Between yesterday and today, I laid the groundwork for code that will be useful when/if that update is ever released. If you're interested, you can check it out here: https://github.com/SethFusion/US2-to-SE-Converter/releases

The output it creates isn't actually useful to Space Engine yet, because that velocity/position vector problem hasn't been solved. If it ever is solved, this program only needs a few formatting changes to work. If it never is, then oh well. Not too much time wasted. Really you could totally still use this to cut out some of the manual work, but you would have to go through the file and add orbits and parent bodies for every object. So I hope it helps someone. 

Also, the US2 simulation file is very large and confusing, so there might be some weird special cases where the program I wrote just won't pick things up. If anyone has any tips or tricks on using the file system for US2, feel free to send them my way. There aren't any tutorials or manuals online for US2 modding like there are for SE. 

Oh cool! Thanks you so much! Btw, good luck on getting to work!

SE is far more complete than US2.... I tried US2 and it seems boring in comparison to SE.

Boring isn't a factor when it comes to how complete a game is.

Agreed. What one considers boring another may not and so really can't be considered for that.
I have over 2,000 hours in US2, so obviously I don't think it's boring.

In what ways do you find it to be better than SE?  I might get it since I'm running a three screen display and would love to have a great sim running on my third screen.  I run SNPP and SE on the other two.

Boring isn't a factor when it comes to how complete a game is.

Agreed. What one considers boring another may not and so really can't be considered for that.
I have over 2,000 hours in US2, so obviously I don't think it's boring.

In what ways do you find it to be better than SE?  I might get it since I'm running a three screen display and would love to have a great sim running on my third screen.  I run SNPP and SE on the other two.

Never said that. US2 is quite a complete thing, featuring fluid simulation, tidal forces, temperature simulation, etc. Boring-ness isn't a factor when it comes to how complete a game is. Not that your opinion is invalid, of course.

Agreed. What one considers boring another may not and so really can't be considered for that.
I have over 2,000 hours in US2, so obviously I don't think it's boring.

In what ways do you find it to be better than SE?  I might get it since I'm running a three screen display and would love to have a great sim running on my third screen.  I run SNPP and SE on the other two.

Never said that. US2 is quite a complete thing, featuring fluid simulation, tidal forces, temperature simulation, etc. Boring-ness isn't a factor when it comes to how complete a game is. Not that your opinion is invalid, of course.

Well, to be more specific how complete is it in terms of simulating the entire known universe and being up to date with exoplanetary data?  I haven't tried it in a pretty long while.

Well, to be more specific how complete is it in terms of simulating the entire known universe and being up to date with exoplanetary data?  I haven't tried it in a pretty long while.

I can't tell if this is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer honestly. US2 is pretty sophisticated in simulating the gravitational effects of objects moving through space. This applies from small-scale things like a planet and its moons, all the way up to galaxies colliding. Obviously, computing the gravitational forces between more than two objects is not so simple, therefore US2 is very computationally heavy. The better your CPU, the more you will be able to simulate and the faster you will be able to simulate it. If you're asking whether US2 can simulate the entire universe all at once, then my answer to you is that there is no simulation on Earth that comes even close to that. Space Engine, as we've said before, is an emulator. 

US2 also dabbles, as an afterthought to gravity, in simulating other things such as climate and fluid movement. These simulations are, by nature, not as accurate when running at high speeds, and in general because of their high variability. As far as exoplanetary data, the game comes with a huge number of simulations and exoplanet systems to explore (and to throw black holes at). 

The point is, SE and US2 fundamentally do very different things and are not so easy to compare in terms of "boringness". I'll be honest with you, it was very off-putting for you to join a discussion about file conversion with your opinions about how fun the game is compared to SE. That wasn't the purpose of this thread, so perhaps we can continue this conversation in an off-topic forum, if you want. 

Well, to be more specific how complete is it in terms of simulating the entire known universe and being up to date with exoplanetary data?  I haven't tried it in a pretty long while.

You've completely missed the point of US2. It's not a planetarium, it's a sandbox. Is Kerbal Space Program not complete because it doesn't simulate an entire universe? Is Portal not even a game for not simulating so much as a single star system?

it was very off-putting for you to join a discussion about file conversion with your opinions about how fun the game is compared to SE. That wasn't the purpose of this thread, so perhaps we can continue this conversation in an off-topic forum, if you want.

I agree wholeheartedly. Let's make sure all future messages are on topic.

Well, to be more specific how complete is it in terms of simulating the entire known universe and being up to date with exoplanetary data?  I haven't tried it in a pretty long while.

I can't tell if this is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer honestly. US2 is pretty sophisticated in simulating the gravitational effects of objects moving through space. This applies from small-scale things like a planet and its moons, all the way up to galaxies colliding. Obviously, computing the gravitational forces between more than two objects is not so simple, therefore US2 is very computationally heavy. The better your CPU, the more you will be able to simulate and the faster you will be able to simulate it. If you're asking whether US2 can simulate the entire universe all at once, then my answer to you is that there is no simulation on Earth that comes even close to that. Space Engine, as we've said before, is an emulator. 

US2 also dabbles, as an afterthought to gravity, in simulating other things such as climate and fluid movement. These simulations are, by nature, not as accurate when running at high speeds, and in general because of their high variability. As far as exoplanetary data, the game comes with a huge number of simulations and exoplanet systems to explore (and to throw black holes at). 

The point is, SE and US2 fundamentally do very different things and are not so easy to compare in terms of "boringness". I'll be honest with you, it was very off-putting for you to join a discussion about file conversion with your opinions about how fun the game is compared to SE. That wasn't the purpose of this thread, so perhaps we can continue this conversation in an off-topic forum, if you want. 

No that's not what I mean.  The computational physics necessary to simulate the entire universe is beyond the realm of all computers, even supercomputers.  I mean in an observational way, the way Starry Night Pro Plus does.  I bought that software for $300.  I dont buy "games" I like accurate scientific software that actual astronomers use to help them with research and observational data.

Well, to be more specific how complete is it in terms of simulating the entire known universe and being up to date with exoplanetary data?  I haven't tried it in a pretty long while.

You've completely missed the point of US2. It's not a planetarium, it's a sandbox. Is Kerbal Space Program not complete because it doesn't simulate an entire universe? Is Portal not even a game for not simulating so much as a single star system?

That's what I wanted to know.  I wanted it to be more like Starry Night Pro Plus which is more of an astronomical program.  The reason I use Space Engine alongside it is because I also wanted something that simulates the experience of being on an exoplanet in a realistic way, as well as space travel in general.  Starry Night Pro Plus tries to do that too but it's still pretty rudimentary in that regard.

I apologize for calling it "boring" I should have been more clear in what I was looking for.  I'm going to give it another try though because I find the way you described it intriguing, it seems to be pretty extensive.

I just read through the new version's info page and I see where the misunderstanding came from.  I had the original (legacy) version, and hadn't upgraded to the new version which seems to be so much of an upgrade that it's an actual new program.  The new version has procedural planets and galaxies!  It's definitely MUCH better than what I had before.

http://universesandbox.com/faq/#system

Reading through the features, some of my questions are still unanswered- does it simulate distant galaxies and quasars and the like?  It says it contains procedural systems but I cant find any info on whether it simulates other galaxies and quasars or not.  Or whether it only simulates within our own galaxy, like the black hole Cygnus X-1

1. Please look at a game's description before hitting the purchase button
2. Please stay on-topic.

1. Please look at a game's description before hitting the purchase button
2. Please stay on-topic.

I did, hence i edited my post to reflect my unanswered questions.  The software is in an early stage according to what I read but I dont see any info there which answers the questions in my edited post.

From what I read it does seem like it doesn't simulate views from a planet's surface (like the color of the atmosphere or surface textures.)  So it doesn't give you the full "landing" experience.