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.

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.

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.

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.

edit: I'm sure cryogenic hyperbaric glacial aquarias are pretty cool. 

The blog post about the currently accepted classification system:
http://spaceengine.org/news/blog170924/

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

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?

No I'm stupid and got a non- Molten core mixed up with coreless

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.

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.

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.

[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.

One thought I had for the bounds of the temperature categories with 647 K (the critical temperature for water) as the lower bound for hot planets and 1300 K as the lower bound for torrid, as it is a reasonable value for the solidus of basaltic rock.

Hello, can you people give me idea how to fix the Finnish translation to up to date program. As my language is not Indoeuropean stuff, it does not have any grammatical genders it was suggested to me by Mosfet to make all the terms neuter, so then it would work I guess.  

I am not a planet scientist so I am not sure about all the terms but I could try to find what are used in my language for them to translate for SpaceEngine. Word order could be a problem, but nothing I couldnt find a solution. I have actually found some solutions to it.

At this time the translation does not work almost at all (shows English instead in most places) but its not the topic of these messages, I did post it on other place.

My SpaceEngine may be older version so it would be nice to get a newer version if it is out of date. It has been for a while since I looked into this. What is the current English / Russian / German version saying on objects? So I could use those to see how the up to date version shows it. My SpaceEngine is versio 0.990 build10.

Is English like Planet Earth, Class temperate marine terra with life?