngineer) Dark matter worlds, Dark energy worlds and negative matter worlds are impossible. Modern physics says that dark matter are non-baryonic particles, i.e. it's not atoms. It can't form a rigid or gas body like a planet or star. Dark energy is not matter at all, it is the property of space-time. Negative mass matter does not exist in nature, but even if it did, it obviously can't form a planet due to anti-gravity, that would prevent accretion.
Juest because it can't exist according to what we think now, doesn't mean it can't. After all, don't the laws of physics kinda break down when you get into a very small (quantum physics) and very large (universal)?
Besides, there are producerally created planents so it deosn't have to stick to reality.
At least make it a option for player created worlds.
Anyways, by carbon worlds, you guys mean like those planets that are theorectly made of pure carbon/diamond?
Anyways, I have a few ideas:
-Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?
- destroyed/ruined worlds. Like after a huge impact, the world could have peices floating off of it, etc shaped irregularly.
Also, i'd like jungles, etc. Maybe alien ruins. As of now, everything is just mountains or ocean.
*
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:30 | Message # 19 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Jabberwockxeno) Juest because it can't exist according to what we think now, doesn't mean it can't. After all, don't the laws of physics kinda break down when you get into a very small (quantum physics) and very large (universal)? Besides, there are producerally created planents so it deosn't have to stick to reality. At least make it a option for player created worlds.
I don't like the idea of creating things that are impossible according to modern science. SpaceEngine is focused on realism from the very beginning of its developement.
Quote (Jabberwockxeno) -Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?
Gravity potential of any spherical-symmetry mass distribution is equivalent to the same point mass, placed in its center. So dense spherical envelope will collapse at its center. Or have I misunderstood you?
Quote (Jabberwockxeno) - destroyed/ruined worlds. Like after a huge impact, the world could have peices floating off of it, etc shaped irregularly.
This requires support of simulating planetary collisions, and rendering tons of debris, which is very computationally expensive. Anyway, this is also in my TODO list.
*
|
| |
| |
| Donatelo200 | Date: Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:45 | Message # 20 |
|
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
| Quote (Jabberwockxeno) -Hollow worlds. isn't it possible for a higly dense/gravtional object to be surronded by a very dense substance, and have solid matrial form around it?
Are you reffering to neutron stars? They are about as dense as the nucleous of an atom witch is something like 4×1017 kg/m³. Neutron stars also have superfluid mantel and a solid outer crust.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
Edited by Donatelo200 - Sunday, 23.10.2011, 04:47 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Monday, 31.10.2011, 23:46 | Message # 21 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Right now SpaceEngine has very poor simulation of planet physics: it uses only the mass and temperature caused by solar illumination. Mass is generated randomly, so gas giants and terrestrial planets are mixed in solar system. Amosphere properties are generated based only on random initial relative mass of the atmosphere. Then dissipation of atmosphere is calculated based on exosphere temperature and surface gravity of the planet. Surface types are based on temperature and mass (as you suggest), and internal structure of the planet: metals, silicates, water and hydrogen/helium. For example, Terra has a metal core + silicate mantle + tiny amount of water, ice world or oceanida is a metal core + silicate mantle + water or silicate core + water or pure water.
I plan to make a scientific based simulated formation of a planetary system. It will be done in a analytical (not numerical) way; generating a disk around star, fragmenting it into planetesimals, then merging them, consuming the gas, and compute migration effects, obtaining finally, several planets in a stable orbit and several planets thrown-out of a system, or can even fall into a sun. Some protoplanets will collide during migration and merge, form a binary planet or planet with a massive moon, or even gets destroyed and forms as an asteroid belt.
Such a simulation will use chemistry intensively, so the information about compositon of the entrails, surface, atmosphere and hydrosphere will be available automatically (and not generated randomly!). Then physical conditions on the surface might be calculated: climate, tectonics, radiation level, meteorite bombardement rate, etc.
This amount of data reqires more improved GUI: several windows about planet parameters, orbital parameters, atmosphere parameters etc - like you suggested. All this will be caclulated based upon physics, and random here is only initial distribution of the matter in the protoplanet disk! The only really randomly generated parameters will be life. This is a very speculative part, more philosophical than scientific...
*
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Saturday, 10.12.2011, 23:47 | Message # 22 |
 Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| When you create the planetary formation simulation, I'm sure you will tweak it to ensure a wide variety of systems and hence planets, as opposed to aiming for strict realism. I would also urge you to have a small chance of ignoring the formation simulation, and use another random system creator, similar to or unchanged from the one currently used, or use extreme numbers in the new simulation. I feel like the cornerstone of this program (and, I hope, as it evolves as a game) is finding unique systems and planets, and leaving these in allows us to be surprised and wonder about what kind of enigmatic process caused them to form in such a way.
About classification, I'm not sure if this is what you do already, but instead of creating the planets top-down (choose class, then specifics), they should be from bottom-up (generate specifics, then classify them). I feel like the classification system is very unimportant in such a scheme; in fact part of the fun could be in the user generating their own classification system. But of course for convenience, I don't mind the game classifying them, as long as it's after they have formed 
I actually found this game while researching for my own text-based random world generator (which I will probably never finish, I'm addicted to the first 10% of a project), and had trouble finding any sort of official classification system that used anything more than Sol-system analogues, or just wasn't very descriptive. I suppose this is because we know every little about any exoplanets. I like the PHL nomenclature that Chris suggested, it's closer to what I think we're looking for, but agree that it is too specifically focused on habitability.
PS: I also think "cryogenic" is a little strange next to the less formal "cool" and "cold', etc. Also, "calid" is a word very rarely used in English - I've seen it used maybe two other times, ever.
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
Edited by curiousepic - Saturday, 10.12.2011, 23:59 |
| |
| |
| Lazarou_Monkey_Terror | Date: Thursday, 15.12.2011, 03:20 | Message # 23 |
 Observer
Group: Newbies
United Kingdom
Messages: 2
Status: Offline
| Quote I use my time on SpaceEngine, because i like to explore the idea of encountering alien life, and the propability of it. So in creating a classification for planets, that would be my emphasis. The planetary classes should be focused around whether or not the planets can harbor life as we know it. The system would quickly get very complicated if you begin add too many properties to name after. SpaceEngine is currently showing diameter and temperature in the system window. I think you should base the classifications on mass and temperature. Conincidently that is also what they do in this project. Link. https://sites.google.com/a....catalog They divide planets into different classes based on mass. Asteroidan, Mercurian, Subterran, Terran, Superterran, Neptunian and Jovian. Then by temperature, Hypopsychroplanet, psychroplanet, mesoplanet, thermoplanet and hyperthermoplanet. You get a Letter system too, based on temperature and habitability, hP,P,M,T,hT and NH for not habitable. So Earth would be classified as a Terran mesoplanet. Class M.
I like this idea, I realism is the way forward and week by week we are seeing new and exciting worlds thanks to Kelper and the subsequent theorising about what other kind of worlds there are out there.
Might I recommend the Planet Classification List http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html a comprehensive and methodical body of work by John M Dollan which details well over a hundred types of worlds believed possible according to current theory. I'm sure he would be fascinated in this project and it's potential about would be more than happy to contribute ideas if asked.
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Thursday, 15.12.2011, 04:07 | Message # 24 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| Quote Might I recommend the Planet Classification List http://arcbuilder.home.bresnan.net/PCLMaster.html a comprehensive and methodical body of work by John M Dollan which details well over a hundred types of worlds believed possible according to current theory. I'm sure he would be fascinated in this project and it's potential about would be more than happy to contribute ideas if asked.
Great find. This gets my vote.
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 21.12.2011, 10:36 | Message # 25 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Scientists are working on program that would generate scientifically-accurate image of planets. It will be open-source.
http://www.wired.com/wiredsc....enderer
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Wednesday, 21.12.2011, 17:34 | Message # 26 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| Wow, surprised to see a few unique ones. That hot Jupiter looks like the surface of oil mixed with water, very cool.
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 18:11 | Message # 27 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| New updated planets classification chart (click to open 3.6 Mb full-res image):
In this chart I've renamed some of these:
gas giant -> jupiter
ice giant -> neptune
ice world (with atmosphere) -> titan
ice world (without atmosphere) -> icy
What do you think about these class names guys?
*
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 18:29 | Message # 28 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| I dislike using Solar planet terms for classification. It makes it seem like we expect all planets to fit neatly into the types we have here at home.
But, using the terms "Jovian, Neptunian, Titanian, etc." is *much* preferable to calling planets a "Jupiter" or "Titan".
I still think you should not worry about further changes to the planet class names until you expand the planet formation simulation.
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Tuesday, 27.12.2011, 19:30 | Message # 29 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| I agree with curiousepic. There must be better classes to use than names of Sol system planets. I thought Gas Giant and Ice Giant were acceptable.
The problem I have with the "Titan" classification is that the thing that sets Titan apart as a world in its own class is its very thick atmosphere, and bodies of surface liquid. If the only definition of "Titan" class is ice world with atmosphere, then that qualifies Pluto and Triton as "Titans", even though their surfaces are probably much more similar to typical ice worlds.
I think that "Titan" could be an okay class to add, but only if it described truly Titan-like worlds, which do not exist currently in SpaceEngine.
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
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 28.12.2011, 11:35 | Message # 30 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Hi Chris, thanks for the detailed answer.
Quote (Chris) But if your purpose for scanning the universe is to look for habitable planets then 3 temperature classes should be enough. That would be, "Too Hot" - "Habitable" - "Too Cold".
I want to subdivide hot planets to really hot - like hot jupiters with effective temperature > 800 K, and not very hot, but still warm, like Mercury or Venus. Warm planets can support some extremophilic life, while on hot planets even metals are melted. In a similiar way, I want to subdivide cold planets into two categories. First - less cooler, below water freeze line, but under ammonia or methane freeze line; some exotic ammonia life can exist on these planets. Second - very cold planets where even ammonia or methane freezes. So, we get 5 classes:
Hot - Warm - Temperate - Cold - Very cold.
But I dislike "Very cold" - as it uses two words. I don't know which word is suitable in English, maybe "Cryogenic" is better than "Frozen"?
Next, I subdivide temperate class into 3 subcategories - more warm and more cool than Earth. Liquid water can exist on surface of planets of all these subcategories, and category name gives information of its major state. I.e. temperate terra has much liquid water; a more warm temperate terra has huge arud areas, a more cool temperate terra has huge glaciers, but a "more warm temperate" and a "more cool temperate" is too long, so I'll name it as "calid" and "cool". In Russian language, we have good distinction between word pairs "cool"-"cold" and "warm"-"calid"; I could not find good pairs in English. Of course, I can just remove this little subdivision and call it all "Temperate".
Quote (Chris) The planetary class called "Frozen Selena", is that class called "Frozen" just to sound colder than "Cold", or is it actually frozen? Meaning covered by an icy crust , and would that mean that a "cold icy selena" isn't actually frozen and infact icy. I guess not.
Next, about the structure classes. I divide planets by classes based on their interior composition and surface state (not clear classification, I agree).
Gas giant - composed by 80-100% of hydrogen and helium.
Ice giant - composed by 80-90% of water and ammonia ices, with 10-20% of hydrogen-helium atmosphere.
Oceania - composed by 50-80% of water, with relatively small iron-rock core.
Ice world - the same as Oceania, but with frozen ice crust.
Terra - big rocky body with iron core and relatively small amount of water: it should have seas and land masses together.
Desert - the same as Terra, but without water.
Selena - the same as Desert, but without atmosphere.
"Ice world" can be subdivided on "Titan" (Ice world with atmosphere and probably liquid hydrocarbons on surface) and some called "Icy" (icy an analog of Selena - it is almost all big satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). I don't like "Icy" - it is not a noun and is not a good translation to Russian.
So, moving away from this classification, I can suggest this one:
Gas giant (or Giant) - greater than 100 Earth's mass
Ice giant (or Subgiant) - between 10 and 100 Earth's mass
Superterra - between 3.0 and 10.0 Earth's mass
Terra - between 0.5 and 3.0 Earth's mass
Subterra - between 0.01 and 0.5 Earth's mass
Selena (or Dwarf) - between 0.0001 and 0.01 Earth's mass
Asteroid - lower than 0.0001 Earth's mass
But the subdivision is based not only on mass, but on relative amount of various materials too (this info wll be generated by new planetary system generator). I.e. if Superterra has 15% of its mass in form of hydrogen-helium atmosphere, it becomes an Ice giant. This classification doesn't show composition of a planet, I.e. Titan and Mars will be called "Subterra", despite the huge difference in their nature. Venus and Earth will be called "Terra" too... I like to have a separate class called "Terra" for Earth-like planets, almost Earth's twins.
*
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Brazil 
Russian Federation 
United States 
United Kingdom