But it depends on what kind of texture and program I am working on.

For modelling I use Blender, I can send you original blend files or obj files. Do you know how to unwrap texture from models?

But it depends on what kind of texture and program I am working on.

For modelling I use Blender, I can send you original blend files or obj files. Do you know how to unwrap texture from models?

Blender, I used it long time ago for animations and similar things. But I forgot a lot of things. Unfortunately, I need to learn that. I can only do the easy textures for 2D objects... Sorry if I am not as you expected. If you need anything from me, that would be art because I am good with that.

Just a thought regarding procedural life (mainly relating to foliage, trees, plants etc)

If a terrestrial planet with life has the right conditions to support 'advanced' forms of life then could the texture of the planet itself act as a 'seed' for the trees, plants etc?

example:
dark green pixel = high density ( x amount trees per x amount area )
medium green pixel = medium density.
light green pixel = low density.

(The density multiplier and LOD of the trees can be adjusted (or disabled) in the options so as to suite performance needs)

The same goes for bacterial or single celled life that covers desert worlds etc etc etc..... I will leave the science behind it to those who know better - and also the discussion as to whether 'trees' or 'jungles' would even exist on other worlds BUT of course it would add another dimension to life planets.

Also great to read in Vlads blog about now being able to add static objects to planets using code, so look forward to that.....along with the end of the disappearing planets bug which space engineer also mentioned had been fixed... or did i dream it? lol

A.P

Perhaps some new technique of rendering atmospheres.

Perhaps some new technique of rendering atmospheres.

The only things shown there that SE currently lacks are 3D clouds and volumetric shadows. The atmospheric scattering is pretty much identical.

Perhaps some new technique of rendering atmospheres.

The only things shown there that SE currently lacks are 3D clouds and volumetric shadows. The atmospheric scattering is pretty much identical.

Well from what I see, the atmosphere is crispier and you can see ''layers'' if that makes sense. Also much bluer and brighter.
There's a noticeable difference, especially in the way light behaves as it transitions from Earth's shadow to the brightest side in the horizon in the image. I can't really articulate it but that's my observation/opinion. ;p Also some atmospheres appear to suddenly end with no transition. Thick atmospheres, especially around blue hot stars are usually the ones I see with these kind of atmospheres.

Blender, I used it long time ago for animations and similar things. But I forgot a lot of things. Unfortunately, I need to learn that. I can only do the easy textures for 2D objects

don't worry, I like model objects but I'm not good with the texturing part, so I'm trying to find someone for help

Blender, I used it long time ago for animations and similar things. But I forgot a lot of things. Unfortunately, I need to learn that. I can only do the easy textures for 2D objects

don't worry, I like model objects but I'm not good with the texturing part, so I'm trying to find someone for help

I thought that you are some expert with those things. Well, I can still help you as much as I can. But, what kind of textures? Some really complex that would need some skill, or just to re-paint the existing ones. If it is just to use the existing ones and add some modifications to it, I think it should be easy for me.

I don't know if this has been suggested before, or is reasonably doable, but maybe some kind of scale comparison tool? I know that we have the size comparison view for a single solar system, what i'm thinking of is more like selecting two or three objects and then spaceengine puts them side by side or something if you want to have a size relation more directly visualized. Maybe make this possible with galaxies/clusters/nebulae too?

My post from "Advertising SE?" slighty modified.

  About realism, planets should be the main priority after nebulas. Right now, people get screwed up by the scale, everything feels "to big", from far away it looks nice, with excellent dunes and mountain ranges, and beautiful cracks on ice worlds, but up close it is hard to tell if "it is bigger than a human" or "is that Mount Everest?", rocks would give a basic notion of size, since it's a pretty common thing, and more ruggedness on the terrain would be appreciated. 

 And tectonic activity that could give more realistic terrain generation rather than random mountain clusters spread across the land, basically something based of on this article - https://experilous.com/1/blog/post/proc ... generation -, where locations of volcanoes, width of oceanic rifts and size of mountains could be determined by the force applied by the plate, and amount of heat coming ou[font=Roboto, sans-serif]t of [font=Roboto, sans-serif]those places. Now, the speed of plates and rate of growing in mountains shouldn't (and can't) be added now.[/font][/size][/font]

  A simple weather model telling if it supposed to be 'hot' or 'cold' not just by altitude but by jet streams, oceanic currents and more complex weather phenomena. There are a lot of different authors that wrote about this, including the one from Experilous up above, the approach made by dexyfex (https://www.facebook.com/dexy.fex), and this climate model for the generation of varied and realistic biomes:


 Also, I would really appreciate more variety on planet surfaces, iv'e never seen an selenas like our moon, and ice worlds that look like Europa or Enceladus, the closest was a planet that resembled Callisto:
https://www.astrovox.gr/forum/files/thu ... ma_576.jpg
http://pulsaris.ru/images/news/40d.jpg
 E:D has planets and moons that look nice like that.


https://www.astrovox.gr/forum/files/thu ... ma_576.jpg - Europa.
http://pulsaris.ru/images/news/40d.jpg - Enceladus.
- Solar System prototype.
- Climate based biomes.
https://experilous.com/1/blog/post/proc ... generation - Planet with climate and realistic terrain.

Here are my suggestions of what I think should be added to SE:

• Pulsar, magnetar, quasar, and black dwarf classes
• The rendering of the 2 spinning light rays on a pulsar
• An interface about planetary and stellar magnetic fields in the wiki
• The ability to remove lava and rings, and life renderings
  Also, when the interface of the planetary layers get added, the rendering and info of ocean layers and atmosphere layers should get included too 

The ability to remove lava and rings, and life renderings

You can already disable lava rendering

black dwarf

Why should something that doesn't exist be added to SE?

My post from "Advertising SE?" slighty modified.

  About realism, planets should be the main priority after nebulas. Right now, people get screwed up by the scale, everything feels "to big", from far away it looks nice, with excellent dunes and mountain ranges, and beautiful cracks on ice worlds, but up close it is hard to tell if "it is bigger than a human" or "is that Mount Everest?", rocks would give a basic notion of size, since it's a pretty common thing, and more ruggedness on the terrain would be appreciated. 

 And tectonic activity that could give more realistic terrain generation rather than random mountain clusters spread across the land, basically something based of on this article - https://experilous.com/1/blog/post/proc ... generation -, where locations of volcanoes, width of oceanic rifts and size of mountains could be determined by the force applied by the plate, and amount of heat coming ou[font=Roboto, sans-serif]t of [font=Roboto, sans-serif]those places. Now, the speed of plates and rate of growing in mountains shouldn't (and can't) be added now.[/font][/size][/font]

  A simple weather model telling if it supposed to be 'hot' or 'cold' not just by altitude but by jet streams, oceanic currents and more complex weather phenomena. There are a lot of different authors that wrote about this, including the one from Experilous up above, the approach made by dexyfex (https://www.facebook.com/dexy.fex), and this climate model for the generation of varied and realistic biomes:


 Also, I would really appreciate more variety on planet surfaces, iv'e never seen an selenas like our moon, and ice worlds that look like Europa or Enceladus, the closest was a planet that resembled Callisto:
https://www.astrovox.gr/forum/files/thu ... ma_576.jpg
http://pulsaris.ru/images/news/40d.jpg
 E:D has planets and moons that look nice like that.


https://www.astrovox.gr/forum/files/thu ... ma_576.jpg - Europa.
http://pulsaris.ru/images/news/40d.jpg - Enceladus.
- Solar System prototype.
- Climate based biomes.
https://experilous.com/1/blog/post/proc ... generation - Planet with climate and realistic terrain.

I seriously agree with this as well. 

Why should something that doesn't exist be added to SE?

Whoops! I thought black dwarfs were 100% confirmed! 

You can already disable lava rendering

Really? How?

Whoops! I thought black dwarfs were 100% confirmed!

Actually you can't confirm something that doesn't exists because it didn't had time to form yet. 

We imagine the universe as something that was there by a lot of time, but 13.7 billion years are still relatively a small amount of time compared to the 10¹⁵ years required to a white dwarf to cool down to 5 K. SE could eventually generate brown dwarf-like stars but the lowest temperature we ever recorded for a white dwarf (becoming a black dwarf) is still above 3000 K.

Really? How?

I might be wrong (I can't use SE right now) but there's a slide called "Thermal emission shift" that allows you to decrease intensity of thermal emission and it affects lava too.