Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
Spinecone
Observer
Observer
Posts: 17
Joined: 27 Jul 2017
Location: France

Unrealistic stars.

18 Nov 2017 05:09

JackDole wrote:
Spinecone wrote:
Source of the post is it normal that every Wolf-Rayet star added in my scripts (for WIP star catalogs mods) always appears as close binary stars?

This is a bug in SE 0.980. I do not know if it will be fixed in the next version.
You can work around this error by making a 'StarBarycenter'.
For example:
StarBarycenter "Aleph barycenter"
{
     RA 9 43 57.3
     Dec -3 12 23.03
     Dist 117.563585
}

(This belongs in 'addons\catalogs\stars')

And for the actual star its own script:
Star "Aleph"
{
     ParentBody "Aleph barycenter"
     Class "WN5"

     MassSol 300
     RadSol 20

     Luminosity 200000

    ....
    ....
}

(This belongs in 'addons\catalogs\planets')

Oooh, I see! I think I might instead wait for the next version to come out though, really looking foward for it.
Thank you still!
 
User avatar
John Wain
Observer
Observer
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere in RG 0-0-0-893

Unrealistic stars.

23 Dec 2017 01:13

Going back to the matter of the 300 solar mass limit, of which I was talking [url=http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29&start=810#p17019]here[/url], I can confirm that stars this massive are common in version 0.98. Of course they're easy to find due to their luminosity, but the fact remains that very massive stars are always 300 solar masses, not 299 or 295 or whatever value close to the 300 limit.

Also there are some huge stars around. I just now found this 141.99 AU behemoth, which obviously is unrealistically big.

[url=https://ibb.co/iG5XH6][img]https://thumb.ibb.co/iG5XH6/image.png[/img][/url]
 
User avatar
John Wain
Observer
Observer
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere in RG 0-0-0-893

Unrealistic stars.

23 Dec 2017 01:15

[quote="John Wain"]Going back to the matter of the 300 solar mass limit, of which I was talking [url=http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29&start=810#p17019]here[/url], I can confirm that stars this massive are common in version 0.98. Of course they're easy to find due to their luminosity, but the fact remains that very massive stars are always 300 solar masses, not 299 or 295 or whatever value close to the 300 limit.

Also there are some huge stars around. I just now found this 141.99 AU behemoth, which obviously is unrealistically big.

[url=https://ibb.co/iG5XH6][img]https://thumb.ibb.co/iG5XH6/image.png[/img][/url][/quote]


This is just a test and I'm hoping a moderator can DELETE this post. I don't understand why none of the bb-codes work for me. Quoting, image linking, everything is disabled although the coding is correct. Is it because of that anti-spambot policy?
 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 1015
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Unrealistic stars.

24 Dec 2017 00:54

John Wain wrote:
Source of the post I don't understand why none of the bb-codes work for me. Quoting, image linking, everything is disabled although the coding is correct. Is it because of that anti-spambot policy?

Yes.
We've had a lot of spam recently. That's why it's a safety measure for new forum members. After a few posts they will work.
 
User avatar
John Wain
Observer
Observer
Posts: 17
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Location: Somewhere in RG 0-0-0-893

Unrealistic stars.

15 Feb 2018 12:02

I'm not sure there is a thread for reporting erroneous catalog stars, but I remember seeing something like it before.

I was flying out of the Milky Way when whizz goes a very bright star by me. I click on it and, lo and behold, it's a red dwarf - with an absolute magnitude of -3.13 and a 2.23 AU diameter :))

The star in question is HIP 41118, I just thought I'd point it out for correction. I looked it up here (https://www.universeguide.com/star/hip41118), but the information is somewhat conflicting, based on different measurements...

EDIT. I actually found more of those on the outskirts of our Galaxy, all very bright (magnitudes between -3 and -5) and random clicking revealed them to be labeled as orange or red dwarfs (e.g., HIP 63052, HIP 65009, HIP 68516, HIP 70687).
 
User avatar
HarbingerDawn
SE Team Member
SE Team Member
Posts: 460
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Unrealistic stars.

17 Feb 2018 06:20

John Wain, there is a thread for reporting these issues: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76
Ryzen 7 1700 OC to 3.8 GHz, 32 GB DDR4 RAM, GTX 980 Ti 6144 MB VRAM
Posts on old forum: 8717
 
User avatar
AndromedaFloriaCloud
Observer
Observer
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Mar 2018
Location: Central United States
Contact:

Unrealistic stars.

26 Mar 2018 10:45

People may say that stars can get this big. They sadly can't. The stars solar mass would be so great that it would collapse immediately into a devastating supernova, or it it's out layers would quickly release into space, making the biggest nebula known besides NGC-604 (M33 Galaxy)
I agree that there should be a restrain in star size, but I think there should be a way to disable it in the settings, or adjust it to how you like.
Youtube: Andromeda ` Floria ` Cloud
Same with Google+

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest