Public Review: Star system/planet generation

Past public reviews and discussions.
User avatar
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas


#46 Post by PowerCrazy » Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:07 pm

For Gravity there will be a HUGE variation between various planets and their respective gavity. Luckily this is one thing we can agree upon (and its probably the most realistic thing we care about) a bigger/more massive planet will have more gravity. Thus in our game there is no reason to have a Tiny High-g world. It seems stupid and "lame" to me. However if we have a planetary special "Neutron" Then by definition the planet will be Very High-G and Tiny but will have perhaps 4X or 8X ultra rich minerals on it.

For Mineral Richness. What exactly is Mineral Rich? Does the earth possess this trait? I'd certainly say its not mineral poor. I'm haveing trouble knowing just what a mineral rich planet would be like, a giant Iron Plate?

As a result I think we should have the various stages of gravity be pretty much equal. 20% very-low-g(tiny) 20% low-g(small) 20%normal(medium) 20% high-g(large) 20%Very-High-G(huge) planets. With "mineral richness" fairly rare and typically on the large or huge planets. And for game play purposes we can adjust the percentages however we want. The same goes for Environments. About 20% of all tiny planets will be environment A and B and C, etc. same with the others.

This is of course for v.2. Once we have the rules of the game down, then we can start changing percentages to make the game both fun and balanced.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

User avatar
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#47 Post by Nightfish » Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:13 pm

New threads have been created for both gravity and mineral richness

User avatar
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: hmmm

#48 Post by Yoghurt » Sun Jul 06, 2003 1:12 pm

PowerCrazy wrote: However if we have a planetary special "Neutron" Then by definition the planet will be Very High-G and Tiny but will have perhaps 4X or 8X ultra rich minerals on it.
A neutron star consists entirely of neutrons, so there would be no protons for the atoms and therefore no minerals. But it still might be valuable as an energy resource.

But I woudn't want to live there, first of all, I could see me from behind (the light-rays simply go around the planet), I would be cut in half due to the gravitational forces (feets weigh way more than my head) and if I was in the 30th etage of a house 1 minute for me would be 1 hour a few etages lower ;)

User avatar
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA

#49 Post by Impaler » Mon Jul 07, 2003 1:40 pm

I had and interesting idea lets have the system generating function run a seperate pass for each of the qualities we want a planet to have.

First it generates planet sizes and locations.

Then it randomly assigns some specials what are of the "first block" (meaning they are in the first special run), these would probly be the system specials. The specials can now alter the existing data like "make all planets +1 size"

Then we apply progressivly more layers of specials in block groups. Almost any thing we want can be a special from planetary atmopheres to magnetic feilds and we can add new ones at any time without redesigning the whole system from scratch. Each time the system lays down a special on an incompatable host that special gets deleted. And each new special can back modifiy other peramiters of the planet.

Say we had an atmosphere special and it lays down thick atmosphere on an asteroid, this is obviosly illegal so that gets stripped off or lowered to the minimum legal value. So lets say on a larger planet the thick atmosphere sticks and has the effect of +1 temperature rating.

Later in the game the player can terraform planets by adding and removing many of the specials and their effects with them. Say I thin the atmosphere on that planet and get a temperature reduction in addition.

User avatar
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:48 am

#50 Post by Thumper » Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:29 pm

@Nightfish Re:

First let me say that you've created one heck of a universe construct. Nice work! I may not agree with some of it but still very nice work! :D


1. There would never be a Black Hole within a solar system. The closest you could possibly get would be a companion star position within a binary or ternary system and the chance of finding any planets is so close to nil that you can forget computing for them. All planetary bodies would have had their orbits altered in a massive way when the star went super nova. The planetary bodies would have either been blown out of the gravitational well of their sun(s) or wound up crashing into each other and their suns. In any case all would be barren rocks.

2. The same for a Neutrino which is also the remnant of a super nova.

3. A gas giant should take three slots for its orbit. (This is why I recommend having up to 20 planetary slots. These suckers and I really mean suckers are nothing but BIG hovers!)

4. Gas giants are being found in close proximity to their stars... which implies that they can be anywhere in the system.

5. (edit: My misread... DUH!)

6. Planetary structures... The problem I have with your chart is its too simplistic and will create too many livable/habitable planets. Most of the planets that we'll find will have TOXIC soup for either their atmosphere or hydrosphere or both. The real chance of finding a planet or moon in the habital zone with the right mixtures of gasses and liquids will probably be discovered to be close to zip, NOT zip but very close.

8. IMO what we, humanity, will be doing is seeking/eking out existences on the planets and moons that closely resemble Mars and our moon. (This is also why I like the HUGE galaxy model... it gives you a chance of finding one or more "truly habitable" type planets for your species.

9. Most planets will also be radiated... We can deal with most of that now... by building underground.

10. Venus is not so much TOXIC as it is a GREENHOUSE run away. The Earth started with pretty much the same mixture of gasses but was located far enough from the sun to cool and allow life to start and flourish. (The first life on Earth actually consumed hydrogen sulfide and expelled oxygen... and in the process was the cause of its own demise.)

Truly TOXIC planets would be anything with corrosive gases, methane, etc for atmosphere... like most of Jupiter's larger moons. This would also include toxic, corrosive mixtures for its hydrosphere.

I really doubt that we'll find a "Star Trek" universe out there, with life and livable planets in every star system.

What I'm saying here is that Earth type planets per given species should be few and far between and you really want to protect them with everything you have!

11. Your concept of a Gaian is unique to say the least. If a planet was truly sentient it would probably take one look at "humanity" and its propensity for plundering planetary resources and make itself as inhospitable as possible. :twisted:

12. Radiated planets are those without a magnetic field or are too close to either their star or if they are moons are too close to their planet. The two inner planets in the Jovian system are inundated with hard radiation.

13. Worm Holes... I also like the one way worm hole... but I think you have too many of them... but then that's based on my reading SciFi, esp David Weber's concept, and not on impirical data. :D

I also think all worm holes would be few and far between... but again no real data soooooo... :D

14. Mineral richness of any given system... I really think that this is over done! IMO I think we'll find that everything we have in our solar system will be available in other systems in just about the same abundance. The real question is are the minerals easy to gain access to... near the surface or are you going to have to dig holes to China in order to extract specific minerals.?!

15. I really think that the size and color of a star will have more effect on the habitable zone than on mineral richness.

Someone pointed out that Red Giants are really old as compared to say a yellow main sequence star... actually this is very wrong! What we see now are all and I mean ALL third and fourth generation stars. A red giant such as beatlejuice (sp :twisted: ) are more active than their smaller cousins and burn themselves out faster... MUCH FASTER! The red giants about the size of Mars orbit are in fact the old stars but they too are third and fourth generation.

But what is left out of the equation is that these solar systems have been around the galactic core a few times and have had time to collect all sorts of things when passing thru newly created nebulas created by stars going either nova or super nova.


User avatar
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#51 Post by Nightfish » Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:42 pm

Hehe, I'm glad somebody liked my proposal too. Unfortunately that leaves you in a very small minority. (If you have a mirror handy you can see 50% of them :wink: )

About your comments that say something along the lines of "this is not what the real universe is like". Yes, that's because we are creating a game and not a universe simulator. Realism has out of the picture since the very beginning and this is the way it will stay. The only thing I'm worried about is a balanced system that produces numbers that make sense in a game. I really don't care if the universe is different. (Also: Probably it's the universe that's wrong and not me)

I'm now locking the thread (if I can do that, dunno) since the decision was made a long time ago and there's no need to give aquitaine more to read than he really has to.