|
SpaceEngine Planet Classifications
|
|
| DevonX | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 19:50 | Message # 46 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 113
Status: Offline
| @SpaceEngineer I understand it better now and i agree that the word terra should not be a size parameter and more like a definition on a planet that is earth like.
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Thursday, 29.12.2011, 22:32 | Message # 47 |
 Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| I like having that level of description, SE, it's close to what I had in mind earlier, building the classification bottom-up instead of top-down.
But I agree these are too long for practical use. It starts to blur the line between "type of planet" and" full statistical analysis".
For the type names, it should be constructed from the components that are of the most interest to an explorer. Ideally, the engine would use the system you just proposed, but allow the player to toggle certain types of info on and off. For some people, the interior composition doesn't matter, or they only care if it has an atmosphere or not, not about the type of atmosphere. Etc.
But if you must shorten overall, you can start by ignoring the core and mantle composition, and reducing element names to their chemical shorthand (Si, H2O, CO2 ice, etc).
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
|
| |
| |
| curiousepic | Date: Saturday, 07.01.2012, 04:44 | Message # 48 |
|
Space Pilot
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 141
Status: Offline
| What is the current temperature ranges for the diffrent temp names? I just found a "temperate" terra at 263 which is below freezing, after a "warm" terra at 312 which is hot, but closer to temperate in my book.
What is the temperature at which a planet is too cold to have a liquid ocean?
My ideal preferences for visual design of the mothership and technology in SE
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
Edited by curiousepic - Saturday, 07.01.2012, 05:08 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Saturday, 07.01.2012, 14:42 | Message # 49 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (curiousepic) What is the current temperature ranges for the diffrent temp names?
It is described in first post.
|
| |
| |
| Red_River | Date: Wednesday, 11.01.2012, 00:28 | Message # 50 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 56
Status: Offline
| Periodic Table of Exoplanets
this doesn't include moons and moonlets.
Edited by Red_River - Wednesday, 11.01.2012, 00:40 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 11.01.2012, 10:05 | Message # 51 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Red_River) Periodic Table of Exoplanets
This is very close to the SE system! (except subdivision by subterra-terra-superterra).
*
|
| |
| |
| Teto | Date: Monday, 06.02.2012, 18:35 | Message # 52 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
| Hi ! 
I'm new here, and I'm so amazed by the engine that I want to participate in a way.
I've read most of this thread and I want to suggest something:
- Let the developer to decide what he wants for the classification. Each people has his own vision of classification, if he wants to design a realistic universe or a fantasy's one.
So I suggest this method :
- Developer develops his planet classification by tree, done by repertories.
- Those would have this form:
1 Planet
-> 1.1 gas
-----> 1.1.1 Hot
-----> 1.1.2 Warm
-----------> 1.1.2.1 whatever
-----> 1.1.3 Cold
-----> 1.1.4 ...
-> 1.2 Liquid.
-> 1.3 Rocky
-> ...
And so on. And it's just an example, the structure could be something else.
In each repertory you'd find a configuration file with all elements needed to describe closely and precisely what sort of planet it is. The structure of this file is well known (your choice) but basically it would look like a .sc file.
After that a small application (made by you of course  ) compiles the tree and the files into a catalog or something, read by engine when it starts.
Why repertories and not a "big" file already written by developer ? Because with this solution, other files could be added after, to be used by a changed/improved engine (to add behaviors, specifications and so on) without touching the old files. Furthermore, this structure is more useful to improve/maintain for a developer.
So YOU do your own classification, and if I want to improve it, or to change it completely to describe the Star War Universe  it's very simple.
I was thinking about this proposal because what does it mean "tempered" or "liveable" ? For who ? If I make a game with Alien who can live in an Icy planet, 20 °C would be very hot for him. Also a fish should be embarrassed by a rocky planet. You get the idea. (So I could add other files to describe things like : I'm an Alien A, this planet for me is NOT liveable, but my ship can fly on it).
In a sense, the classification is more a script than a deep feature of your engine. And most of the time it won't be perfect for a game developer anyway, he would change things.
It's just few thoughts.
Anyway, please continue, it's a great engine you're making !
Teto.
Edited by Teto - Monday, 06.02.2012, 18:37 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Monday, 06.02.2012, 21:20 | Message # 53 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Hi Teto, it is a great idea! I hadn't thought about it. I will look at SE code and check if it is possible to implement.
However, a small concern: how to manage multiple classifications made by users?
*
|
| |
| |
| Teto | Date: Tuesday, 07.02.2012, 14:18 | Message # 54 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
| What do you mean ? I don't understand. 
|
| |
| |
| Starchild | Date: Friday, 10.02.2012, 18:25 | Message # 55 |
 Observer
Group: Newbies
Poland
Messages: 1
Status: Offline
| Hi Space Engineer, have you thought about making some editing tools that would give you possibilities to edit objects like in program called Universe Sandbox?
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Saturday, 11.02.2012, 01:40 | Message # 56 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Teto) What do you mean ? I don't understand.
I mean, what SE should do if users make their own classifications and want to use them together? How to use "Calssification 1" together with "Calssification 2" and "Classification 3"? to switch them in the menu?
Quote (Starchild) Hi Space Engineer, have you thought about making some editing tools that would give you possibilities to edit objects like in program called Universe Sandbox?
This is not necessary, as long as in game players can't modify space objects.
*
|
| |
| |
| Teto | Date: Monday, 13.02.2012, 10:31 | Message # 57 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) I mean, what SE should do if users make their own classifications and want to use them together? How to use "Classification 1" together with "Classification 2" and "Classification 3"? Switch them in the menu?
Oh, I think I understand.
The structure by repertories is just a easy way to have a tree structure of classification, and (for me) a way to allow easy improvements in the future.
The tree is just a structure for what it is parent, what it is child/leaf. But in each repertory there's a file where it's explained what type of planet it is.
I suppose that the classification is just for gameplay, the engine by itself doesn't care of the classification, it has its own classification for orbits, speed, mass and so on. You can enjoin the language used in the files to be sure that the engine will understand what's going on:
- A planet can only have 3 states : gas, liquid, solid.
- It could be only : a real planet, a moon, an asteroid (a cloud of asteroids too ?).
- It has a mass.
-> It's easy to change that in understandable variables for the engine in a language like :
"$mass" 10000 // in tons
"$state" gas
"$type" planet
-> Yep, it looks like source engine...
Besides that, you have almost an infinite way to class the planet :
- hot, >1000°K, warm, cold, 0-100°K, and so on.
- the main component : rock (what type ?), ice, methane, or an range of components : 80% ammoniac, 10% vanilla ice ( ), 10% whatever.
- its mass.
- the type of landscape.
-> They could be variables not understood by engine, by understood by script developed for the game:
"$temperature" 0-100 // in °K
"$components" {methane,ammoniac,carbon}
"$methane" {liquid,80} //80 means 80%
"$ammoniac" {ice,15}
...
Other things, like climate, atmospheric pressure, atmosphere thickness... can be calculated (I mean, guessed).
So, few parameters in the file are really important because they're needed by engine. The others are just for gameplay/rendering. If you don't want to allow people use your engine to make their own game, maybe my suggestion is useless : enjoin your classification and basta. Otherwise, enjoin the language/structure of the file, and the data will be used in-game via script.
Maybe I'm wrong about things that can be calculated, but you get the idea. 
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Monday, 13.02.2012, 13:01 | Message # 58 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Ok, can you for example make analysis of this classification and create a list of parameters, needed to implement it? SE doesn't have volcanic, tides, and other parameters yet. I should implement those first. Then we can create a script for this classification and look at how it will work. BTW, is is better to use the SE script format, so I won't need to change the script engine:
Code
Group "Small Body Group"
{
Class "Vulcanoidal"
{
State "rock"
Radius (0, 50) // 0...50 km
OrbitEccentricity (0.2, 1.0) // 0.2...1.0
...
}
Class "Asteroidal"
{
Subclass "Metallic"
{
State "rock"
Composition
{
Metals (0.4, 0.8) // 0.4...0.8
Rock (0.2, 0.6) // 0.2...0.6
Ice (0.0, 0.0)
}
}
Subclass "Silicates"
{
State "rock"
Composition
{
Metals (0.0, 0.3) // 0.0...0.3
Rock (0.6, 1.0) // 0.6...1.0
Ice (0.0, 0.0)
}
}
...
}
...
}
*
|
| |
| |
| Teto | Date: Tuesday, 14.02.2012, 23:08 | Message # 59 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
France
Messages: 28
Status: Offline
| OK. I'm not an astrophysicist. So I took time to read the classification, and I don't know if it is used by "professionals". If it's the case, I think that you have a very complete classification, so keep it. I have just few remarks :
- This classification doesn't mention mass of the planets, or range where you can have this or that type. I'm not astrophysicist, as I said, by I know that solar systems has rules with planets/moons, orbits, size, mass and type of planets depends of their number, location and so on. That misses in this classification, but maybe you know what to do. By the way, do you follow those rules when you make procedural solar systems ?
- For each type you have composition of the planet, but again you don't have proportions, thickness of atmosphere, and so on. Maybe it can be calculated.
- If this classification is OK, and you don't want to let modders to change it as they want, I think that the BIG file with all classification is good, and let you to use your script language. But, maybe, keeping the tree by repertories is good to add easily script files (for gameplay, special planets, ...)
Now, my help is the best I can do so far, I don't know how your engine is working (well, a little, if it works like Celestia), but if classification is important (for procedural behaviors, gameplay, rendering), yep, you must be perfect since the beginning (thanks Captain Obvious ! )
By the way, a question off-topic (a little) : Are the planets always spherical ? In Celestia, for example, moon of Pluto is not a sphere, because of its rotation speed (if I remember well). Is it the same thing with your engine ?
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 15.02.2012, 08:12 | Message # 60 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Teto) by I know that solar systems has rules with planets/moons, orbits, size, mass and type of planets depends of their number, location and so on. That misses in this classification, but maybe you know what to do. By the way, do you follow those rules when you make procedural solar systems ?
Current classification divides planets into 3 groups by mass - terrestrial planets, ice giants and gas giants. I plan to add subdivision for first one - subterras, terras and superterras.
Rules of our Solar system do not work for other systems in reality. We've discovered gas giants that are closer to their suns as Mercury is to ours; gas giants in hi-eccentric orbits, very compact systems build of ice giants.
Quote (Teto) By the way, a question off-topic (a little) : Are the planets always spherical ? In Celestia, for example, moon of Pluto is not a sphere, because of its rotation speed (if I remember well). Is it the same thing with your engine ?
What? Which moon of Pluto?
Currently all planets are spherical (except landscape and extreme landscape on asteroids), because terrain engine and atmosphere does not want to work with ellipsoidals (I plan to fix it).
*
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Norway 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Canada 
France 
Poland 