Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Location: Earth2.0

Physical simulation of the space engine

17 Sep 2018 01:23

Can you tell me what physical simulations have been implemented in the space engine?
 
User avatar
xingqiu1
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Topic Author
Posts: 35
Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Location: Earth2.0

Physical simulation of the space engine

17 Sep 2018 01:28


Do you think that the universe in the spac engine is as big as the universe in the Universe Sandbox 2?

[font=Roboto, sans-serif]Some people say that in the Universe Sandbox 2, the black hole can be swallowed up to hundreds of times to swallow the galaxy. It is also said that the Universe Sandbox 2 is as big as the space engine. It is 1:1. I don't believe it, so can you go back to the right one?[/font]
 
User avatar
Quarior
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 370
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Location: Local Universe/Laniakea/Virgo SC/Local Group/Via Lactea/Orion–Cygnus Arm/Sol System/Gaia
Contact:

Physical simulation of the space engine

17 Sep 2018 06:53

xingqiu1 wrote:

Do you think that the universe in the spac engine is as big as the universe in the Universe Sandbox 2?

[font=Roboto, sans-serif]Some people say that in the Universe Sandbox 2, the black hole can be swallowed up to hundreds of times to swallow the galaxy. It is also said that the Universe Sandbox 2 is as big as the space engine. It is 1:1. I don't believe it, so can you go back to the right one?[/font]

Is like Space Engine in size but with many objects, performance decrease.
► Information
 
User avatar
Mosfet
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 1149
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Location: Italy
Contact:

Physical simulation of the space engine

17 Sep 2018 07:35

xingqiu1 wrote:
Source of the post Do you think that the universe in the spac engine is as big as the universe in the Universe Sandbox 2

I don't know how big it is in US2, but SpaceEngine universe is a cube with 10 billions parsec per side, or 1000 Gpc3.
"Time is illusion. Lunchtime doubly so". Douglas N. Adams
My mods | My specs: Asus x555ub - cpu i5-6200u, ram 4gb, gpu nvidia geforce 940m 2gb vram | IRC freenode.net canale ##SpaceEngineITA
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 1467
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Physical simulation of the space engine

17 Sep 2018 20:55

xingqiu1 wrote:
Source of the post Can you tell me what physical simulations have been implemented in the space engine?

I think Space Engine involves more emulation than simulation.  For example it never simulates the geological processes behind terrain building or erosion.  It instead emulates surface features by procedural algorithms.  It didn't form the cosmic web structure of the universe by running an n-body simulation, but rather generated their distribution to look like the real universe on large scales.

The difference between simulation and emulation is important, because a simulation can only handle so many interactions before it's just not computationally feasible on a home computer.  This is what makes Space Engine and Universe Sandbox so fundamentally different.  Universe Sandbox is a powerful simulator and can portray things like planetary impacts that Space Engine cannot, but by the same token, it cannot simulate anywhere near as many objects as what Space Engine contains.  

Space Engine is a 10x10x10 Gpc cube, and there are about 10 galaxies per cubic Megaparsec.  That comes out to roughly 1013 galaxies in SE.  If each one contains on average 100 million stars (I'm not sure the actual number), then that's 1021 star systems, and maybe about 1022 planets, not counting the rogue ones. :)
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 253
Joined: 02 May 2018

Physical simulation of the space engine

18 Sep 2018 05:37

USB2 has infinite space as with many 3D game engines, it just indefinitely scales with zooming or movement.  But it can only support a few 1000s objects at most due to a hard limit set in it for computation reasons as it is computing interactions between all those objects in every combo, so interactions grow exponentially with object count in a simplified way of explaining it.

You will see what that is like if you run the internal benchmarks. like the one with 5000 moons. That on my 8 thread CPU runs at 2-3 FPM, yes frames per minute!  Forget cinebench R15 or ashes of the benchmark, run the ones in USB2 lol
 
User avatar
SpaceEngineer
Author of SpaceEngine
Author of SpaceEngine
Posts: 822
Joined: 17 May 2016
Location: Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Physical simulation of the space engine

19 Sep 2018 15:18

Watsisname wrote:
Source of the post If each one contains on average 100 million stars

100 billions actually :)
 
User avatar
Salvo
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 280
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Location: Veneto, Italy
Contact:

Physical simulation of the space engine

25 Sep 2018 02:26

vlad01 wrote:
That on my 8 thread CPU runs at 2-3 FPM, yes frames per minute!  Forget cinebench R15 or ashes of the benchmark, run the ones in USB2 lol

LOL
Also KSP is very good for that!
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
 
vlad01
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 253
Joined: 02 May 2018

Physical simulation of the space engine

25 Sep 2018 03:39

Salvo wrote:
vlad01 wrote:
That on my 8 thread CPU runs at 2-3 FPM, yes frames per minute!  Forget cinebench R15 or ashes of the benchmark, run the ones in USB2 lol

LOL
Also KSP is very good for that!

I recorded it to put on youtube as a self reference to when I upgrade my PC to something like a 2700X later on but the video would not be accepted by youtube as the whole 10 sec video only was 1 or 2 frames. It kept thinking the video had errors but was fine playing back on my PC. It was as it was so I concluded it was just youtube complaining, audio was perfect so I know it recorded fine.


Some of the experiments I set up with tweaks in the debug panel, like no decay, huge particle limits and what not I left for hours to run and came back later in the day to see the results as it took minutes for each physics step to be computed.

They have updated it now so the same decay settings and particles can't be set as I could before so i's much faster but less detailed and complex now, but still many of the high body count experiments break your PC badly.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest