Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Would you like "Nova Bombs"?

Yes
21
58%
No
15
42%
 
Total votes: 36

Message
Author
User avatar
GlasShadow
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#76 Post by GlasShadow »

cool thread ... i had an idea for something similar to this a while back and this would go toward the explanation of such a technology ...

i called it a universal detonator by the way and what it would do is create a small blackhole(singularity) when used, now this could be devastating by its own right, and once the inflow of material into the blackhole ceased or slowed below a critical amount it would destabilize and explode, now the effect could be used in weapons for ship to ship/ ship to ground but if used on a sun it would starve the solar core of fissionable material which would result in contraction of the star due to the imbalance between its output and gravity it would continue this collapse until it resulted in a supernova, as to the black hole the collapse would happen faster then it could gobble material and its explosion would get lost in the overall explosion of the star.

by the way i love the idea of restructuring the star-lanes this could also be done on a more local scale then the entire galaxy, say up to 3 connections outside the exploded star ... like star a is target and it connects to star b which in turn connects to star c which in turn connects to star d, a and c, b and d, a and d, are not connected if u get what i mean these would get their star-lanes moved, just a thought not sure how feasible that would be.

also as to the effect of said supernova, id base it entirely on the class of star. ie. small star low mass, week supernova, large star large mass big supernova.

as far a creating star lanes, the way i would approach such a thing is more like the Babylon 5 concept of jump gates. essentially a orbital facility (not necessarily orbiting a planet could be in orbit around the star) this would allow it to be attacked and destroyed also it would require continual upkeep, possibly have an early form that can be built like an orbital meaning its stationary, then later build one that is essentially a large unarmed vessel that can travel like an ordinary ships, both of these could allow for shortcuts within the empire as well as some sneakery :shock:

one other thing bit off the topic but a star system model based more off of the star type would be cool, bigger stars would have more room for habitable systems, colder stars would have habitable planets closer to the sun etc. this would be fairly easy to achieve as far as habitable worlds around a blackhole ... lol ... i would dare say there wouldn't be any. not to say that existing barren/radiated worlds wouldn't be terraformable.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#77 Post by Geoff the Medio »

GlasShadow wrote:one other thing bit off the topic but a star system model based more off of the star type would be cool, bigger stars would have more room for habitable systems, colder stars would have habitable planets closer to the sun etc.
There are already several tables of numbers that influence universe creation, including creating planets in systems, and these numbers can indicate relative chances of planets of certain environment types at certain distances away from stars and in systems of certain types. The whole system is somewhat buggy and awkward, but it's there and easily editable.

User avatar
GlasShadow
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#78 Post by GlasShadow »

thats nice but it doesn't really help me without seeing how those are used, ill proly have to dig it out of the sdk when i download it. is that part written in c++, i have some knowledge of that language, mainly with command line stuff have touched anything graphical, but i know all about classes and such.

did notice a somewhat logical pattern to it, but haven seen any binary stars or sub-classed steller objects like blackholes, nutron stars, brown dwarfs etc. also no moons.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#79 Post by Geoff the Medio »

GlasShadow wrote:thats nice but it doesn't really help me without seeing how those are used, ill proly have to dig it out of the sdk when i download it. is that part written in c++, i have some knowledge of that language, mainly with command line stuff have touched anything graphical, but i know all about classes and such.
The relevant design stuff is here: http://freeorion.org/index.php/V.2_Requ ... Conditions

I think the basic idea is that if the universe / system / planet has the property in the left column, the various possibilities in the other columns (as labelled up to) are more likely if the number in the corresponding row is higher and less likely if the number is low. So, for PlanetSizeModToPlanetTypeDist, if a planet's size has already been selected to be Large, then it's more likely (5) to be Tundra and less likely (0) to be Barren environment type.

I didn't write the design or the code, so I don't know how accurately one follows the other. There are definitely some issues with it, though, and I'm hoping to replace the whole universe generation system with some python scripts eventually.
...haven seen any binary stars or sub-classed steller objects like blackholes, nutron stars, brown dwarfs etc. also no moons.
There are no brown dwarfs, but neutron stars and black holes should show up, at least in larger galaxies. There are no moons, to keep things simple. We might add them later.

User avatar
GlasShadow
Space Floater
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#80 Post by GlasShadow »

again without seeing the actual code i can only guess but, dont kno if its just entered wrong in the wiki but a bell curve, general requires more than one random number the results are then added, ie - not 1-100 but 1-50 + 1-50, but that's neither here nor there

also ice/totally frozen opposite of inferno, think pluto - worlds are missing from the list

anyway the biggest area i would say to improve this would be to separate the slots out of the equation, initially. from what i can tell they add a modifier to the chance of a certain planets creation in that slot, it would be better worked out the other way if that makes since .

example,
figure out how many objects in system,
figure out what objects - modifiers based on age - star type etc.
place objects accordingly.

in this way say a inferno world was created that would get placed closest to the sun, intuitively, an ice world at the edge of the system, habitatables within center slots determined by star size and temp. deserts, sub-tropical, tundra, (close, perfect, far) they don't have to be all three types say u get three sub-tropical they could be randomly placed within the habitation zone. but wouldn't make much since to place a tundra, sub-tropic, desert even if the randoms worked out that way.

also gas giants can occur, as astronomy shows within a wide range of distances from a star, mainly dependent on the age of the system.

anyway a more detailed model can be worked out latter, must say that the art for the planets looks great :D

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#81 Post by Geoff the Medio »

GlasShadow wrote:again without seeing the actual code i can only guess but...
See GenerateSystem() (in anonymous namespace) and Universe::PopulateSystems() in Universe.cpp
also ice/totally frozen opposite of inferno, think pluto - worlds are missing from the list
There are various astronomical phenomena that are omitted. My personal itch would be ice giants, like Uranus and Neptune. What we have now is sufficient for most purposes, though.
also gas giants can occur, as astronomy shows within a wide range of distances from a star, mainly dependent on the age of the system.

anyway a more detailed model can be worked out latter, must say that the art for the planets looks great :D
Indeed, we've had some great art contributions.

I am hoping to eventually make universe generation scriptable in python, although if you want to tackle the boost python exposing of universe generation, you can use the examples in the AI client. Or, you could rework it somewhat in c++ if you feel you can make some significant improvements that way and prefer not to deal with python at all. In either case, post changes to the forums for review. Don't attempt to add new planet types or star types, though.

marhawkman
Large Juggernaut
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: GA

Re: Of Nova-bombs, Supernovas, and Toxic Terraforming.......

#82 Post by marhawkman »

GlasShadow wrote:again without seeing the actual code i can only guess but, dont kno if its just entered wrong in the wiki but a bell curve, general requires more than one random number the results are then added, ie - not 1-100 but 1-50 + 1-50, but that's neither here nor there

also ice/totally frozen opposite of inferno, think pluto - worlds are missing from the list

anyway the biggest area i would say to improve this would be to separate the slots out of the equation, initially. from what i can tell they add a modifier to the chance of a certain planets creation in that slot, it would be better worked out the other way if that makes since .
It does a random roll for each possible slot. It nothing is generated the Slot is hidden in the system view.

The numbers varying with distance is to add a level of realism. IE Slot 1 (in our solar system) is occupied by Mercury. It makes more sense to have a hot planet there. Thus ice planets are less likely to spawn in slot 1 than inferno.

The game does something similar with Stellar types. Hot stars are more likely to have inferno worlds, while cool stars are more likely to have ice worlds.

My main contribution to the project has been trying to figure out how to tweak this system to get approximately equal numbers of planet types to spawn. It's been challenging to say the least.

Hey Geoff, couldn't we make a sort of subdivision of "Gas Giant" where they sometimes get labeled "Ice Giant"? As far as habitability goes there's not much difference. (they're both for decoration really) It'd use the same system generation paarameters, just some times mark things as "Ice Giant" when generated instead of "Gas Giant".
Computer programming is fun.

Post Reply