Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Explorer
Explorer
Topic Author
Posts: 156
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 05:13

The upper limit for stellar mass is believed to be 150 solar masses, and such stars are extremely rare. I just entered a randomly generated galaxy and found - purely by accident, no searches involved - a 300 solar mass star, with a diameter of 29 AU (nearly twice as large as UY Scuti, which, by the way, has 10 solar masses).

The star is called 0-0-0-134-21922-0-0-306. Can't there at least be basic physical restraints in the generator?
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 07:20

 RMC136a1=315+60/−50 M☉
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
User avatar
problemecium
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 81
Joined: 30 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 08:20

Finding an anomalously large star just means you got lucky. They're also easy to spot on account of their size. Find a bunch of these and you may have a point relating to the statistical distributions.
ᴩʀoʙʟᴇᴍᴇᴄɪᴜᴍ﹖
Formerly known as "parameciumkid." Still playing on Intel HD Graphics 4000 ^^
 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 619
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 08:22

R136a1 is a very massive star, but has a comparatively small diameter.
According to Wikipedia 315 solar masses and 28.8 - 35.4 solar diameters. (About 0.3 au)

This seems to be the rule in real life. Stars with very high mass, but comparatively low diameter, and stars with lesser mass, but very large diameter.
For example UY Scuti with 7-10 solar masses and 1708 ± 192 solar diameters. According to Wikipedia.
(Other sources say 20 - 40 solar masses)
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Explorer
Explorer
Topic Author
Posts: 156
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 09:01

problemecium wrote:
R136a1 is a very massive star, but has a comparatively small diameter.
According to Wikipedia 315 solar masses and 28.8 - 35.4 solar diameters. (About 0.3 au)

This seems to be the rule in real life. Stars with very high mass, but comparatively low diameter, and stars with lesser mass, but very large diameter.
For example UY Scuti with 7-10 solar masses and 1708 ± 192 solar diameters. According to Wikipedia.
(Other sources say 20 - 40 solar masses

I apparently read some garbage science journalism, then. :cry:

problemecium wrote:
Finding an anomalously large star just means you got lucky. They're also easy to spot on account of their size. Find a bunch of these and you may have a point relating to the statistical distributions.

I found an even bigger star, 0-0-0-134-21922-0-0-27, not too far away by eyeball. You're right that bigger stars are easier to spot, but that's also true in real life and I'm doing a million times better than the entire astronomical community. Also, there's the size issue. UY Scuti is the largest star ever discovered. I'm finding stars twice as big whenever I glance around.

EDIT: Actually, now that I compare it to the Milky Way, it seems that I can't spot any stars at that distance. They don't even show up. Seems like that was just a galaxy of incredibly massive stars. Is that scientifically accurate? Age could explain size but not mass.

Gnargenox wrote:
RMC136a1=315+60/−50 M☉

Okay dude, what?
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Explorer
Explorer
Topic Author
Posts: 156
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 09:22

RS 0-0-0-134-7430-0-0-268. Red supergiant over a hundred AU wide. It would extend past the orbit of Pluto, were it in the center of the solar system.

I think the star generator may have a tiny bit of a issue here. Maybe it's good that solar masses seem to be capped at 300.

EDIT: So it seems 0-0-0-134-14722-0-0-292 is the biggest one I've found. 114 AU. It also has an orbiting black hole... I can't think of anything to say here.
Last edited by Mouthwash on 23 Sep 2017 10:45, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
spaceguy
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 181
Joined: 30 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 10:37

Mouthwash wrote:
Source of the post Actually, now that I compare it to the Milky Way, it seems that I can't spot any stars at that distance. They don't even show up. Seems like that was just a galaxy of incredibly massive stars. Is that scientifically accurate? Age could explain size but not mass.

I don't think so. Massive stars in general, even in active star formation galaxies, are extremely rare. 300 solar mass stars are theoretical and no one has seen them. So I find it a bit odd that you can find a lot of these stars by searching for them, even if by statistical distribution they're ''rare'' in the engine. But they don't feel rare, especially when exploring procedural galaxies. I mean yes it could be observational bias, but I always find myself finding way too many 300 solar mass stars. Maybe the engine compensates by balancing the mass distribution in massive stars so it doesn't have to generate millions more smaller stars, idk.
Last edited by spaceguy on 23 Sep 2017 10:46, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 10:41

Mouthwash wrote:
Source of the post Okay dude, what?

Space Engine would not be a proper simulator of the observable universe if it didn't include the possibility of 300+ M stars. Some galaxies have an over abundance certainly, just as there is the over abundance of planets with life. Just so the layman wont have to spend a week hunting for one.
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Explorer
Explorer
Topic Author
Posts: 156
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 10:43

Gnargenox wrote:
Mouthwash wrote:
Source of the post Okay dude, what?

Space Engine would not be a proper simulator of the observable universe if it didn't include the possibility of 300+ M stars. Some galaxies have an over abundance certainly, just as there is the over abundance of planets with life. Just so the layman wont have to spend a week hunting for one.

And you talk about what a 'proper simulator' is with a straight face?
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

Unrealistic stars.

23 Sep 2017 10:48

Link me to a better one. :o
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unrealistic stars.

26 Sep 2017 01:29

if 300 M stars are only theoretical but present in the program then we should also have the theoretical quark stars too :P
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 37
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

27 Sep 2017 14:21

300 M stars exist and we have seen them as Gnargenox pointed out.   R136a1 to be specific.  Now for stars over 100Au in diameter.... well that is probably unrealistic unless it is a Quasi star.  Even so Quasi stars have not been observed and were thought only possible in the very early universe.

Edit: Quasi stars are not currently in Space Engine anyways.
Edit Edit: In the closed beta right now the mass cap for non-catalog stars has been moved down to 180 M so the concern is mostly void.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unrealistic stars.

27 Sep 2017 14:47

It makes me wonder how did R136a1 happen if it is such an outlier? And there are others in the same cluster of a similar mass? And how come the LMC has it and none have been found in our galaxy or Andromeda M31 which are both much larger?
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 37
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

27 Sep 2017 14:52

Well we can't observe most of our galaxy due to us being in it and the Andromeda galaxy is too far away for us to get any accurate readings on a single star.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unrealistic stars.

27 Sep 2017 15:13

Good point, so they might be near the center of the galaxy, most of which is obscured by dust?

Makes you wonder if there might be even larger stars than that one.  In our galaxy, M31 or M87 Giant galaxy in Virgo!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest