Added a displaying of an orbital resonance with neighbouring planets/moons:

scr00348.jpg

scr00349.jpg

Nice but how is work for desplaying the comparaison of the object A and object B ?
And it is possible in script to make RotationPeriod and Period with resonance. In fact, how to read the resonance ?
For example 14:2 (like in ResonanceRotationPeriod), the object turn around him 14 times when the planet made 2 times a complete orbit or it is the contrary ?

Added a displaying of an orbital resonance with neighbouring planets/moons:

Ok, Vlad, that is seriously awesome

Yeah, really. It something I never think about when I look at systems, but it is very important, and having that information could be very interesting!
P.S.: Actually the diminutive of Vladimir is Vova and not Vlad 

Nice but how is work for desplaying the comparaison of the object A and object B ?
And it is possible in script to make RotationPeriod and Period with resonance.

Just take calculator and calculate. For example, if:
RotationPeriod 14.25 // hours
Orbit.Period 0.004877 // years
then you have a spin-orbital resonance 1:3

The game calculates spin-orbital resonance already:

Nice but how is work for desplaying the comparaison of the object A and object B ?
And it is possible in script to make RotationPeriod and Period with resonance.

Just take calculator and calculate. For example, if:
RotationPeriod 14.25 // hours
Orbit.Period 0.004877 // years
then you have a spin-orbital resonance 1:3

Which reminds me a doubt I've had for a while. Does the resonance calculations allow for near-resonances? I.e., are these included in the resonance info, or are they ignored?

Which reminds me a doubt I've had for a while. Does the resonance calculations allow for near-resonances? I.e., are these included in the resonance info, or are they ignored?

If you mean something close to a resonance but not quite a resonance, no.

Also, while we are talking about resonances, i heard somewhere the larger the space between the two numbers, the less stable it is, as 1:2 (difference is 1) is more stable than 3:5 (difference is 2), which is more stable than 7:10 (difference is 3), which is more stable than 1:5 (difference is 4).

Which reminds me a doubt I've had for a while. Does the resonance calculations allow for near-resonances? I.e., are these included in the resonance info, or are they ignored?

If you mean something close to a resonance but not quite a resonance, no.

You're most likely wrong: Jupiter is not in full resonance with Saturn (orbital periods are close to a 2:5 relation but they are not 2:5; they're 2:4967), and yet in one of the pictures SpaceEngineer showed us they're considered resonant. I had this doubt for a while, I seem to have gotten an answer by this new fact, but I'm still not sure, for there may be some quirk I'm missing. And I wonder 1) if quasi-resonances shouldn't be treated as such, not as proper resonances and 2) how much of an approximation is allowed by the engine.

2) how much of an approximation is allowed by the engine.

5%. If you don't use some tolerance, you will never see any resonance in the nature. Even Jovian moons and Mercury spin are not in exact resonance.

Some tolerance yes, but I've seen scientific literature making a distinction between "true" resonances, such as those 1:1 spin-orbital resonances of satellites or the resonances of plutinos with Neptune (and I'd bet at least some of those densely packed extrasolar systems as well), which tend to be very solid, way stronger than a 5% approximation (Pluto's relation with Neptune is currently 2:3.0095, f.i.), and quasi resonances, such as the one between Jupiter and Saturn. As far as I understood, they work somewhat differently as far as orbital dynamics is concerned.

I may simply make a displaying the exact ratio, say 2:3.0095, with 6 digits after comma.

Hm...

That might be more confusing for the casual user than how it is now.

Thing is: if I understood this correctly, true resonances may diverge from the integer relations at a given moment, but averaging out their orbital elements in the long run, due to the perturbing effect the gravitational interaction has on their orbits, they tend to converge to that relation. So Pluto's relation with Neptune may be now at 2:3.0095, but as its orbit gets shifted with time, it will oscillate around 2:3. That's why they're called mean-motion resonances. Plus, it also takes into account relations between other orbital elements, not just the period.

This doesn't happen with quasi resonances. For instance, Jupiter and Saturn do perturb each other's orbits, but not nearly enough to pin them into the kind of relation that Pluto exhibits with Neptune. The same goes for many other such relations in the Solar System, including Earth's with Venus (~8:13) or Mars (~1:2).

This said, I fully understand this is not easy to implement correctly in SE, since it isn't just a case of looking at the relation between orbital periods and getting from it the full information.

You're most likely wrong: Jupiter is not in full resonance with Saturn (orbital periods are close to a 2:5 relation but they are not 2:5; they're 2:4967), and yet in one of the pictures SpaceEngineer showed us they're considered resonant. I had this doubt for a while, I seem to have gotten an answer by this new fact, but I'm still not sure, for there may be some quirk I'm missing. And I wonder 1) if quasi-resonances shouldn't be treated as such, not as proper resonances and 2) how much of an approximation is allowed by the engine.

Ok

Duke's nebula update. Still a lot of work, integration into engine, correct blending with stars...
Something looks like spiral galaxy (or protoplanetary disk?):

Recently I have working on a proper HDR with autoexposure, and adding a new shiny bloom effect. In process, improved quality of MSAA, and many other things. Now, finally, SE is able to display very large difference of brightmess, and true relative brightness of objects.

Earth and Moon. Relative brightness must be adjusted for all Solar system bodies. More precisely, scripts will have a physical-based parameters for textures calibration. Something like MinPixelBright and MaxPixelBright in some physical units like luxes.
Saturn and Titan. No stars visible!
Pluto and Charon. Stars are visible (although their brightness is still not calibrated, so this may be wrong).
Saturn and Mimas with shiny glow.
Earth's night side. Atmosphere is glowing not in red color, as expected... I have to tweak the atmospheric scattering code. There is a tail of the comet Encke visible in top left (comets brightness is not calibrated yet).
ISS over night side of the Earth. Starry sky, city lights, aurora, clouds and ISS are illuminated with a moonshine. I can use real photos from ISS to calibrate such scene.

[attachment=11]scr00297.jpg[/attachment]

When ISS enters sunlight, it looks almost like explosion, until virtual "eye" adapts to a high brightness.
Ship's light in the "night". Looks too shiny? Radiator's glow is too bright and too hot, it must be separated in its own texture, controlled by the graphics engine.
Engine exhaust looks extremely bright, because its brightness is calibrated for the the next picture.
In the "day", engine exhaust is barely visible. This is why its brighness was so extreme. Radiators glow and lights are completely invisible.
Molten planets looks interesting in the Solar system browser.
Glowing lava now looks really "glowing" (that is a planet in the sky, but it is so bright compared to the night moon's surface, so it is being overexposed).
"Interstellar-style" black hole looks much better with a new bloom.
With HDR, it is now easy to explore extremely bright object such as stars and accretion disks. Autoexposure speed is a bit too slow in this case (and adaptation back to starry sky), I have to derive a better formula.

Wow! Just when I thought this update couldn't get any better... The wait is killing me! At least it'll be worth it