Being NASA/ESA, I really hope they make at least large use of educated guesses (and observational data)

Eh, I'm more inclined to believe that this was the best they could achieve with current technology. The best sims I've seen of turbulent star formation are not even close to 2D what NASA/ESA depicted. Honestly though, I always thought of the Orion nebula's shape similar to that of a clam (albeit drastically more bulbous and diffuse).

Statistics: Posted by spaceguy — 22 Feb 2018 17:08

]]>

Statistics: Posted by Mosfet — 22 Feb 2018 12:36

]]>

Isn't this model kinda trash since the nebula certainly isn't as flat as depicted?

Statistics: Posted by spaceguy — 22 Feb 2018 11:05

]]>

About the 3d models from those agencies, they use huge amounts of computational power to calculate those numerical data, while volumetric models need something like a parametric 3d function to approximate the real shape for our poor computers.

There are techniques involving fractal algorithms in order to match somehow real images with mathematical functions, used mainly to search new high quality audio-video compression mechanisms. Add a third dimension and I guess we are talking about frontier informatics

Statistics: Posted by Mosfet — 22 Feb 2018 08:15

]]>

Huntingknight wrote:Are ALL nebulae planned on being changed to volumetric models, or are there just going to be a bunch of new models for procedural space? As far as I could tell from the test videos, none of the nebulae being shown were real ones, but I could be wrong. So are nebulae such as Orion, Barnard's Loop, Eagle, etc nebulas going to be changed to volumetric in 0.9.9.0, or are changing all current models to volumetric more of a long term project and likely be finished for final release?

As far as I know, the only nebulaes that are volumetric are procedural ones, since we don't have a math equation describing the models for the real ones.

Yeah I kind of figured he would have to build them all one-by-one, which does not seem like a fun job hahahah. Although, I did see some hourglass-like and cone-like nebulas in some of the videos. So maybe some can easily be replaced? I dunno. Maybe there is a way to contact various scientific organizations or agencies like NASA and ESA on 3D nebula and galaxy models. For example, the Orion nebula has been made into a 3D model for visualization. I realize there is no link on that webpage to the actual model, but there may be a way to contact the people who made it for the model.

Statistics: Posted by Huntingknight — 22 Feb 2018 04:07

]]>

Are ALL nebulae planned on being changed to volumetric models, or are there just going to be a bunch of new models for procedural space? As far as I could tell from the test videos, none of the nebulae being shown were real ones, but I could be wrong. So are nebulae such as Orion, Barnard's Loop, Eagle, etc nebulas going to be changed to volumetric in 0.9.9.0, or are changing all current models to volumetric more of a long term project and likely be finished for final release?

As far as I know, the only nebulaes that are volumetric are procedural ones, since we don't have a math equation describing the models for the real ones.

Statistics: Posted by ARBB — 21 Feb 2018 14:11

]]>

]]>

]]>

Statistics: Posted by SpaceDust — 04 Feb 2018 01:11

]]>

]]>

SE uses simple analytical aerodynamics model with 11 numerical coefficients interpolated by splines. These coefficients are for MIG-29 (I think), taken from somewhere, it's impossible to remember the source now. The data tables are limited by the "forward" motion, ie attack angles in range -90°...+90°. This is why it goes crazy if you trying to fly backward.

It is possible to import data tables for other planes. I can make a function to load them from the file, so aerodynamics model can be customized/modded. Maybe these coefficients can be calculated for a custom ship mesh in some third-party software like X-Plane.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Thanks!

Plus, only ships that have Aerodynamic set to true would actually need the more complex tables, so the MIG-29 data could be retained as the default for anything that does not have their own custom coefficients.

Statistics: Posted by PlutonianEmpire — 30 Jan 2018 20:05

]]>

It is possible to import data tables for other planes. I can make a function to load them from the file, so aerodynamics model can be customized/modded.

If it is not very complicated and you have enough time, please do it. Enabling customizable aerodynamic physics and limitations per ship is a great idea, that would push SE even more forward. Many thanx!

Statistics: Posted by ngx — 29 Jan 2018 08:52

]]>

SE uses simple analytical aerodynamics model with 11 numerical coefficients interpolated by splines. These coefficients are for MIG-29 (I think), taken from somewhere, it's impossible to remember the source now. The data tables are limited by the "forward" motion, ie attack angles in range -90°...+90°. This is why it goes crazy if you trying to fly backward.

It is possible to import data tables for other planes. I can make a function to load them from the file, so aerodynamics model can be customized/modded. Maybe these coefficients can be calculated for a custom ship mesh in some third-party software like X-Plane.

Crazy Aerodynamic at backward flight is annoying. Since SE's ships would land on surfaces by hovering.

Probably we may also need better aerodynamics at hypersonic flight since shuttles would have to do that when they are launching from/ entering to planets with atmosphere.

Statistics: Posted by Speedademon — 29 Jan 2018 08:43

]]>

It is possible to import data tables for other planes. I can make a function to load them from the file, so aerodynamics model can be customized/modded. Maybe these coefficients can be calculated for a custom ship mesh in some third-party software like X-Plane.

Statistics: Posted by SpaceEngineer — 29 Jan 2018 03:29

]]>

Statistics: Posted by PlutonianEmpire — 28 Jan 2018 22:42

]]>