SpaceSimCentral

UncleBob wrote:
There are some problems with this idea concerning the procedural nature of the pioneer galaxy, though. Free exploration in a procedural environment can leave to *severe* savegame bloat.
Would it not be possible to alter the code so that before the system description is shown, the game looks through a cached file of planets explored?The save would only need to show the relevent system name and co-ordinates. (Andwaf,10.235,5.42,2.2) = 1Surely if the stored information is kept to a minimum it would help alleviate this 'save game bloat'?
Quote:
The spread of photons over distance makes light subject to the inverse square law,..... Since this is a limitation based on a physical law, it won't get any better as long as physics stay the same.
How about when you factor in a lens with a negative refractive index?Early 'super lenses' can offer 3 times the resolution over a standard lens. These are a breakthrough mainly for microscopic magnification as far as I know, but perhaps they could be applied in telescopes, and in 3200 they would probably have the means to do that.Bob, You seem to know a fair bit about astronomy so I've a question for you.Do you suppose there is the slightest chance of ever having a visually green star? Lets suppose we found a class F6p star is it possible for it to have an over-abundance of copper so that the amount of green light emitted is sufficiently greater than the blue and red light that we get a green shade to the white?I would like to add in a rare green star, but if its too unlikely then I won't do that. I've read a fair bit about it, but nowhere does it mention whether a high metal content could contribute to the green part of the spectrum.
Geraldine wrote:
One easy thing that could be done is simply reset the game clock to say 100 years after the discovery of hyperdrives.
I don't think we will need to do that.
Quote:
Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is...
Its so big that we don't have to worry about changing times so that players can explore. We could even set the time ahead a thousand years or more and have the majority of the galaxy still left to be explored. Getting to unexplored space is a challenge in itself.There is a total of approximately 7,855,000,000 LY^2 of galaxy in Pioneer (Its not fully 3d though so our galaxy is around 1000 times larger due to its average thickness.)And approximately 1,539,580 LY^2 of that has been explored or colonised. So for every 5,102 LY of space only 1 LY has been explored.

I really like this thread .I'm all for exploration. Besides, like Geraldine said, the clock can easily be set back in time. And I think it's not entirely stupid to give a star a different name. Should a spaceship ever visit HIP18673 i.e. and find a suitable planet there for a colony, I'm sure they'll come up with a more creative name for the star even though scientists have already given that star a dull catalog name/number. And even though we've found a number of exoplanets now, I doubt we'll find billions more in the future that we can map so detailed that we have no need to go there anymore. Well, we can't get there anyway soon I think, but if we could, we'd still be better off mapping them from up close than trying to do so from here. Maybe just leave the "far away from the core" star names for what they are and give the planets in those systems an "unknown" label so you can discover them when you get there.

Quote:
Surely if the stored information is kept to a minimum it would help alleviate this 'save game bloat'?
The method you are suggesting would provide a scenario that is the same in every saved game. In order to have different explored planets in every savegame, you need the complete database saved seperately for every game. The load can be helped by introducing a general "exploration radius" to begin with, so every system within that radius is automatically explored. This can be further refined by different radiuses for different stellar classes, so you can get a mix of explored significant systems and unexplored backwater systems from the start. However, every exploratory action a player makes has to be loged in the savegame. That load can be diminished by not giving too many exploration options (atmosphere known, composition known, and eventual hidden starports or whatnot known). The more details a player can explore independantly, the heavier the logings for every planet get. You can close a planet as "completely explored" in the log when every detail has been explored to save on space, and do the same for an entire system when every detail of every planet has been explored, but such occurances might be rare. You can further reduce the load by introducing a flag that tells the program that either the explored details are listed for that particular planet or the unexplored, which means you have to list only half the parameters at maximum, and similiar tricks, but if people go too wild and don't finish what they've started, a savegame of a longer game could easily use up 5 to 10 megabytes only for the exploration entries. It's managable, of course, but will affect loading times and probably the speed of the generator, as it has to search that database everytime when generating a system and single planets.
Quote:
How about when you factor in a lens with a negative refractive index?
I'm not too familiar with super lenses, but as far as I know their whole trick is that they are able to measure on wider wavelength than visible light, enabling an increase in resolutions for features that are not visible at all with visible light. I.E. very helpfull to see stuff that is too small for visible light to reflect of (because it is smaller than the wavelength, i.e. 200 nanometers), so quite an advance for microscopes, but pretty useless for telescopes.
Quote:
Do you suppose there is the slightest chance of ever having a visually green star? Lets suppose we found a class F6p star is it possible for it to have an over-abundance of copper so that the amount of green light emitted is sufficiently greater than the blue and red light that we get a green shade to the white?
visually green is pretty much out of the question, because the dominant factor of the visible light emitted by a star is not depending on its composition, but on its temperature. It's a simple black body spectrum, and greens are always a bit on a disadvantage there. Indeed, our sun is about the greenest we'll get. See this link for a nice graph where you see the color spectrum emitted by a black body based on temperature, and you'll see that blue always wins out over green in the higher temperatures, and red always wins out in the lower temperatures:http://www.lon-capa.org/~mmp/applist/blackbody/black.htm

Quote:
visually green is pretty much out of the question, because the dominant factor of the visible light emitted by a star is not depending on its composition, but on its temperature. It's a simple black body spectrum, and greens are always a bit on a disadvantage there. Indeed, our sun is about the greenest we'll get. See this link for a nice graph where you see the color spectrum emitted by a black body based on temperature, and you'll see that blue always wins out over green in the higher temperatures, and red always wins out in the lower temperatures:
Thanks a lot for your well informed answer. That little app you linked too will be useful in ensuring the correct temperatures are given to the various star classes. Would the app only apply to V-main sequence stars though? As Class MIII and greater - red giants - would obviously have a much higher temperature when compared with other stars of their colour. I suppose I need to learn a lot more about the laws invloved if I hope to add accurate star classes.
Quote:
The load can be helped by introducing a general "exploration radius" to begin with, so every system within that radius is automatically explored.
There has always been an 'exploration' radis of sorts which would both prevent colonisation of a star as well as prevent a description being added, however it was of a very random nature. On top of that I added a less random check which begins at around a 700-750LY radius from earth.
Quote:
The method you are suggesting would provide a scenario that is the same in every saved game. In order to have different explored planets in every savegame, you need the complete database saved seperately for every game.
What I had meant to say was that only the planets or systems that were explored by a player get saved and the only difference to how it is now would be that that game would need to recognise when a player had explored a system and it would also need to read the save file for specific system coordinates and a name.More space could be saved by only saving system information to disk once the entire system is explored, although that could possibly anger some players.Its true that all of the unexplored stars would be the same for each game but that wouldn't necesarilly be such a bad thing as the galaxy is so big, just head in a different direction next time.

Ok, here's where it turns into Noctis. We could have a central database that could be updated and shared by the players. And omg newspapers or blogs recounting our exploits! They could be read from Gudadantza's Bizarre Idea display.

But then Pioneer would weigh 12GB and it would take a minute to load into the galaxy view.Thats where Solid state disk drives come in And systems with >12GB Ram We'll start the Poor Pioneer Players Fund PPPF so that we can all get a system with them in. you mentioned Noctis, and that does it without any problems I suppose.

I think Noctis used a simple text file. You would download/upload outside the game when you felt like it. The hard part is probably making a reader/encoder to update one's local database. You'd have to ignore the dates of news about players because everyone's game is on their local date, but it could be a nice way to share.

Quote:
Thanks a lot for your well informed answer.That little app you linked too will be useful in ensuring the correct temperatures are given to the various star classes.
For temperature ranges of spectral classes, you best look them up somewhere. No point in guessing them out of the diagram.
Quote:
Would the app only apply to V-main sequence stars though? As Class MIII and greater - red giants - would obviously have a much higher temperature when compared with other stars of their colour. I suppose I need to learn a lot more about the laws invloved if I hope to add accurate star classes.
The point of black body radiation is that color is totally depending on the temperature. Hot steel glows red because it's in the right temperature range, and for that everything in the right temperature range glows red. You could make steel glow blue if it wouldn't turn to gaseous vapor before reaching that temperature.So no, a star with the same spectrum will always have the same SURFACEtemperature. an M5III and an M5V are equally hot on the surface. Just that a M5III is a lot larger in radius, i.e. it has a much larger surface area that has to be heated. So although the star gives of a lt more energy, the surface is still at the same temperature, because there's much more of it to heat. There's also much more of it to radiate that heat away, of course, resulting in a much higher luminosity than an M5V.The classification in pioneer seems pretty accurate, by the way.

Quote:
The point of black body radiation is that color is totally depending on the temperature.
Gotcha Mother's Brother's Bob Slowly re-remembering all this from school A-level physics. I think my problem with all this stemmed from the fact that wikipedia has some conflicting information about stars throughout its pages.I also wasn't taking into consideration the tenths between classes that a given star was on wiki.IE temp for M7V > MV, So was a little confused by stars being listed as hotter than they were allowed to be Such as MIII Red giants in the 4500 - 5000K range even though it states that the maximum temperature is 3500K.

MV as such does not exist, or is very genrally defined. in case you mean M0V, that would actually be hooter (and heavier and larger) than an M7V. The counting goes downward.

I did mean an M0V so it looks like I had those back to front.

atmospheric flight could have additional specific missions ie fly to planet a enter atmosphere and mine specific compounds and return to trade station b for 200% over normal prices as such compounds are in short supply

Quote:
What I understand about scientific exploration game mode or missions is using the oldies good ideas like Starflight.Go Planet, Scan Planet surface, photograph planet, analyze planet, and make useful the great procedural generator not only to go bases but to flight and search for minerals or ruins etc..., the atmospherical flight would be neccesary to make the missions.

Quote:
atmospheric flight could have additional specific missions ie fly to planet a enter atmosphere and mine specific compounds and return to trade station b for 200% over normal prices as such compounds are in short supply
Yeah, besides driving around on a planet, build miningstations and deploying turrets, the above ideas have always ranked high in my personal wishlist. It would be the ultimate spacesim. Gameplay and exploration galore!

Even a very basic exploration system would do for me :- systems too far from sol (lets place the frontier at 1000 light years) are not known.- the game keeps a list of the system you've been to.- When you enter an "unexplored" system, there is a short sequence where the computer is supposed to scan the planets and give you a report of all the bodies in the system. (with 33rd century scanners, you would not need to go very close to gather sufficient datas...). Possibly only works if you have a special equipment.- From then on you can look up this system in your galactic map.- To keep things simple, let's say there's a GMC (galactic mapping conference) in Sol, or elsewhere in the core. You need to get back there to get a reward : each type of space body would have a determined reward.- You have very small chances to meet another ship in unexplored systems. And when you do they are likeky to be of the explorer type.- To emulate competition between explorers, say that the longer you wait to get back to the gmc after visiting a system, the more risks you have to not get the reward because someone else brough the datas before you.- To give the impression of a living galaxy, you can :-simply increase the range of the frontier by a few light-years every year.- Make rewards for each type vary a bit from time to time (corporations are interrested in different things because tech changes, or because of politics).

How about exploration missions on the bulletin boards? You see an advert:"WANTED: Pilot and ship required for exploration mission to the Betelgeuse system"You click on it and they say "Hi, I'm Karl Hooper; my colleagues and I would like to be the first to explore the Betelgeuse system, and we are looking for a pilot to carry us and our equipment there and back."You ask "How many of you are there?" and they say "There are 6 of us, plus our equipment will occupy 8 tonnes of cargo space in your hold".You ask "Will there be any problems?" and they say "We know of another team who want to explore the system first; they may give you some trouble" or "We know of another team who want to explore the system first; they are leaving in 3 days' time, we want to beat them to it"The mission is completed when you travel to the system, land on any planets they want you to land on (if there are any in the system that a ship can land on), and travel back to their point of origin.Rewards are chiefly financial, but how about a medal/achievement system that covers exploration? "Explorer's Badge" when you explore your first system, "Bronze Medal for Exploration" when you explore 10, "Silver Medal for Exploration" when you explore 25, "Gold Medal for Exploration" when you explore 50, and "Legendary Explorer's Medal" when you explore 100 brand new systems?Risks include rival teams, eco-warriors ("Friends of the Galaxy" out to stop the destructive spread of mankind), or even the accidental discovery of secret military bases in "unexplored" systems (low risk, reducing further over greater distance from the core systems).Also, how about a "fame" / "infamy" reputation system would be good too, where you can be known as a legendary space adventurer at one end, or a dreaded murdering space pirate at the other. This can be independent of the Elite ranking system, as completing missions, earning lots of money, exploring systems, and mining huge amounts of precious metals could all contribute towards your reputation every bit as much as space combat could. Having a good reputation in Frontier already gives you the chance of getting a good response to "I want more money"; expanding on that would be good - pirates could run away from you when they get close enough to see who you are, or you may find if you are a pirate, you might find your victims offer surrender more quickly if you're infamous enough.

give the player the ability to drop their own colonies and be responsible for their well being by providing materials to grow and have them dynamiclay expand the amount of setttle ments in a system by the players actions ( player owned colonies could also setup missions that would impact neraby settlements, pirate levels, supply routes etc)This could be after scienctific exploration and exploring outer rim planets ( as the game time goes along the game world should expand as well)

Quote:
give the player the ability to drop their own colonies and be responsible for their well being by providing materials to grow and have them dynamiclay expand the amount of setttle ments in a system by the players actions
Which is the point where the feature becomes unrealistic in terms of implementation. You'll need a whole team (or at least one dedicated coder that does nothing else) just to realise something like this feature satisfactorily. You're basically creating a game within a game.

UncleBob wrote:


Quote:
give the player the ability to drop their own colonies and be responsible for their well being by providing materials to grow and have them dynamiclay expand the amount of setttle ments in a system by the players actions
Which is the point where the feature becomes unrealistic in terms of implementation. You'll need a whole team (or at least one dedicated coder that does nothing else) just to realise something like this feature satisfactorily. You're basically creating a game within a game.
Agreeing on that. I think the first move should be as i basically said in my first post here: unknown systems get known with their number of objects as soon as you get there. Detailed info on these objects you get as soon as you get into low orbit (gas giants) or land on them ("normal planets"). I think think that would be a reasonable first step here. From that point on it shouldn't be too difficult to implement missions of all kind (getting there and back fast, take some dudes there and back, explore a system completely and so on and so on - but this is definitely not priority on the agenda)

Following on from mathee this is for sure a longer term plan, entering a system going into low orbit gathering a broad based reading, topographical study- mining study etc. Then being able to bring back a satelite etc.The guys working on it have said the lua system is pretty flexible and i know from reading the work on the mars simulationm project that the lua system with the c++ coding can handle it quite easily for complex on surface simulations it would be a program wtihin a program but if enough programmers could be found it could be done over time.

Quote:
but if enough programmers could be found it could be done over time.
That's the two essential factors you just listed: manpower and time. No matter ywhat your coding project, you only need these two (if you have to pay for the manpower, you need money additionally). The more manpower, the fewer time. Pioneer is currently actively developed by two or three people (code-wise) with only one doing the really gritty core-work, as far as I saw, and they'll need (educated guess) about one more year to make it from the current Alpha to a feature-complete Pioneer 1.0 if they continue at the current (pretty fast) pace. To implement the feature as you suggested satisfactorily, It'll take one or two coders about another half to a full year, and they'll do nothing else than this feature. If one feature consumes a significant time of the whole developement process, that's what we call unrealistic. Not impossible. Indeed, if you start learning C++ now, you can comfortably get to a good enough level within the year we'll still be waiting for the Pioneer 1.0 to start doing that feature yourself. With limited expierience it will probably take you about two years to implement it completely. The question is, of course, if it's worth that much to you. It's not impossible, just... unrealistic