|
Work progress 0.97
|
|
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 03.12.2012, 17:05 | Message # 361 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (smjjames) I know the color depends on what ions are being excited
Actually, the color does not just depend on the ions and excited atoms. It depends on other factors too, like how much energy has been absorbed by the atoms and how they behave after being ionized/excited.
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
|
| |
| |
| werdnaforever | Date: Monday, 03.12.2012, 20:42 | Message # 362 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
| Animated aurorae. I still can't get over it. SE needs animation: <cliche>this will bring it's universe to life</cliche>.
Quote (SpaceEngineer) Fixed color banding artifact on landscape and especially on the water.
This really shattered any realism when looking at oceans. I'm really glad it's fixed!
|
| |
| |
| Hati | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 03:48 | Message # 363 |
 Observer
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 16
Status: Offline
| HarbingerDawn, I like you already. Anyway, on to the main subject of my post. I'm glad to see the gas giant aurora are included. Not to say, spaceengineer, that you neglected them. I missed out on that screenshot so I didn't know. Its easy to miss things, unfortunately.
on another subject, when will we start seeing star systems with lots of stars again, if at all? If I remember correctly, the line between open cluster and massive star systems is blurred. But you do get star systems with about 10 or so stars, like the Trapezium in the Orion nebula. It'd be nice to discover a planet that has between 1 and about 13 suns depending on the various orbits. I remember reading something about not seeing massive systems like this on a thread about finding systems with alot of stars.
Edited by Hati - Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 03:52 |
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 04:11 | Message # 364 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| Quote (Hati) on another subject, when will we start seeing star systems with lots of stars again, if at all? If I remember correctly, the line between open cluster and massive star systems is blurred. But you do get star systems with about 10 or so stars, like the Trapezium in the Orion nebula. It'd be nice to discover a planet that has between 1 and about 13 suns depending on the various orbits. I remember reading something about not seeing massive systems like this on a thread about finding systems with alot of stars.
Yeah, the most that has been found is an octuple star system and only two procedural octuple star systems have been documented. 5 and 6 star systems are rare, but they can be found sooner or later. I don't think there are any 7 star systems that have been found in procedural systems.
The black hole at the centers of globular clusters and galactic cores will have lots of stars orbiting it, but they'll be stripped of planets.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 04:13 | Message # 365 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Hati) If I remember correctly, the line between open cluster and massive star systems is blurred
Not really; maybe for very young, compact, and massive clusters this could potentially happen in some cases, but a configuration like that would be quite rare. Anyway, a few 8-star systems have been found, so SE does generate systems with many suns, in proportions which are pretty consistent with reality (which is the goal of the engine). The Trapezium is considered a star cluster, not a single star system; it has a width of about 1.5 light years, much wider than the width of a star system (which usually less than 0.1 light years).
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
|
| |
| |
| horatiob | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 12:26 | Message # 366 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 18
Status: Offline
| just curious, wouldn't it be too complicated to calculate stable orbits of a system with so many suns? As far as i know SE treats multiple star systems often as two barycenters (=independet star systems) rotating around each other in the same plane (X,Y). I assume calculating three or more of those barycenters rotating in three dimensions (X,Y,Z) around each other would be quite CPU-intensive. i might be wrong though 
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 13:41 | Message # 367 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (horatiob) just curious, wouldn't it be too complicated to calculate stable orbits of a system with so many suns? As far as i know SE treats multiple star systems often as two barycenters (=independet star systems) rotating around each other in the same plane (X,Y). I assume calculating three or more of those barycenters rotating in three dimensions (X,Y,Z) around each other would be quite CPU-intensive. i might be wrong though
It is indeed CPU intensive, and cannot be used in SE, due to its procedural nature. For a system with chaotic orbits, you cannot write a function that calculates position of any body at any given moment of time. This is required by engine, because you can arrive at a system at any time in its history. The only way is to start N-body numerical simulation (like Universe Sandbox does) from the system's born time until it reaches its current time. There are may be billions of iterations, that take hours to be completed. So no, it is impossible for now.
*
|
| |
| |
|
| QuietlyConident | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 17:59 | Message # 369 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 54
Status: Offline
| SpaceEngineer, you are ridiculous.
|
| |
| |
| Hati | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 18:02 | Message # 370 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
United Kingdom
Messages: 16
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) It is indeed CPU intensive, and cannot be used in SE, due to its procedural nature. For a system with chaotic orbits, you cannot write a function that calculates position of any body at any given moment of time.
Thanks for the answer. I wonder though, are there stable orbits that would be easy for a computer to predict and deal with in this engine but are something that a person would have a hard time predicting? Something that would give the impression of a chaotic system without actually being chaotic. If such a complex stable orbit can be generated, while being highly unlikely in reality, it'd be as close as the engine could get to a chaotic system.
My understanding of this subject is poor, though. If someone can throw me at a list of theoretical orbital systems that aren't chaotic, I'd be happy to take a look. but I have this odd feeling that the only things that tend to work are single objects orbiting other single objects, and binary systems orbiting other binary systems or single objects.
Edited by Hati - Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 18:06 |
| |
| |
| Drawnin | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 18:26 | Message # 371 |
 Space Tourist
Group: Users
Spain
Messages: 37
Status: Offline
| Those pics are absolutely epic... LOL 
Intel Core i7-3770 - 3.40 GHz @ 8 Gb RAM @ nVidia GeForce GTX 570 1280 Mb
|
| |
| |
| neutronium76 | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 18:32 | Message # 372 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
| Quote (QuietlyConident) SpaceEngineer, you are ridiculous
I'd say SpaceEngineer you are amazingly creative and funny - ridiculous has a negative aura but I am not a native English speaker so I may be wrong  .
Is this Lincoln a present to the native aborigines of Pandora ? 
PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 18:36 | Message # 373 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (neutronium76) ridiculous has a negative aura but I am not a native English speaker so I may be wrong
Often but not always. Silly might be a decent alternate adjective in this case.
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
|
| |
| |
| Solaris | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 19:42 | Message # 374 |
 World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
France
Messages: 731
Status: Offline
| lol SpaceEngineer, that was unexpected
Really cool to see some wheel on the ground.
|
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 19:56 | Message # 375 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| Quote (neutronium76) Quote (QuietlyConident)
SpaceEngineer, you are ridiculous
I'd say SpaceEngineer you are amazingly creative and funny - ridiculous has a negative aura but I am not a native English speaker so I may be wrong unsure .
It depends on the tone mostly, but not getting into linguistics here. Not that I'm a linguist or anything anyhow.
As Harb said, all QuietlyConfident did was call Space Engineer silly.
@SpaceEngineer: Nice. I assume that it will be 'gravitationally' bound (in a pseudo-gravity way, since SE doesn't actually simulate gravity) to the object you want to drive on? It would be awesome to have a wheeled or 'hovering' (I'm thinking star wars landspeeders, something like that) craft that you have and control on the ground.
Basically.... awesomeness all around. lol.
Edit: Just a random thought, will the vehicles have limitations with climbing certain angles or will we just assume that they have ultra all-grip wheels or something?
Edited by smjjames - Tuesday, 04.12.2012, 20:04 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Pirate 
United Kingdom 
Germany 
Russian Federation 
Spain 
Greece 
France