Page 5 of 6

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 13 Dec 2017 23:05
by Quarior
Cesare wrote:
Please can someone give me an approximate year when will Space Engine be finished?

Theoric a game of software when is finished want to improve more for optimisation and new feature so the year is [math].
But I’m not a expert for validate the theory. Just a note.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 16 Dec 2017 11:01
by Kimb
Technically, SpaceEngine will NEVER be complete. There's always new stuff being discovered about the universe; in that respect, SE development will be as a never-ending game of "catch-up".

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 19 Dec 2017 18:21
by scruffyhightops
Procedural civilizations I think is impossible, but it wouldn't be improbable as add-ons/ mods. At it's simplest and effectiveness at the moment would be megastructures, dyson structures and maybe space faring vessels. I would be more interested in seeing models of things like the ISS, or code to enable adding stations in orbit. 

Procedural life, would that be the same as possibly No Man's Sky? As much as seeing intelligent life as technological would be cool, I would find creatures more interesting. I know NMS use mathematical algorithms to spawn life. Is that something that isn't possible in the Space Engine coding? 

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 20 Dec 2017 14:22
by XBrain130
scruffyhightops wrote:
Source of the post I would be more interested in seeing models of things like the ISS, or code to enable adding stations in orbit.

That is ready for the next version.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 01 Jan 2018 07:03
by Cesare
The terrain engine upgrade #4 is amazing. I can't wait until the next stage of improvement for mid elevation levels.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 23 Jan 2018 21:46
by Oqwert
This project is so ambitious, it's already incredibly good and you still plan to do so much more. I love you.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 24 Jan 2018 15:23
by tornadotodd
I am definitely on the hope Space Engine is never finished bandwagon.. Always more that can be done, new discoveries.. A larger modding community would be nice to see.. But Space Engineer is definitely a perfectionist. Not to mention how the evolution of computers and capabilities can be expanded on over the coming years.. As a Universe simulator, SE's progress I am sure will have a lot of finished mode, but I would hope to see the Engine expanded on for as long as he has the drive and motivation to create. I love it!

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 04 Feb 2018 01:11
by SpaceDust
I can't wait for the Sloan and Hercules Corona-Borealis Great Walls, Eridanus and Bootes supervoids to be included! :D

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 09 Feb 2018 20:51
by Himself
The number one thing I'm looking forward to is ringshine. When that is implemented, will rings also be included in calculating the apparent magnitude of a planet?

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 11 May 2018 10:58
by iTeiji
When do you think seasonal changes will be implemented?

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 26 May 2018 04:30
by Messier
I just wanted to take a minute to ask about something; will there ever be such a thing as stars orbiting like planets - say there was a huge star, like an O-class or something, and in it's system was an inferior brown, red or even orange dwarf, ones that wouldn't really be massive enough to have an effect on it's star. I know there are already planets that are larger than the mass brown dwarfs should begin at and that their identification is changing to suit. But could it happen for even bigger stars?

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 19 Jun 2018 14:40
by Propulsion Disk
Messier wrote:
I just wanted to take a minute to ask about something; will there ever be such a thing as stars orbiting like planets - say there was a huge star, like an O-class or something, and in it's system was an inferior brown, red or even orange dwarf, ones that wouldn't really be massive enough to have an effect on it's star. I know there are already planets that are larger than the mass brown dwarfs should begin at and that their identification is changing to suit. But could it happen for even bigger stars?

That's pretty much making the geocentric solar system model all over again, where the sun was thought to orbit the earth. And the part where you said "planets that are larger than the mass brown dwarf," didn't make much sense to me at first, but what's going on is the brown dwarf has more mass than the planet, it's just the planet is not as dense as the brown dwarf, and therefore only APPEARS to be bigger.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 20 Jun 2018 03:45
by FastFourierTransform
Messier wrote:
Source of the post I just wanted to take a minute to ask about something; will there ever be such a thing as stars orbiting like planets - say there was a huge star, like an O-class or something, and in it's system was an inferior brown, red or even orange dwarf

You mean for example a binary stellar system with such a huge mass ratio between the components that the barycenter keeps inside the more massive one? As if the other star orbited the primary like in the architecture of the solar system. Sure! it is possible.
That said, It's also true that those are very difficult to detect since massive stars tend to be also the most luminous stars and the companions light gets washed out in the images since we need larger contrast to find them. But sure there are objects like that.
The mass ratio, q,  of a binary system, a.k.a. the mass of the secondary, m2,divided by the mass of the primary component, m1,has a close-to-flat frequency distribution. That means that in general you can find as many stars with q=0.1 (one star is 10 times more massive than the other) as with q=1.0 (both stars have similar mass). It's interesting because this distribution is not totally flat, and not only that but it depends on the mass of the primary how this distribution behaves.

Look at this graph (and click on it to read the scientific paper where I took it)
Image
This is the distribution for different stellar masses (here they used stellar types as an indicator). In the x-axis you have q=m2/m1 and in the y-axis you have the, let's say, probability of finding that kind of system. Binary systems containing a brown dwarf as primary component are represented by the green triangles, M-dwarfs are represented by purple/magenta stars, G-dwarfs (like our Sun) are represented as blue/cyan hexagons and A-dwarfs are represented by yellow circles. As you can see in general the distribution is flat; for example if you have a collection of 100 binary stars whith a G-dwarf (sun-like) star as the main component then, using the graph above, you should expect around 12 systems with q=0.15 (meaning the secondary is very low-mass) and around 10 or 11 systems to have q=0.95 (meaning both stars are very similar in mass, like Alpha Centauri A and B). That's what flat distribution means, you have all the diversity equally represented somehow. But if you take a closer look you see that the distributions are not totally flat (in fact this diagram makes that clear) and you can see that it differs as it was dependant on the primary's mass (or stellar type in this case). As you can see there are fewer brown dwarfs with much smaller-mass companions than there are brwon dwarfs with similar mass companions (an interesting result that has probably a lot to do with brown dwarfs not been stars in many aspects). For the rest of objects you have that in general the flat distribution is deviated to a lower q preference. This is great news for us. We want extremely low q for the barycenter to be inside the primary star (so that we can say that the architecture of the stellar system is like the one of a planetary system) and we have that lower q's are more probable. Not only that! We have that for more massive stars (at least until A-type stars) we have this behaviour enhanced so there should be a lot of high-mass low-mass binary systems in the galaxy.

By the way it would be awesome if someone could make a diagram like this but using data from SE universe. Search randomly for binaries and calculate their q values, then see if the proportions of some q's is greater than others for different stellar types. If not like this then SE could be made more accurate with the real distributions.

This is not the entire story at all by the way. To have the barycenter inside the primary you don't only need a low q value but also a small separation between the two; two binary systems with the same q value but one on which the components are 2 AU away and the other where the distance is 200 AU has it's barycenter displaced from the center of the primary differently. Take a look at this equation:

Image


Here a is the semi-mayor axis of the system and r is the distance between the center of the primary and the barycenter of the system. We want r to be r<R, where R is the radius of the primary star, so that the barycenter lies inside the primary star and the system looks like a planetary system (in terms of orbital architecture). This means that want r to be small, and that means we should make a small or the denominator large, and to make the denominator large we neet to make q small. So yeah our binary is possible and we now know it's probable in terms of the distribtion of q (there are many low q values in binaries as the graph showed us), but we still need to know if the distribution of q depends on a (q varying as a function of a). Who knows, maybe close binaries tend to have q closer to 1 (a.k.a. the closer binaries have similar mass components) and you only find small q's for wide binaries. In this case planetary-like architecture of the system could be much more improbable than we are guessing here. I don't know if there's any research article about this (there has to be, but now I have to leave because I exhausted my free time for today).

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 20 Jun 2018 06:33
by Propulsion Disk
FastFourierTransform wrote:
Source of the post You mean for example a binary stellar system with such a huge mass ratio between the components that the barycenter keeps inside the more massive one? As if the other star orbited the primary like in the architecture of the solar system. Sure! it is possible.

I think he said the vice versa FFT, he asked if say, a brown dwarf was in the center of a solar system, and it had a blue giant in the system, he's asking if the blue giant would orbit the brown dwarf, or if the brown dwarf would orbit the blue giant. The reason he thought of this is because he found a brown dwarf system that had a planet that looked bigger but was not as dense.

SpaceEngine TODO

Posted: 21 Jun 2018 19:36
by Destructor1701
That's definitely not what he's asking. He's being quite clear. You even quoted him.