Galaxy types...

Programmers discuss here anything related to FreeOrion programming. Primarily for the developers to discuss.

Moderators: Committer, Committer

Message
Author
iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#16 Post by iamrobk » Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:51 pm

It also doesn't look too realistic, but who knows, galaxys could be any size, I guess.

modulus
Space Floater
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:19 pm
Location: Houston

Suggestions

#17 Post by modulus » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:23 am

Again, suggestions please, thats why they were posted at this early stage.
Tim

User avatar
tzlaine
Programming Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:33 pm

#18 Post by tzlaine » Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:42 am

I think you should weight the 2- and 3-arm distributions more towards the center. There should be a perceptible disk in the center of the galaxy, though it doesn't have to be large.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#19 Post by utilae » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:13 am

How is the nebula part of the galaxy generated or is it a background?

EntropyAvatar
Space Kraken
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:28 pm

Re: Stuff

#20 Post by EntropyAvatar » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:20 am

modulus wrote:I can weight them towards the center easily. As for which you like, each is an individual option (2,3,or 4 arm) so tell me how to improve each on an individual basis....
Perhaps the curvature could be higher for the 2-arm form, and somewhat lower curvature for the 4-arm form (so that individual arms are more distinct). Certainly a higher density in the center would be nice.

Not a v0.1 concern, but are the locations of starlane determined soley by star position, or might the galaxy shape provide a bias (say, connections only along the arms)?

User avatar
tzlaine
Programming Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:33 pm

Re: Stuff

#21 Post by tzlaine » Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:42 am

EntropyAvatar wrote:
modulus wrote:I can weight them towards the center easily. As for which you like, each is an individual option (2,3,or 4 arm) so tell me how to improve each on an individual basis....
Perhaps the curvature could be higher for the 2-arm form, and somewhat lower curvature for the 4-arm form (so that individual arms are more distinct). Certainly a higher density in the center would be nice.

Not a v0.1 concern, but are the locations of starlane determined soley by star position, or might the galaxy shape provide a bias (say, connections only along the arms)?
You're right. That's not a v0.1 issue. One thing at a time, okay?

User avatar
Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#22 Post by Ablaze » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:49 am

I think you should have a variable for the speed of rotation, so that a five arm galaxy can be generated that has very little rotational velocity and almost looks like a starfish, or one could or a lot of rotational velocity could be used which would create something more like our Milky Way.

Incidently, I just noticed this little paragraph on that page:

"It should be emphasized that there are almost as many stars between the spiral arms as in the spiral arms. The reason why the arms of spiral galaxies are so prominant is that the brightest stars are found in the spiral arms. Spiral arms are the major regions of star formation in spiral galaxies and this is where most of the major nebulae are found."
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#23 Post by utilae » Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:28 am

If the stars were generated like that milkyway picture it would be cool.

Also, how is the nebula generated or is it a background?

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#24 Post by skdiw » Mon Oct 27, 2003 2:18 pm

We don't have to make galaxy shape spiral; we can make clusters, rings or other neat patterns. Maybe do a standard map for game testing purposes.
:mrgreen:

modulus
Space Floater
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:19 pm
Location: Houston

More

#25 Post by modulus » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:10 pm

As of now there are options, in game, for two,three, four arms, cluster, ring, and scattered (maybe one more I'm forgetting on a monday morning). I was only trying to fill in these options, as I figured they matched with some sort of game design.

As for the comments, thank you for them. I agree there should be some nonconforming stars that are dispersed between the arms, but not too many, and they probably shouldn't be options for homeworlds later on (they would more than likely be older (redder right). I think, since we don't actually have billions of systems :), a little design license is in order and the stars should have a higher weighted probability for being in an arm.

I agree with the stars towards the center idea, and actually built it in, but turned it off for better definition of the arms. The only thing I worry about is that makes a LOT of systems in one tiny area.

I will play with different curves for the 2-4 arms. Personally I never really played the spiral galaxies they always seemed too linear, but they look the coolest.
Tim

Post Reply