lucky me, i had a hit at the 4th try

[attachment=1112:Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-14 um 03.13.20.png]it's not a oxygene world, but looks nice to meseed is 4i usually start simply with 1,2,3,...up to 9if i have no hit i choose 11,21,31...if that wont help 12,22,33...if i get mad and can't find something i like, i hammer on the number keys to get something randomly

but i was lucky and had a hit with :seed(4)if you now like to get something close to that, you just search in the following manner:35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,... perhaps up to 49the chances are relatively high to find something similar, why?it appears that procedural generated data forms some pattern and it's not truely random (even true random has a pattern if you could see the endless stream).due to that the probability of a hit is close to the number you had a hit with. close means not the next lower or higher numbers, close means you start with the drawn fitting number and raise it by the power of ten.in our example 40, chances are now high that something useful appears a few counters below or above (really only a few ones more as 5 is unusual i experienced).additionally i start with 39 down to 31 or 41 up to 49, the reason is again the chances are higher the closer you are.i will do so and show the result, if i get one

if i didn't find one beween 31 and 49 i raise it by the power of 10 again (391...409)at this point it's useful sometimes to get above 409 or below 391, in the range of 351 to 449, that's a lot of numbers (98) but you don't have to try them all, if nothing ,really nothing useful results from that, stay away of it choose the next power of tenv (around 4000) and go on.if that again is frustrating, forget number 4 and choose another one. same procedure as... no not last year, as before.it's offense that it's impossible to check all possible seeds, but with this method chances are good to get around that.i'm at least as curious as you, because i noticed slight changes to the system generator, i'm not sure if i get a populated system without customizing it completely. further it seems that the seed has no more influence to the economy type, which would be bad, because we have no setting for that.(somehow i feel it's bound now to the type of star, that's somewhat reasonable, because you will never find a inhabited world around a class M star in reality as example. it has something to do with the fertile or "green belt" and the fact that this belt would be such close to a class M star, a planet couldn't rotate. but without a proper rotation of the planet no life is possible, one side stays hot the other cold, e.g. mercury).life will have from my pov very little chances, class G is not the most common class and most class G are multiple star systems, on which life isn't to expect, imo. in this point astronomers are divided much, some expect some say impossible.but i simply guess it's far more attractive to make yourself popular when you say life is possible then vice versa, such you can print in newsletters and make statements on tv. if you are contrary to that you won't be heard at all, even when your'e perhaps right.we humans like it to get fooled, unfortunately (or fortunately in case of computergames

).i would say "we are on our own", anyway.random generated systems look really far better rather anything one can make artificially, imo. i guess because artificial looks artificial
