It's hard to know.  Every example we have is based on the strategies that life developed for dealing with the conditions on this planet.  Maybe on another planet there is life that would think the seasons on Earth are painfully slow.  Evolution is really good at figuring out solutions to how to survive in new environments, given sufficient time.  If life manages to take hold of land on this world, it may be quite different.  Maybe there are no trees at all, and there are only grasses and small flowering plants.

If there are deciduous and evergreens, I imagine the deciduous would have the more difficult time.  The seasons on this world reminds more of a polar climate than a temperate one.  I also don't think evergreens have much trouble dealing with a lot of snow, in a sense of withstanding the weight.  These ones are more than half buried by wet, heavy snow for half of the year, and they do okay.  The bigger problem for them is how long the snow cover lasts for -- they need the summer growing season.  And on that note I'm particularly uncertain about how severe the variations on land on this world would be.  How much snow falls during the night?  How hot does it get during the day?  What would storms be like?

Yes, nature finds a way, which is why many trees have figured out how to shed leaves and regrow them.  So a monthly cycle could have given a quite different type of trees.

I also don't think evergreens have much trouble dealing with a lot of snow, in a sense of withstanding the weight.

They've dealt with this by being different.  For instance, needles instead of leaves which carry more snow, sturdier branches, branches that can be bent more down (more T shaped than Y shaped), etc.  Evergreens usually only lose their crown due to snow.  Unseasonal snow can do much damage to deciduous trees with leaves (both branches and trunk may snap).

In the wikipedia article, Eta Carina A is a LBV, plus the orbit is different. In Space Engine, Eta Carina A is a wolf-rayet star and its companion orbits it. Why is that? Also, how did the homunculus nebula end up so symmetric with the differing orbits according to wikipedia.

One last question, are Wolf-Rayet stars basically blue supergiants but with an exposed helium, oxygen and nitrogen shell or are they a final stage to a massive supergiant's life before it dies?

Greetings, I am searching for a specific planet type.

Red plant life
Blue or red oceans
1 atmospheres
1 g
~10-16,000 km in diameter
No rings
Two moons

Understandably it is VERY hard to find such a planet, I will also accept instructions to build such a planet.

The star browser (the icon with a lot of stars in the popup on the left) is something you can use to search for specific planet types.

How does the morphology of a massive star's surface differ compared to stars such as our sun?
I know that granules are produced by the outer convective zone cells, but massive stars are typically core convective, right?
So would a massive star even have granules, especially when it's shedding so much mass? What about sunspots and prominences or just the atmosphere in general? With the density of the fast stellar-winds, could it be more readily visible?

Also, are solar prominences even visible? 

I saw this in my Facebook feed today: https://go.nasa.gov/2qWrtFN

The tl;dr of it is, EPIC sees high altitude ice creating flashes of light seen glinting off the clouds. Could this knowledge somehow be used in exoplanet searches, by looking for these rather slight spikes in brightness of the dayside of these planets, to see if they also have high altitude ice?

Could this knowledge somehow be used in exoplanet searches, by looking for these rather slight spikes in brightness of the dayside of these planets, to see if they also have high altitude ice?

No, since these flashes, according to the article, only happen when the probe (or observer) has the same angle as the planet and the star.  So in the exoplanet case the planet would always be blocked by its star.

Ahh, didn't catch that part. Bummer

I like the Baum Frampton model myself since it quite cleverly uses dark energy to make the universe come back empty.

Another thing that I find intriguing is a condition where a person sees flashes of certain colors when listening to music.

That's synesthesia, isn't it?  I have a friend with a mild form of that.  It's an interesting thing and fortunately not debilitating.  

Yes indeed and it can even aid in creativity!

Why even bother worrying about something that will happen so long after you are dead, and all life in the universe is dead, that it might as well never happen?

Maybe we will be around in another form to experience it- or even a universe rebirth

Even if observing angle wasn't a problem, detecting this on an exoplanet would be pretty impractical.  In visible light, the planet provides less than a billionth of the light that the star does, and then the glint of sunlight off of ice crystals is an even smaller fraction of that.  It would be totally lost in the noise of the star.

This is why it's so difficult to obtain direct images of exoplanets.  It's much easier to see them by the amount of starlight they block if they transit, or by the Doppler shift of the starlight as they tug on it.

There are some images of exoplanets out there- but they look look only slightly bigger than little dots- then again, that's all Pluto was to us for a long time.

BTW how do I zoom in on planet landscapes in SE? Or in general, how do I change the angle of view?  The default is 45 degrees I believe.

Yeah, there are direct images, but mostly of larger planets in larger orbits.  The technique also works better in the infrared, which reduces the brightness of the star relative to the planet.  I'm pretty sure there is not a single direct image of a terrestrial planet in visible light.

BTW how do I zoom in on planet landscapes in SE? Or in general, how do I change the angle of view?  The default is 45 degrees I believe.

If I recall right it is Page Up and Page Down by default.