|
Work progress - 0.9.7.3
|
|
| Snowfall | Date: Sunday, 15.03.2015, 19:11 | Message # 121 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 30
Status: Offline
| Will the tidal heating bugfix only fix asteroid moons?
I have created a few interesting planetary arrangements. Such as a very distant moon having a small moon of its own, and a triple dwarf planet system. though no matter what class i make them, one of them will glow at extremely high temperatures very very bright.
even something as simple as "Disable tidal heating - True" in the catalog file would be all that is needed to fix for these parts.
sorry for my dyslexia.
never stop imagining beautiful things.
Edited by Snowfall - Sunday, 15.03.2015, 19:13 |
| |
| |
| neuhaven | Date: Sunday, 15.03.2015, 20:13 | Message # 122 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Pirate
Messages: 5
Status: Offline
| Quote [...]one of them will glow at extremely high temperatures very very bright.[...] |
| |
| |
| Snowfall | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 01:05 | Message # 123 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 30
Status: Offline
| Eccentricity to zero fixes my moon of a moon heating problem. not so much the triple dwarf planet. The only way i could fix that is if i remove the distant third planet, then its fine somehow. I still see it as a bug in that way. we will just see how the update plays out.
sorry for my dyslexia.
never stop imagining beautiful things.
|
| |
| |
| Kimb | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 05:34 | Message # 124 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 66
Status: Offline
| Apparently some in the community expect the Version 1.0 to be final, "perfect". This need not necessarily be the case; as with so many other programs out there, SE will just keep getting better and better....right up to 2.0, 3.0 or however far the Space Engineer decides to go with it......
Personally, conzidering the scope of this project, I zeriously believe the project will be (theoretically) endless like the Universe itself.
Edited by Kimb - Monday, 16.03.2015, 05:40 |
| |
| |
| Docasman | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 09:55 | Message # 125 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Portugal
Messages: 12
Status: Offline
| Quote second-ich (  ) Because they are lossless and much smaller than TGA.
True, but working with TGA is usually faster, specially if you run scripts (like imagemagick or netpbm) on many files.
(OT) Have you managed to change codec? (I replied on the other thread... late, sorry)
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 09:57 | Message # 126 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote Snowfall ( ) not so much the triple dwarf planet. The only way i could fix that is if i remove the distant third planet, then its fine somehow. I still see it as a bug in that way.
Why bug? Maybe you made unrealistic system?
|
| |
| |
| JCandeias | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 14:30 | Message # 127 |
 Pioneer
Group: Translators
Portugal
Messages: 387
Status: Offline
| Actually, I do think the new tidal heating does need some fixing, because it generates effects that are way too large in small, a few km-wide bodies. Currently, it seems to be using a simplified algorithm that doesn't take into account how large the satellite is or how it rotates. It also doesn't seem to affect the primary, while it should.
The thing is, small asteroid-like moons shouldn't suffer much from tidal heating because they aren't big enough to experience large gradients in gravitational forces, even if their orbit is eccentric, and when they do it means they dive below the Roche limit and should simply break apart. I've got in one of my systems one such rock that gets so affected from tidal heating it became even brighter than the system's star. Maybe it's diving below the roche limit, you say? Doing the math, no, it doesn't.
They let me use this!
|
| |
| |
| Snowfall | Date: Monday, 16.03.2015, 22:38 | Message # 128 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 30
Status: Offline
| Quote Why bug? Maybe you made unrealistic system?
I would say its pretty realistic. Everything is kept far and circle. but the extreme heating is still around.
Code
Barycenter "ST1B-DP12-DP13-DP14"
{
ParentBody "Sol"
Class "Selena"
Color (1.000 1.000 1.000)
NoSurface true
NoClouds true
NoOcean true
NoLava true
NoAtmosphere true
NoAurora true
NoRings true
NoCometTail true
Orbit
{
SemiMajorAxis 110.1
Eccentricity 0.04
Inclination 0.3
AscendingNode 231
LongOfPericen 56
MeanLongitude 53
}
}
Barycenter "ST1B-DP12-DP13"
{
ParentBody "ST1B-DP12-DP13-DP14"
Class "Selena"
Color (1.000 1.000 1.000)
// Mass 0.000202
NoSurface true
NoClouds true
NoOcean true
NoLava true
NoAtmosphere true
NoAurora true
NoRings true
NoCometTail true
Orbit
{
Period 0.896596
SemiMajorAxis 0.000045
Eccentricity 0.04
Inclination 16
AscendingNode 0
LongOfPericen 0
MeanLongitude 0
}
}
DwarfPlanet "ST1B-DP12"
{
ParentBody "ST1B-DP12-DP13"
Class "IceWorld"
Radius 500
Mass 0.00018
Orbit
{
Period 0.0143521
SemiMajorAxis 0.00001
Eccentricity 0.00
Inclination -16
AscendingNode 174
LongOfPericen 131
AscendingNode 0.0
LongOfPericen 0.0
MeanLongitude 0.0
}
}
Moon "ST1B-DP13"
{
ParentBody "ST1B-DP12-DP13"
Class "IceWorld"
Radius 250
Mass 0.000022
Orbit
{
Period 0.0143521
SemiMajorAxis 0.00004
Eccentricity 0.00
Inclination -16
AscendingNode 174
LongOfPericen 131
AscendingNode 180.0
LongOfPericen 180.0
MeanLongitude 180.0
}
}
Moon "ST1B-DP14"
{
ParentBody "ST1B-DP12-DP13-DP14"
Class "IceWorld"
Radius 200
Mass 0.000012
Orbit
{
Period 0.896596
SemiMajorAxis 0.0007575
Eccentricity 0.00
Inclination -16
AscendingNode 174
LongOfPericen 131
AscendingNode 180.0
LongOfPericen 180.0
MeanLongitude 180.0
}
}
*Edit
Oddly the tidal heating problem is fixed when i class the third (smallest) object into a DwarfPlanet, and class the rest larger massive ones into just moons. but one of the Barycenter orbits gets coloured yellow as a moon and it goes against what would normally be the parent major object.
Sorry if this is truing into a bug report. I'm starting to think it does not belong in this thread.
sorry for my dyslexia.
never stop imagining beautiful things.
Edited by Snowfall - Tuesday, 17.03.2015, 01:22 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Tuesday, 17.03.2015, 17:18 | Message # 129 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote JCandeias ( ) Currently, it seems to be using a simplified algorithm that doesn't take into account how large the satellite is or how it rotates. It also doesn't seem to affect the primary, while it should.
No, it takes. The body's radius is in 5th power in the formula - very strong dependence. It affects both satellite and primary. And rotation is taken into account when computing the tidal braking and synchronization.
Quote Snowfall ( ) Oddly the tidal heating problem is fixed when i class the third (smallest) object into a DwarfPlanet, and class the rest larger massive ones into just moons.
Barycenter have no Class parameter, remove it. Barycenter must have a Planet or a DwarfPlanet as a primary, and Moon or DwarfMoon as a secondary. It shouldn't have another barycenter orbiting it - many things will be broken, including the tidal heating calculation.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Thursday, 19.03.2015, 15:48 | Message # 130 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Added details and dynamics to the aurora
Before:
After:
|
| |
| |
| Destructor1701 | Date: Friday, 20.03.2015, 02:11 | Message # 131 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Ireland
Messages: 533
Status: Offline
| Gorgeous! The second image is like a photo!
|
| |
| |
| mike4ty4 | Date: Friday, 20.03.2015, 02:40 | Message # 132 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 8
Status: Offline
| I've noticed something else: "terra" planets with huge atmosphere pressure, like 2000+ atm or so. Is that sensible or not? Also, if that's sensible, should not the visible atmosphere be much thicker than it is (I ran across on where the atmosphere seemed like it was only 30 km thick!)?
|
| |
| |
| Destructor1701 | Date: Friday, 20.03.2015, 16:19 | Message # 133 |
|
Pioneer
Group: Users
Ireland
Messages: 533
Status: Offline
| [re-posted somewhere more appropriate]
Edited by Destructor1701 - Monday, 23.03.2015, 15:56 |
| |
| |
| second-ich | Date: Saturday, 21.03.2015, 09:18 | Message # 134 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
| Another few little suggestions for 0.9.7.3
- The new star motion blur is awesome but a little extreme in my opinion. I think a default value of "0 (auto)" in the "user.cfg" would be more reasonable.
- The menu bars in the "Planetarium" takes a bit long to slide into view. Could you make them faster (almost instantly)? The time which they need to slide back is fine.
- Some press accidentally the shortcut "N" and wonder why their stars are black. Maybe it would be better if this is only available in "debug mode"?
Edited by second-ich - Saturday, 21.03.2015, 19:03 |
| |
| |
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Saturday, 21.03.2015, 17:37 | Message # 135 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| Quote second-ich ( ) Some press accidentally the shortcut "N" and wonder why their stars are black. Maybe it would be better if this is only available in "debug mode"?
Considering the amount of people who randomly hit N the binding should just be removed by default. You can adjust night side lights in the menu already.
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
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Canada 
Pirate 
United States 
Portugal 
Russian Federation 
Ireland 
Germany 