Technically ftl is possible without warp drive it just requires absolutely inconcevable amounts of energy imparted into an object and the ftl in the game could be just chalked up to an unfinished warp drive feature(making objecs traveling C and up have a warp bubble would be awesome) When it comes to nebulae they dont collapse because the game isnt that complex yet The rings are made of particles and the system can only handle so many particles and a sprite would just look unprofessional and wouldnt respond to physics properly Nebulae cant collpase to made stars, planets, asteroids etcĪnd other things, but other thing are too complicate :^) the stars do die you just have to wait a long-ass time and at that speed the nova only lasts a few frames before turning into s star remnant(check the name after it sponaneously changes apperance to see for yourself) Originally posted by vkobe:stars seem to not die from old age No matter how much mass was being transferred, all three stars still had one solar mass each. You will note in the last simulation that Universe Sandbox did not account for the mass being transferred via accretion. In fact, the simulator uses out-dated assuptions which hampers its ability to do anything accurately, beyond simulating orbits. However, beyond simulating orbits it doesn't do much else. Or simulating a ternary system in a stable figure-eight close orbit to simulate the accretion process: It may be a way to either confirm or refute whether the explanet has such an eccentric orbit. I wanted to see how much the exoplanet would disturb the debris field with its orbit. There is a large debris field surrounding the parent star. However, it occurred to me that the exoplanet may have an extremely eccentric orbit. A planet that massive is not suppose to be able to form at that distance. This would seem to defy our current understanding of solar system formation. This 11 ± 2 Jupiter mass exoplanet is 650 AU from its parent star. One of the things I put together using Universe Sandbox was a simulated orbit of HD 106906 b. However, I have owned the simulator since it was originally published, but only put 67 hours into it. You can create your own custom stars and planets, which is very nice and keeps me coming back. I use Universe Sandbox 2 to simulate orbits of exoplanets, asteroids, comets, etc. Its just, I find it gets boring super quick because theres not much going on "under the surface", for lack of a better term. Now, I understand developing something like this is one hell of an undertaking, I mean, its impressive to say the leastto see what theyve accomplished so far. To me it feels, empty? I still spend hours on it making solar systems of my own and such but Id like,more.I am just not sure what more is. Plus, you soon realize all planets only have a handful of different appearences. Originally posted by boiseaquatica:Yeah I agree, I am glad I found this topic because I was wondering if I was missing something because so many people say its very deep and spend hours exploring the infinite customizations.īeyond making a few star systems with pre made planets and stars or putting black holes by stars theres not much to do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |