Project Orbiter Galaxy

[jedidia]

Hmmm... does anyone have an educated guess of the radius of the bulge (core)? Seems numbers about that are rather thinly distributed over the net. The only number I can find is 16000 light years, but it's from a page that claims that the disc is a mere 300 lightyears thick, so I'd take that number as highly unreliable.

 

[T.Neo]

Why Low thrust? On a galactic scale, anything below ftl capability and you are talking about generation ships (which I haven't seen any of in the orbit hangar).

No. If you can travel fast enough- at relativistic speeds, you can get around quite quickly. A journey to Alpha Centauri would take 1.8 years, despite the target star being 4.4 light years away- this is due to time dilation.

As for FTL, this is every boy's dream. I want one. :lol:

Also, even IF Jupiter were stripped, I'd expect the remaining core to be highly compressed, and therefore smaller in radius than a normally formed planet of that mass would be. Stargen of course doesn't calculate this yet, and I wonder how I would best go about making an estimate?

I am not sure whether Jupiter would be stripped- if it was though, the core would be under far less pressure so I somehow doubt it would be compressed like that. Maybe...

Btw, what is the simulation of planets around O and B class stars?

EDIT:

Engines combining both high thrust and high ISP have a serious heat problem, because of the total energy they release

Magnetic nozzles, perhaps?

 

[jedidia]

Btw, what is the simulation of planets around O and B class stars?

if they are O and B stars in main sequence, I get bare rocks if any planets are present at all.

If they are beyond main sequence, it depends on what they where before, though I never encountered one that had any interesting planets. It's simply too hot. I get the rare terrestrial moon orbiting a gas giant in A or F systems, but they're not exactly common place. All in all, I like the distribution, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the community to make suggestions once the demo is out.

Magnetic nozzles, perhaps?

Without magnetic nozzles, you could forgett about the whole fusion drive idea right away. But the waste heat, even when you calculate at a rather optimistic 10%, is still hell to deal with.

 

[T.Neo]

Another question: will the planet generation work for real stars, or only generated stars?

But the waste heat, even when you calculate at a rather optimistic 10%, is still hell to deal with.

Replenishing ablative shield made up of low vapour pressure fluid?

 

[jedidia]

Another question: will the planet generation work for real stars, or only generated stars?

Star systems are generated for all stars that don't come with a custom system (custom systems not yet supported, but will be when I've connected this baby to orbiter), allthough there's a lot of guesswork involved here if the catalogued star is already out of main sequence (I have to make a pretty blatant guess on its current luminosity as well as on what it once was, and that guess, allthough enough to suspend disbelief, will certainly not have much in common with the real original atributes of the star).

Replenishing ablative shield made up of low vapour pressure fluid?

Somehow this simply sounds like a fancy name for "active cooling" :lol: You still have to get the heat out of the vessel. allthough at those high temperatures, radiators work quit efficiently.

If I understand the concept right from these few words, you would have a "liquid" core chamber around the fusion reaction that constantly evaporates into the radiators and flows back. It seems like an intriguing Idea, but what kind of fluid would be consistent enough to absorb the high-frequency luminosity? and how are you going to keep it in place?

(it would sound like a nice Idea though... they evaporated fluid could be converted to electricity for the onboard systems much more efficiently than the pure heat. "Fusion-driven steam engine" sounds hella cool too... :thumbup

 

[Bloodworth]

"Fusion-driven steam engine" sounds hella cool too... :thumbup

Steampunk 2200:lol:

 

[Izack]

Steampunk 2200:lol:

Oh lord... :rofl:

 

[T.Neo]

If I understand the concept right from these few words, you would have a "liquid" core chamber around the fusion reaction that constantly evaporates into the radiators and flows back. It seems like an intriguing Idea, but what kind of fluid would be consistent enough to absorb the high-frequency luminosity? and how are you going to keep it in place?

Well, I was thinking spraying fluid at the nozzle framework and such, to keep the heat down. Not an entirely serious concept.

 

[jedidia]

Generator pretty much finished so far. Will probably still fiddle a bit with white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes, since they're not getting much attention currently. There are enough other things that could still be implemented, but I'll wait with those until I have a stable Alpha version that runs with orbiter (majorly, I haven't implemented the halo yet... to implement that, I'd have to implement globular clusters, which means I'll have to do some more research first. It's on the list, but no priority currently).

I'm proceeding to complete the GUI, then establish the final file structure. It's demo-time in maybe a month or so... (I remember myself saying that around december, though :lol

 

[T.Neo]

Another thing: What naming system is used for the planets, and what naming system is used for the generated stars?

 

[jedidia]

None so far. Well, for the planets there's the traditional naming system like NameofStar 1, 2, 3, etc., but the generated stars don't get names yet. Planned for post-demo stage.

Naming will probably happen with Fictious catalogue numbers and designations, keeping actual names for colonized planets. Err... that's a bit premature to mention, it's still a long way off, but yes, it's a goal for Orbiter Galaxy 2.0.

 

[Linguofreak]

Hmmm... does anyone have an educated guess of the radius of the bulge (core)? Seems numbers about that are rather thinly distributed over the net. The only number I can find is 16000 light years, but it's from a page that claims that the disc is a mere 300 lightyears thick, so I'd take that number as highly unreliable.

Do remember that these are not sharply defined regions, and that there's a lot of dust between us and the core. Also, was that 300 *light years* or *parsecs*? You might have misread, or the author might have made a typo, but a fairly widely accepted figure for the disk 1000 ly, which is ~300 pc. (You also have to distinguish between thick disk, thin disk, etc).

In any case, as to the bulge, remember that the MW is a barred spiral. That means the bulge doesn't have a well-defined radius, but rather is a prolate spheroid or scalene ellipsoid. I've found another site that gives it a 16,000 ly thickness, and Wikip. says that the bar is 27,000 ly long.

 

[T.Neo]

None so far. Well, for the planets there's the traditional naming system like NameofStar 1, 2, 3, etc.,

Actually the current naming system names the planets with lowercase letters of the alphabet in order of discovery, starting with b. But in your case it could just be in order of distance. So it would be Delta Pavonis b, Delta Pavonis c, Delta Pavonis d, etc.

the generated stars don't get names yet.

Perhaps the numerical code could be something on the order of galatic latitude and longitude, then distance from Sol? So 92-122-3000, or something like that?

And is there any progress on multiple star systems? What system are you using there?

 

[jedidia]

In any case, as to the bulge, remember that the MW is a barred spiral. That means the bulge doesn't have a well-defined radius, but rather is a prolate spheroid or scalene ellipsoid. I've found another site that gives it a 16,000 ly thickness, and Wikip. says that the bar is 27,000 ly long.

hmmm... that would mean some more tweaking around and introducing some more parameters... Didn't know that the bar counted as core (I.E. that the stars there are of the same population).

Actually the current naming system names the planets with lowercase letters of the alphabet in order of discovery, starting with b. But in your case it could just be in order of distance. So it would be Delta Pavonis b, Delta Pavonis c, Delta Pavonis d, etc.

oh dear, is noone sticking to good old Sci-Fi conventions? :lol: I currently marked the planets with numbers and the moons with letters. Won't be hard to switch it the other way round.

Perhaps the numerical code could be something on the order of galatic latitude and longitude, then distance from Sol? So 92-122-3000, or something like that?

Would get a bit long, but I haven't made up my mind on the naming convention yet. Will have to see what is most convenient (I like your suggestion because it prevents double naming, though).

And is there any progress on multiple star systems? What system are you using there?

Sorry, no multiple systems. Far binaries are handled as two different systems, and I deleted one star of close binaries from the catalogue (everything closer together than 0.5 lightyears). The proces isn't irreversible, all I have to do is to re-parse the catalogue from the original to get them back in, but extending StarGen to work with two heat-sources might take quite a while. Plus, Orbiter doesn't like it too much either. I can imagine going through the trouble if Orbiter supports binary systems, but before that happens I'll just kick them out to make my life easier.

 

[T.Neo]

oh dear, is noone sticking to good old Sci-Fi conventions? :lol: I currently marked the planets with numbers and the moons with letters. Won't be hard to switch it the other way round.

It seems not...

Also, moons are generally named in roman numerals- although I'd imagine this would complicate things a bit.

Would get a bit long, but I haven't made up my mind on the naming convention yet. Will have to see what is most convenient (I like your suggestion because it prevents double naming, though).

I don't see how it could get too confusing (unless the lat/lon were taken to many decimal points). Granted, 1.223-65.432-24581 would be a tad long, but I don't see it being more confusing than, say, HIP 71683, SAO 100582 or HD 28185.

Sorry, no multiple systems. Far binaries are handled as two different systems, and I deleted one star of close binaries from the catalogue (everything closer together than 0.5 lightyears).

That is a pity.

Plus, Orbiter doesn't like it too much either. I can imagine going through the trouble if Orbiter supports binary systems, but before that happens I'll just kick them out to make my life easier.

Orbiter does not seem to support barycenters (stellar or planetary), and most binary stars do not orbit one or the other, they orbit eachother. I suppose the star could be turned into an invisible barycenter, and then have stars (planets) orbiting it. But this would create orbital and lighting problems.

Doesn't Sol wobble in Orbiter to simulate the solar system barycenter? Perhaps this could be used to simulate the motion of the larger star in a system. TheEyes also details here how it might be possible to make a moon of a moon.

I think (although I am by no means sure) that it could be possible to code a celestial body in Orbiter to look like a star (that is, with a sprite).

 

[jedidia]

Also, moons are generally named in roman numerals- although I'd imagine this would complicate things a bit.

It's no more complicated than having letters, really...

TheEyes also details here how it might be possible to make a moon of a moon.

holy hell, this works?? :rofl:

Never would have thought of trying the obvious. Seems like the engine is more flexible than we gave it credit for.


The whole thing Orbiter-wise would become rather easy then... have an invisible sun at the bary-center, the two suns as planets, the planets as moons and the moons as moons an order higher. Leaves only the lighting problem, which *might* get solved with Orbiter 2010 and the OGL-client. Will have to have a chat with Artlav about that...

I think (although I am by no means sure) that it could be possible to code a celestial body in Orbiter to look like a star (that is, with a sprite).

If you can make it shine, it works. Otherwise it's a bit of a dim sun... :lol:

Know what? I'll make you a deal: If you (or anyone, really) can make me a binary proof of concept system that looks convincing, I'll do everything I can to get the StarGen and accrete code up to date to get some belieavable binary systems out of them (I'll throw in an optimistic guess of 3 months developement time for such a feat. That would be a major rework...) Only rule: you're not allowed to do it with a dll specificaly created for that system. If you have to use a dll to make it work, it has to be generaly aplicable.

Edit: I posted an official request for a proof of concept in the addon requests forum. If anyone comes up with a good solution, I promise to make it work in my generator. Otherwise it's too low on my priority list.

 

[gertz]

I can do a moon of moon.
I've tried to create a sector, with more than 1 sol sys. But a problem with a star it will be only 1 and only in the center .

I say what, do not do some like this, it's not realistyc.

Better to upgrade msss

---------- Post added at 07:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 AM ----------

If u want to do a galaxy, you need new sun.dll
Because, if planet is far from the star, i still will be bright on the side which is turned to the sun.

---------- Post added at 07:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 AM ----------

i have uploaded an example of a moon of moon, now we must to wait 24 hours))

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 AM ----------

and one more, its wery easy to add your own system to the galaxy, so i think that we can make USS united solar systems))

 

[jedidia]

I've tried to create a sector, with more than 1 sol sys. But a problem with a star it will be only 1 and only in the center .

That's not the point here. I know the thread is a bit long already, but you'll get the purpose of Orbiter Galaxy if you browse the first three or four pages.

I don't aim at putting a whole galaxy into Orbiter at once, that would be insane. Rather, this is an independant Galaxy Generator, that will enable Orbiter to reload a scenario with any system contained in that galaxy.

The multiple solar systems would merely be a feature, to give the generator the capability of generating binary systems instead of only single ones. Since this doesn't make much sense if Orbiter isn't able to handle the generated systems, I need to see a proof of concept first (I could try figuring it out by myself, of course, but it's not high enough on my priority list to go through the trouble).

For the guidelines for the proof of concept version of the binary systems, please take a look here:

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15836

Better to upgrade msss

In a way, this IS an Upgrade on msss (a rather huge one though, you could cosnider msss a proof of concept that lead to the developement of Orbiter Galaxy), since it uses the same basic concept: Generating a system procedurally, exporting it to orbiter, then reload the scenario. It will even use some of the export code from msss.

 

[gertz]

i don `t say to put all galaxy, just "discovered worlds" and that generator.
but as i know, to generate planets you need many textures, if so just call me))
tomorrow i`ll upload my system? so you can see my work

 

[Linguofreak]

hmmm... that would mean some more tweaking around and introducing some more parameters... Didn't know that the bar counted as core (I.E. that the stars there are of the same population).

The bar *is* the bulge, as I understand it. (But strictly, I've heard "core" mostly used to refer to the nucleus, which is just the central few parsecs).

Sorry, no multiple systems. Far binaries are handled as two different systems, and I deleted one star of close binaries from the catalogue (everything closer together than 0.5 lightyears). The proces isn't irreversible, all I have to do is to re-parse the catalogue from the original to get them back in, but extending StarGen to work with two heat-sources might take quite a while. Plus, Orbiter doesn't like it too much either. I can imagine going through the trouble if Orbiter supports binary systems, but before that happens I'll just kick them out to make my life easier.

0.5 ly sounds like a bit of overkill, but aye, close binaries are tough to model.