1. For some reason, half the time, SE generates M-dwarfs that are too massive.

2. Tidally locked Terras/Oceanias/Deserts around stars that contribute less heat than a nearby hotter star still have anti-solar ice caps.

3. The presence of large satellites around tidally locked planets is unrealistic.

4. Brown dwarfs don't have a mass-age-spectrum variance yet. I see L2-T9 dwarfs at just over 84 Mj (which is a bit high for a BD unless it's a subdwarf) at any age.

5. Normally axial tilts tend to cluster around 0 in real life, because a planet initially spins in the same plane as the debris disk that formed it.

EDIT: BTW, has the frequency of life planets changed from 0.96.1 to 0.96.2? It seems to take longer to find a habitable system.

EDIT2: In 0.96.1 I did find 2 Cool terras with life during the time that I had it, but now in one day I found 2 Cool terras with life (one of them at 126K) and one Frozen oceania with life at 90K (all of them had water/liquid at the surface as expected from this class of planet). I think this needs a check.

Yes, this is a bug in binary systems. Single stars should be generated normally.

When SE generates a planet and a moon, it performs few calculation of their orbits stability using well known formulas. If moon don't pass the text, is being skipped. If you see a moon in the SE, this means that it is passed orbit stability test.

and I am sure this is not taken into account.

Also, is the terrain generated after the planet itself and its orbital parameters are generated? If that is so, a check could be inserted in between to see what the heat flux is at its current distance from the various components of a multiple star system and every star's contribution.

Nibiru-type elliptical orbit glitches.

Can't we have less predictable star systems thrown in, like one with just one or two planets in wide orbits, or one with all 27 planets in chaotic, unstable orbits?

You're right particulary. The tidal breaking caused by the sun is calculated first, then tidal breaking (or accelerating) caused by moon is calculated. In your system the moon can't accelerate planet's rotation much, so it rotates slowly. If moon is massive enough, you may obtain a synchronized binary planet system. To obtain the right rotation periods, the integral equation should be solved, this is an area for future work. Also, I have no analythic formula to calculate evolution of moon's orbit semimajor axis, so there are many moons with unrealistic low SMA generated.

Yes, terrain parameters are generated based on physical parameters. But for suns too - and their luminosity may change a bit. Also, in the generation procedure, the temperature of the planet is computed for piriastron (i.e. planet and all other suns are placed at minimum distance to each other). This is used to compute right atmosphere dissipation. When simulations are started, the planet and suns come to their real positions, and the temperature of the planet drops. So sometimes terras and oceanias become very cold. But once a planet is generated, its class cannot be changed, so SE cannot change cold terras and oceanias to ice worlds.

Until better generation algorithm can be implemented to handle these situations, you could just enforce an all out rule to not generate satellites if the planet is tidally locked (at least on planets below 10MEarth).

If this thing can do the same calculation taking into account how other stars influence the planet at their periastron, the ice shell on half of a terra/oceania/desert problem can be avoided where necessary.

PS: When creating a cylindrical projection of a planet, is it possible to add an option to export the color/bump/alpha maps directly to png format?

No, this is a question of the satellite maximum mass.

It may be a limitation of the generation engine, but I've noticed that, outside of globular clusters, there are no giant and larger procedural stars. I don't think I've seen any procedural subgiants either.

Quote (smjjames)
It may be a limitation of the generation engine, but I've noticed that, outside of globular clusters, there are no giant and larger procedural stars. I don't think I've seen any procedural subgiants either.

Do you mean anywhere in any galaxy, or just anywhere in the Milky Way, or just in the Milky Way's halo? Because there are plenty of giant procedural stars in SpaceEngine, though in the Milky Way they are generated anomalously and only appear in the region of the central bulge, and are also not as dense as in other galaxies. But as far as I can tell this is a problem specific to the Milky Way.

but I'm finding absolutely zero procedural subgiant+ stars (aside from an anomalous binary earlier) in uncharted areas.