Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
JCandeias
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Location: Portugal

New planet classification

18 Aug 2017 06:44

PuzzySlayer9000 wrote:
Source of the post Airless is different from the -baric pattern, but I don't think there is any synonym of airless that is suitable for a celestial body devoid of an atmosphere.

There may not be, but it's easily created, since there is a prefix that indicates non-existence: a-. So it'd be abaric.

On the minus side, airless is much more straightforward to pretty much everyone.
My addons are to be found at JCandeias' Ships

Current count: 2
 
User avatar
PuzzySlayer9000
Observer
Observer
Posts: 9
Joined: 29 Apr 2017

New planet classification

18 Aug 2017 07:51

JCandeias wrote:
PuzzySlayer9000 wrote:
Source of the post Airless is different from the -baric pattern, but I don't think there is any synonym of airless that is suitable for a celestial body devoid of an atmosphere.

There may not be, but it's easily created, since there is a prefix that indicates non-existence: a-. So it'd be abaric.

On the minus side, airless is much more straightforward to pretty much everyone.

Abaric sounds cool and follows the pattern. Airless is more straightforward. I would rather have abaric but that's probably only because I know what it means.
 
User avatar
JCandeias
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 70
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Location: Portugal

New planet classification

22 Aug 2017 09:57

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post 16 Psyche cold airless metallic asteroid cold metallic microferria

Say, shouldn't the "airless" bit be omitted from asteroids? All asteroids are airless; they're too small to retain atmospheres. When they do have volatiles around them, they become comets.
My addons are to be found at JCandeias' Ships

Current count: 2
 
somsoc
Observer
Observer
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Feb 2017

New planet classification

25 Aug 2017 08:32

Don't know whether this part of development is still on-going, but I really like the suggestion somewhere in the thread to offer an optional to choose between simple and scientific classifications.

I'd also offer perhaps an extended version of that which is a short or long form of 'everyday' or scientific. This would satisfy I think many of those posting in this thread.

For example, myself and I am sure a lot of newcomers to SE, reading something is icy is perfectly acceptable. I don't need to know up front what type of ice that is. If I want to find out more, I can look at the detailed info. I think words which encourage further investigation are good.

I also suggest perhaps using a mouse rollover or click to show a longer more precise form of the descriptions talked about in this thread.

Really though I am a big fan of the way that Space Engine has talked about its objects. Something like 'Scorched selena' is really evocative to me. I love reading things like that in SE. It captures my imagination. I started using selena in conversation with people, which led to discussions about moons and so on, and often talking about the program itself. Selena has become part of my everyday language, but I know it is not useful in a scientific sense - but I'm not a scientist, I'm a writer, developer, and general creative person. Therefore having a system which is enjoyable/inspiring to read and use is more important to me than long-winded precision.

In the same sense, jovian and neptunian are better descriptors because they read well. I don't want to call something 'a jupiter planet'. (I realise I can hopefully edit the file provided, but I would be disappointed if this were in the official descriptions, I feel like SE will lose something in using that language).

Sometimes, I might want to look at the universe in a strict, precise scientific way, so I could enable the scientific approach and browse through 'cryogenic hyperbaric glacial aquarias' to my hearts content! :) That would be cool, as well.
 
somsoc
Observer
Observer
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Feb 2017

New planet classification

25 Aug 2017 08:35

edit: I'm sure cryogenic hyperbaric glacial aquarias are pretty cool.  :P
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 503
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Sep 2017 05:12

The blog post about the currently accepted classification system:
http://spaceengine.org/news/blog170924/
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

New planet classification

25 Sep 2017 09:10

Desertic seems to be the strangest word used out of all the new classification types. At least in English, to me. A more common term, at least used in my profession, is Xeric. I would think since it is a Greek based word, many other languages might use it or similar root. Some other examples of "Dry" synonyms are:

Xerophytic, Arid, Subarid,  Semiarid, Insipid, Pindan, Prosaic, Desicated, Exsiccated, Aneroid, Gizzen, Exsuccous, & Desiccant

I was wondering if these planet classification types might be implemented: Chthonian planets; stripped away Gas Giants (or Class III below), Coreless planets like Mars, or Sudarsky's gas giant classification; Class I: Ammonia clouds, Class II: Water clouds, Class III: Cloudless, Class IV: Alkali metals, Class V: Silicate clouds
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
XBrain130
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 267
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Italy
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Sep 2017 09:28

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post
Xerophytic, Arid, Subarid,  Semiarid, Insipid, Pindan, Prosaic, Desicated, Exsiccated, Aneroid, Gizzen, Exsuccous, & Desiccant

Arid seems the best one imo

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post Coreless planets like Mars

...what?

Wikipedia:
Like Earth, Mars has differentiated into a dense metallic core overlaid by less dense materials. Current models of its interior imply a core with a radius of about 1,794 ± 65 kilometers (1,115 ± 40 mi), consisting primarily of iron and nickel with about 16–17% sulfur.

...am I missing something?
SpaceEngine's Italian Discord server: https://discord.gg/NhQbEbC
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

New planet classification

25 Sep 2017 10:42

No I'm stupid and got a non- Molten core mixed up with coreless
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
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 503
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

25 Sep 2017 14:53

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post I was wondering if these planet classification types might be implemented:

They all are already in SE, though not separated to a special classes. Because they have nothing special:

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the postChthonian planets

They are just a very hot neptunes/jupiters which are lost their hydrogen or even helium. SE generating those.

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post stripped away Gas Giants

Are you confused it with chthonian? Sudarsky III class is a warm gas giants.

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post Coreless planets like Mars

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post No I'm stupid and got a non- Molten core mixed up with coreless

Why we should consider a planets with non-motlten or missing core as a separate class? What is so special in their nature? SE generates the bulk composition now, so you can see the core mass in the Wiki. It could be as low as 1%. By the way, Earth have a solid iron core.

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post or Sudarsky's gas giant classification; Class I: Ammonia clouds, Class II: Water clouds, Class III: Cloudless, Class IV: Alkali metals, Class V: Silicate clouds

They are corresponding to the cold, temperate, warm, hot and torrid jupiters (gas giants), respectively. SE already considering theoretical appearance of gas giants at different temperatures to generate their textures.
 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 619
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

New planet classification

26 Sep 2017 02:20

SpaceEngineer wrote:
Source of the post Why we should consider a planets with non-motlten or missing core as a separate class? What is so special in their nature?

I think a planet without a core has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field, in turn, may be important for the development of life.
A planet without a magnetic field has no protection from the radiation of the sun. Maybe that's why Mars has no life.
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Topic Author
Posts: 503
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

New planet classification

26 Sep 2017 03:18

JackDole wrote:
Source of the post I think a planet without a core has no magnetic field.
A magnetic field, in turn, may be important for the development of life.
A planet without a magnetic field has no protection from the radiation of the sun. Maybe that's why Mars has no life

This is a common misconception. Magnetic field does not protect the surface directly. The air itself protect - the radiation level at 20 km altitude is negligible. A thin layer of water or ice, just few centimeters, protects against solar and cosmic rays by 100%. Life under ice or in the water is 100% protected without any magnetic field. What magnetic field is doing, is protecting atmosphere at some degree against non-thermal dissipation. The dissipation speed depends on many factors, not only on radiation or solar wind. Magnetic field plays zero role in evolution of atmosphere on planets near a silent stars, but can be important near red dwarfs, whose flares ripping apart planetary atmosphere by non-thermal mechanism. Great example is Venus - it have no magnetic field, closer to Sun and smaller than Earth, but its atmosphere is enormous. Mars lost its atmosphere simply due to a weak gravity.
 
User avatar
Kimb
Observer
Observer
Posts: 4
Joined: 03 Oct 2017

New planet classification

06 Dec 2017 12:21

[quote="HarbingerDawn"][quote="Mosfet"][post]10478[/post] Secondly, adjectives like rocky, temperate must be written with different declension according to the gender of the related noun.[/quote]
The same is true for Russian, so this has already been planned for. You will be able to specify masculine, feminine, and neuter translations for each term, and which should be used with which class. The exact details are still being worked on.[/quote]
From what I see, almost ALL European languages decline nouns by grammatical gender. Aside from English, the only Euro languages that don't (as far as I know) are Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian and maybe Turkish.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest