Aren't there numerous photos of AGN with a tori structure?

I think there may be one or two, don't know though.  In the future of SE 3D disks like that will be implemented but that is a bit further down the pipe.

That is why I am a bit worried about how much graphics memory we will need.  (Not just that but all of the forthcoming enhancements lol.)  How much video memory do you think will be necessary to "future proof" for the program for let's say the next 5-10 years or so?  Do you think 2 Gb of VRAM might be enough? I run dual 1080P displays but only display 3D graphics on one.

Oh, I thought you were talking of something currently in Space Engine.

The dust torus is the best current model for the structure of AGN, which explains their physics and why they look different (quasar, blazar, Seyfert Galaxy, etc) from different viewing angles.  The accretion disk itself is fed from this dust torus.  To my knowledge there aren't any actual direct observations that show this, but I might be wrong.

Anyway as Doc said, right now SE is limited to thin flat accretion disks -- volumetric stuff may come later.

It's interesting there might even be quasars (and microquasars) within our own galaxy.  There have been star-sized objects discovered with a quasar-like appearance.  I have heard real quasars (like the famous 3C 273 which you can spot with an amateur telescope) are not present in SE, but quasars are present as procedural objects?  Any idea when the full 3C quasar list might be incorporated into the program?  I've always been fascinated with quasars, since way back in the early 80s, I was in 4th grade when I read "In Quest Of Quasars" by Ben Bova.  It was in my elementary school library lol.

How much video memory do you think will be necessary to "future proof" for the program for let's say the next 5-10 years or so?

SpaceEngineer seems to think 4 to 6GBs, especially if you go 4k in near future. 

How much video memory do you think will be necessary to "future proof" for the program for let's say the next 5-10 years or so?

SpaceEngineer seems to think 4 to 6GBs, especially if you go 4k in near future. 

and frame rates of near 15 fps as a minimum I think?  What about if I run the program as a 1024x768 window on one of my monitors, would 2 GB be enough in that case for at least 5 years?  I might go get a higher memory video card, even if it is a little slower.  Do fps matter in the simulation as much as they would for a gamer playing a first person shooter or is video memory more important than fps for SE?

Basically what I'm asking Doc, is to run SE for a few years (5 or more) at (max) 1080P resolution would you go with a 2 GB GDDR5 card or a 4 GB DDR3 card if those were the only two that would work with your motherboard?  Assuming everything else with the two cards is equal.

A faster card with less memory is usually better than a slower card with more memory.  Just look at comparisons, it is never a good idea to pick a card for one good feature but instead find one with a good balance of clock speed, memory speed, cores, and memory.

A faster card with less memory is usually better than a slower card with more memory.  Just look at comparisons, it is never a good idea to pick a card for one good feature but instead find one with a good balance of clock speed, memory speed, cores, and memory.

Besides, isn't DDR3 graphics memory the exact same speed as system memory (which we already have.)  The whole point of graphics memory is to have something faster, not the same speed as system memory (which can be used as a backup anyway when graphics memory runs out.)

I've been reading this, which is basically like a short college course in computer  memory lol.

http://www.techspot.com/community/topic ... ry.186408/

Long story short, DDR3 is a really bad idea for graphics cards.  It's no faster than system memory (although I thought the PCI-e bus might accelerate it, but I guess it doesn't.)

A faster card with less memory is usually better than a slower card with more memory.  Just look at comparisons, it is never a good idea to pick a card for one good feature but instead find one with a good balance of clock speed, memory speed, cores, and memory.

so a 4GB card with DDR3 memory wouldn't be able to run the program properly anyway?

May I suggest to move further questions in the appropriate thread?

this is just a thought but how about mutiverses meanging mutuiple unaverses some smaller some bigger and that you can go to i think this would make the game abit cooler something like this and they can be randomly genarated and who knows mabye a twin earth its just a thought i thought it would be cool to suggest this

In the cosmological concordance model, with level I parallel universes, a generic prediction of cosmological inflation shows an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 10^10^29 meters away.

Interestingly, it seems to some people, that the constants of the universe are fine tuned for the conditions needed for life, called the Anthropic Principal. Also called a level II universe. Here we see what would happen if you started changing these constants:
The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html
The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/Q.html
The effect of changing neutrino masses: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.html
The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511774
The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1024

A level III type multiverse is when our universe keeps branching into parallel universes whenever a quantum event appears to have a random outcome, all outcomes in fact occur, one in each branch.

I don't know what type of Universe or Multiverse Space Engine uses, perhaps we will need Quantum Laptops in order to achieve some of the higher level types. Until then, it will probably remain a cube 92 billion light years across in each direction.

In the cosmological concordance model, with level I parallel universes, a generic prediction of cosmological inflation shows an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 10^10^29 meters away.

Interestingly, it seems to some people, that the constants of the universe are fine tuned for the conditions needed for life, called the Anthropic Principal. Also called a level II universe. Here we see what would happen if you started changing these constants:
The effect of changing the dimensionalities of space and time: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html
The effect of changing the CMB fluctuation amplitude Q~10-5: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/Q.html
The effect of changing neutrino masses: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/anthroneutrino.html
The effect on changing the dark matter density, dark energy density and CMB fluctuation amplitude: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511774
The effect of changing the masses of elementary particles: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1024

A level III type multiverse is when our universe keeps branching into parallel universes whenever a quantum event appears to have a random outcome, all outcomes in fact occur, one in each branch.

I don't know what type of Universe or Multiverse Space Engine uses, perhaps we will need Quantum Laptops in order to achieve some of the higher level types. Until then, it will probably remain a cube 92 billion light years across in each direction.

We were talking about this earlier- the universe is basically a giant quantum computer in its own right.  And I believe you just stated the Tegmark Hierarchy of Universes (interesting that we are classifying things before we actually know they exist lol.)
Lee Smolin has also talked about this and theorized a cosmic natural selection whereby universes with life give birth to more universes with life (inside Kerr Black Holes) and Poplawski showed how relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified if we allow for universes to be created inside black holes (including our own) inside larger universes.  Then where did the larger universe, the "superverse" come from?  The whole structure can be cyclic both in space and time so that no matter where you go, whatever level, you'll eventually end up right back where you started.  Including M-theory and F-theory you could even have a second temporal dimension which would allow for nested timelines diverging at the start of each new cycle (big bounce) via inflation and converging at the next one.  The weird value of the Cosmological Constant has caused some to conjecture that the value trends towards zero with every cycle and thus our universe will slowly wind down and eventually these cycles (if they are real) will come to an end.  But at least there will be baby universes  Look up Hawking's Imaginary Time (it refers to a second dimension of time that runs perpendicular to ours and only crosses our conventional axis of time at the point of "origin.")

Interesting you mentioned neutrinos, it's theorized that sterile neutrinos could actually travel in time because they are not affected by any of the four fundamental forces but gravity.  Now we just need to find them!

I don't know what type of Universe or Multiverse Space Engine uses

Steady state with some fakery of the real universe added in, like red shifting.

to i think this would make the game abit cooler something like this and they can be randomly genarated and who knows mabye a twin earth its just a thought i thought it would be cool to suggest this

I don't think this is ever going to be added.  What SpaceEngineer has talked about before is expanding the universe size a few more times, making it as large or larger than the real observable universe, and then close it on itself.  This would mean if you flew in a straight line long enough you would come back to where you started.

[hr]

Gnargenox, to me it seems that every universe is separated to itself, perhaps similar to what Thorne has suggested about branes.  I don't think brane collision is likely or possible, nor do I think the idea about quantum fracturing at ever event is likely.  If I had to guess off of current information, I would go with multiple universes exist, do not interact, and after a universe like ours dies it reboots.  This would put multiple expanding shells of spacetime of the same universe within itself, always beyond your horizon.

I don't know what type of Universe or Multiverse Space Engine uses

Steady state with some fakery of the real universe added in, like red shifting.

to i think this would make the game abit cooler something like this and they can be randomly genarated and who knows mabye a twin earth its just a thought i thought it would be cool to suggest this

I don't think this is ever going to be added.  What SpaceEngineer has talked about before is expanding the universe size a few more times, making it as large or larger than the real observable universe, and then close it on itself.  This would mean if you flew in a straight line long enough you would come back to where you started.

[hr]

Gnargenox, to me it seems that every universe is separated to itself, perhaps similar to what Thorne has suggested about branes.  I don't think brane collision is likely or possible, nor do I think the idea about quantum fracturing at ever event is likely.  If I had to guess off of current information, I would go with multiple universes exist, do not interact, and after a universe like ours dies it reboots.  This would put multiple expanding shells of spacetime of the same universe within itself, always beyond your horizon.

I love these ideas of yours!  So you favor a cyclic multiverse but noninteracting?  What about such things as gravity and sterile neutrinos?  They would not be tied to any one universe or brane and could thus travel or leak out.  Some consider virtual particles and photons as traveling between universes and we already discussed universes with different arrows of time.  Poplawski's universe inside black hole idea is intriguing.  As is fractality- we have found that the large scale structure of the universe actually resembles the structure of our own brain's neuronic network.
I will post something about this for you to see.
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-univers ... n-expected
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-b ... scale.html
http://www.livescience.com/25027-univer ... brain.html

What about such things as gravity and sterile neutrinos?  They would not be tied to any one universe or brane and could thus travel or leak out

Those things are still locked within the expanding shell of spacetime, neutrinos and gravity don't travel faster than light.

I love these ideas of yours!  So you favor a cyclic multiverse but noninteracting?

Strictly from our universal perspective I think our universe repeats.  I rather like the elegance pf Sean Carroll's model suggested in his paper here

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0410270

Given enough time and given the current known laws of physics it seems like the universe in the far future can reach an unstable point where entropy can reverse for a moment and the universe can start again.  If this is the case then perhaps our universe is cyclic.  Its elegant in that it has no beginning and no end, no real cost to exist, and the entire system is in balance with itself.  It also seems to suggest there may be a large number, if not infinite, of shells of spacetime from previous universes expanding well outside of our cosmic horizon.  In my mind I see it as a repeating universe forever without any changes, but even if each reboot the universe is slightly different, it still suggests that given enough of these the same universe will form and we will continue to repeat our existence forever.

Could be wrong, probably am, but that makes the most sense to me.