ENG New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:11 | Message # 1186
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
LOL, thanks, fixed

Does that mean that it is no longer possible in the next version of SE to send a planet on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit? For example, the earth?



That I would find very sad. sad tongue

(This image was the reason that I realized that something is wrong with the orbit of Neptune.)

Attachments: 6857634.jpg(111.9 Kb)





Don't forget to look here.



Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:15
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 12:37 | Message # 1187
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Does that mean that it is no longer possible in the next version of SE to send a planet on a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit? For example, the earth?

Why? Of course no. Why should I remove hyperbolic orbits at all from SE code? I just fixed a bug what made some procedural moons hyperbolic.





 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:12 | Message # 1188
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1742
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
Why should I remove hyperbolic orbits

My mistake. I forgot that they existed. I've never used hyperbolic orbits. wacko





Don't forget to look here.

 
ZatSoloDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:54 | Message # 1189
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
... Try to unzip all paks in SE. Use "extract here" command, then remove pak files.


I've used "extract here" for all the *.pak, then i've deleted them. SE now crashes (no black window) ad se.log shows this

...
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/splash09.*"
....
[MT] ERROR: seScript::Load(): Can't open the file "textures/common/Modern Blue skin.cfg"
....
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/planet_atlas.*"
...
[MT] ERROR: seTexture::Load(): File not found: "textures/common/sprites_gal.*"

and so on (see the "se.log" attached)

Anyway "./textures/common/splash09.gif" does exist and also exsist, in the right folder, "./textures/common/Modern Blue skin.cfg", "./textures/common/planet_atlas.png" and "./textures/common/sprites_gal.png" and so on.

sad

Attachments: se_978p8_no_pak.log(36.4 Kb)


Edited by ZatSolo - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 13:59
 
Giordie85Date: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 17:28 | Message # 1190
Observer
Group: Newbies
Italy
Messages: 8
Status: Offline
I sincerely don't like the accretion disks of black holes and neutron stars in the last patch. They look too big, too "solid", too dark, and the spin is too slow. At least, the spin velocity would increase as matter approaches the event horizon. And you wouldn't see the rotation as it's rendered now, but just the light emitted by the accretion disk.

The first images posted before this last patch were way more realistic than what I see on this version. I mean the ones in which the black hole resembled Interstellar's Gargantua. Also, the redshift/blueshift effect in those photos was great.


Edited by Giordie85 - Saturday, 09.01.2016, 17:28
 
FaceDeerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 18:27 | Message # 1191
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Canada
Messages: 117
Status: Offline
Quote Giordie85 ()
The first images posted before this last patch were way more realistic than what I see on this version. I mean the ones in which the black hole resembled Interstellar's Gargantua.


The accretion disk in that instance was carefully hand-crafted to match the appearance of Interstellar, and the appearance of the disk in Interstellar was adjusted by the filmmakers to be less "realistic" and more "what average moviegoers would find cinematic-looking." So I wouldn't expect real accretion disks to look exactly like Interstellar's, even though Interstellar did a better job than most movies when it comes to getting close.

I'm curious, what are you comparing Space Engine's accretion disks to when you say they aren't realistic? I'm not saying whether they are or aren't realistic, it's just that things like this are completely outside of routine human experience so we need to be careful about judging whether they look right based on what we think they should look like.
 
SalvoDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 19:40 | Message # 1192
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote Giordie85 ()
...were way more realistic


How can you know if they're realistic or not? Did you see that with you own eyes? tongue

Jokes apart, SE aims to be more realistic as possible, and if you see something on a movie is not necessarily realistic. It is... a movie... after all. A movie aims to be spectacular, not realistic, even if there are some exceptions.

Of course SE does not represent the universe as it is perfectly, it has it own limitations, but Vladimir knows exactly what he's doing and he would never implement a feature that is not "realistic". smile (for what concerns celestial bodies or rendering)





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 21:35 | Message # 1193
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
ZatSolo, something very wrong is happen with your SE. If exe didn't see files in it's folder, this mean either it was not in the right place, or it's working folder is incorrect, or system doesn't allow it access to it's own folder. Make clean installation again, somewhere on disk D: where you have 100% read/write access.




 
SpaceEngineerDate: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 21:47 | Message # 1194
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
Quote Giordie85 ()
They look too big, too "solid", too dark, and the spin is too slow. At least, the spin velocity would increase as matter approaches the event horizon.

Wellcome to the reality smile By the way, now in SE disks are too small, too cold and too thin compared to real disks. This is because of limitations of the rendering system. It will be fixed in future eventually. Real accretion disks are up to 100 million degrees hot, otherwhelmingly bright and giant.

Rotation speed near black hole is close to realistic, because it is computed using relativistic formulae. If you think what disk rotation is too slow, look at black hole radius and think about linear speed of the matter: it is close to the speed of light.

Accretion disk in Interstellar is far from realistic. It is too small, too thin and too cold. This is made by writer to allow existence of planets near it, and to allow characters to cross event horizon in a ship without being evaporized billion kilometers away from the black hole.





 
quarior14Date: Saturday, 09.01.2016, 22:04 | Message # 1195
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 649
Status: Offline
Is it can have blue accretions discs (because in my mod Pirate Galaxy (private at this time), there is an unstable wormhole with an accretion disk) and speaking of that, as it is the progress wormholes ?




Quarior
 
ZatSoloDate: Sunday, 10.01.2016, 10:14 | Message # 1196
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
ZatSolo, something very wrong is happen with your SE. If exe didn't see files in it's folder, this mean either it was not in the right place, or it's working folder is incorrect, or system doesn't allow it access to it's own folder. Make clean installation again, somewhere on disk D: where you have 100% read/write access.

SpaceEngineer, thank you for your help and sorry for your time spent about this "anomaly".

Today I will try with a new clean installation on an external HD. I will try first under Win7, then i will use the same installation under Windows XP (after cleaning the "cache" folder).

If under Win 7 does work and under Win XP doesn't, there are 2 possibility: 1) My Win XP has some problem (but only P08 doesnt work ... very strange) or Patch 08 has some problems under Win XP wink

I will let you know by this evening ... smile
 
n0b0dyDate: Sunday, 10.01.2016, 16:15 | Message # 1197
Explorer
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 297
Status: Offline
Quote Voekoevaka ()
This may be a catalog error : B1957+20 is 5 ly from the sun !


It's probably a typo in the catalog file. Based on this article it should be around ~5000 lys, not ~5. Otherwise we'd be in trouble biggrin
So I corrected the entry in BlackHoles.sc and upload it here. Just rename it to BlackHoles.sc and put it into your SE\catalogs\Catalogs0974.pak\stars\ substituting the old one.

Attachments: BlackHoles.sc(2.2 Kb)
 
Giordie85Date: Sunday, 10.01.2016, 17:15 | Message # 1198
Observer
Group: Newbies
Italy
Messages: 8
Status: Offline
As far as I read until now, the general shape of the accretion disk of a stellar black hole would look SIMILAR to the Interstellar one (apart from its dimensions), like the one represented here:



I never said that the Interstellar one is the most realistic, it's not. I don't care about Interstellar, I don't even like the movie itself. The dimension of the accretion disk depends on the remaining gas and dust after the supernova, and in how much time the black hole can absorb them. There can be black holes without any disk, or black holes with gigantic disks. Anyway, I simply find the shape not much realistic. Ok, no one has ever seen a real stellar black hole's accretion disk, but there are physic rules that sharpen the various possibilities.
Apart from the engine's limitations, in these disks there are many shadows, which suggest that the disk's surface is irregular, while, instead, at those speeds near a black hole, it would be very flat, with its thickness raising as the distance from the black hole increases. Most of what it could be seen of the disk would be mainly the light emitted by the heating matter. Gigantic accretion disks, which would mainly form around supermassive black holes, would very likely be very thick and dusty on the borders (I saw that an user is working on that, he posted a photo some pages before in this thread, of a big dust torus in the outskirts of a black hole's accretion disk).

Maybe the only photo we have of what is the best candidate for a supermassive black hole's accretion disk is this one, of the galaxy NGC 4261:



About the supermassive black hole's rendering in SE, I found much better this one you posted before:



This is just meant to be a constructive critic, and I obviously can be wrong about something I said about this. I will never stop appreciating this unique application you're developing and I keep thinking you're doing an amazing job!
 
ZatSoloDate: Sunday, 10.01.2016, 19:36 | Message # 1199
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 111
Status: Offline
Quote ZatSolo ()
I watched inside se.log andit seems that the files contained in the .pak files aren't read. This happens only using XP.


Quote ZatSolo ()
Quote SpaceEngineer ()
ZatSolo, something very wrong is happen with your SE. If exe didn't see files in it's folder, this mean either it was not in the right place, or it's working folder is incorrect, or system doesn't allow it access to it's own folder. Make clean installation again, somewhere on disk D: where you have 100% read/write access.

... Today I will try with a new clean installation on an external HD. I will try first under Win7, then i will use the same installation under Windows XP (after cleaning the "cache" folder).

If under Win 7 does work and under Win XP doesn't, there are 2 possibility: 1) My Win XP has some problem (but only P08 doesnt work ... very strange) or 2) Patch 08 has some problems under Win XP

I will let you know by this evening ...


Well, I did exactly what I wrote above. I was "Administrator" and SE folder had "everyone : full control" as read/write rights.
No way. The result is always the same. sad
The content of the * .pak files is not read. This is the main problem using Windows XP

Using Windows 7 everything works perfectly.

I was wondering ... maybe someone else had the same problem using XP? wacko


Edited by ZatSolo - Sunday, 10.01.2016, 19:57
 
jhulet251271Date: Sunday, 10.01.2016, 20:45 | Message # 1200
Observer
Group: Newbies
Pirate
Messages: 1
Status: Offline
I'm not sure if it's normal, and my idea of black holes have been distorted by Interstellar, but my black holes are extremely bright, and I can only see the black sphere of the black hole when I zoom in really close. Here is an image of what my black holes look like.
Attachments: 3275920.jpg(295.2 Kb)
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Archive » Work progress and public beta test - 0.9.7.4
Search: