Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 01:37

It makes me wonder how did R136a1 happen if it is such an outlier? And there are others in the same cluster of a similar mass? And how come the LMC has it and none have been found in our galaxy or Andromeda M31 which are both much larger?

Even if vast parts of our galaxy have unknown stars due to dust obscuration and other effects (as stated by donatello200), wich is correct, we still know much more stars (hundreds of times moore) of the Milky Way than any other galaxy (including the magellanic clouds).

The real reason you currently can't find a star like R136a1 in our galaxy is that our galaxy has a much smaller star formation rate per cubic parsec than the magellanic clouds (stars born per year in a unit of volume of the galaxy). These massive stars burn hard and live short. If you see one you are surely seen a star that has borned at max a million years ago (nothing in terms of geological timescales), in fact R136a1 is just 0.8 million years old. They don't live much longer so they dissapear from view. If you can see them in the magellanic clouds is just because the rate at wich stars are forming is grater and there are more chances, but in the milky way a star birth is "rare" in current times (it was not 11 billion years ago) so all the supermassive stars are gone and don't get substituted by new ones very frequently in geological timescales.

What is the reason for magellanic clouds to have a higher star formation rate per cubic parsec? well, its the same reason Io is heated by Jupiter: tidal interactions with the milky way.

YouTube · 28 Sep 2017 11:10

And you talk about what a 'proper simulator' is with a straight face?

What's that supposed to imply? You do realise that the goal of Space Engine is to be as accurate and inclusive of all astronomical phenomena as possible?

A-L-E-X · 28 Sep 2017 12:57

It makes me wonder how did R136a1 happen if it is such an outlier? And there are others in the same cluster of a similar mass? And how come the LMC has it and none have been found in our galaxy or Andromeda M31 which are both much larger?
Even if vast parts of our galaxy have unknown stars due to dust obscuration and other effects (as stated by donatello200), wich is correct, we still know much more stars (hundreds of times moore) of the Milky Way than any other galaxy (including the magellanic clouds).

The real reason you currently can't find a star like R136a1 in our galaxy is that our galaxy has a much smaller star formation rate per cubic parsec than the magellanic clouds (stars born per year in a unit of volume of the galaxy). These massive stars burn hard and live short. If you see one you are surely seen a star that has borned at max a million years ago (nothing in terms of geological timescales), in fact R136a1 is just 0.8 million years old. They don't live much longer so they dissapear from view. If you can see them in the magellanic clouds is just because the rate at wich stars are forming is grater and there are more chances, but in the milky way a star birth is "rare" in current times (it was not 11 billion years ago) so all the supermassive stars are gone and don't get substituted by new ones very frequently in geological timescales.

What is the reason for magellanic clouds to have a higher star formation rate per cubic parsec? well, its the same reason Io is heated by Jupiter: tidal interactions with the milky way.

Thanks, FFT, is LMC also much younger than the Milky Way? If so, it would be possible that our galaxy had stars like that when it was much younger too?

Mouthwash · 28 Sep 2017 14:35

And you talk about what a 'proper simulator' is with a straight face?
What's that supposed to imply? You do realise that the goal of Space Engine is to be as accurate and inclusive of all astronomical phenomena as possible?

I was responding to his assertion that SE needs huge stars for better sight-seeing.

28 Sep 2017 15:26

it would be possible that our galaxy had stars like that when it was much younger too?

Thats right!
Our galaxy has undergone many star formation outbursts (with collisions with other galaxies for example).
The biggest star formation rate its believed to had happened 10 billion years ago when the galaxy start forming. The sky could have looked something like this (if you were on the surface of a planet):

Many star forming regions like Orion but all over the sky, shinning because of the huge amounts of stars been created inside them making a colorfull panorama like that of the magellanic clouds right now.

The next big star forming outburst is going to be in 6 billion years, when Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way pressing huge amounts of gas until the ignition of another star birth era. Look at this representation of the sky the next 8 billion years:

As you can see in the fourth and fifth image you have enourmous amounts of star formation just after the collision. The sky is going to shine like it hasn't for billions of years and thousands of supermassive stars will born and die quickly in this period.

Just for a real example. Look at the antena galaxy. These are two currently colliding galaxies and as you can see there are a lot of star forming regions like Orion but bigger and across the entire structure (the red nebulae). Also you can see that the galaxy is full of blue stars, those are the most massive ones. Our galaxy has not that quantity of blue stars at all.

YouTube · 28 Sep 2017 15:29

Those skies are so overexposed though, I'd love to see what it would actually look like with eyes in a relatively dark area

A-L-E-X · 28 Sep 2017 15:50

Wow, now I really wish SE could fast forward to 6 billion years in the future and see what kind of stars there would be then! Probably even larger than the ones in the LMC!

The Potato · 29 Sep 2017 20:01

I remember finding a star that was 109 astronomical units wide.

29 Sep 2017 21:10

I've found 150+ Au in older versions. Sadly it is capped at 39Au now. Though I suppose it is better this way for realism's sake.

Mouthwash · 30 Sep 2017 21:28

I've found 150+ Au in older versions. Sadly it is capped at 39Au now. Though I suppose it is better this way for realism's sake.

I just posted two stars larger than 100.

01 Oct 2017 14:21

I am playing in the closed beta. Not .9.8.0.

Mouthwash · 01 Oct 2017 23:13

Oh, cool. Any chance you still have the coordinates for the stars?

Maurício Cruz · 24 Oct 2017 21:29

I think is interesting to the future, input multiples sistems in globular clusters ors multiple stars interacting their selfs, a good suggestion to implement sistems like the secound photo is the logistic map, to ease the process of make this thing;

Spinecone · 17 Nov 2017 15:49

It might not be the best topic to ask this but.. is it normal that every Wolf-Rayet star added in my scripts (for WIP star catalogs mods) always appears as close binary stars? With the A component being the correct WR star but the other is a slighty lower mass star in the O spectrum..

18 Nov 2017 04:25

is it normal that every Wolf-Rayet star added in my scripts (for WIP star catalogs mods) always appears as close binary stars?

This is a bug in SE 0.980. I do not know if it will be fixed in the next version.
You can work around this error by making a 'StarBarycenter'.
For example:

StarBarycenter "Aleph barycenter"
{
     RA 9 43 57.3
     Dec -3 12 23.03
     Dist 117.563585
}

(This belongs in 'addons\catalogs\stars')

And for the actual star its own script:

Star "Aleph"
{
     ParentBody "Aleph barycenter"
     Class "WN5"

     MassSol 300
     RadSol 20

     Luminosity 200000

    ....
    ....
}

(This belongs in 'addons\catalogs\planets')

Who is online