Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: A few bugs and questions  (Read 2147 times)


  • **
  • Posts: 17
A few bugs and questions
« on: August 30, 2017, 02:38:53 AM »
Not sure if these issues have been addressed already, but I've checked and don't see any current topics regarding the bugs.

Impactor damage not scaling down with mass and velocity
1. With the 'launch' function, the area of the impact crater and apparent damage done to a planet appears bugged with certain objects. A basketball launched towards earth at 10m/s or 10km/s makes a crater of glowing lava the size of Nebraska, same for any of the tiny sized objects I've launched. In fact, many of the small objects (pyramid) do far more damage to a planet or moon than the much larger asteroids or comets.

2. "Explode" option vs inducing a supernova. 
When 'explode' is applied to stars, a mouse-over displays a yield based on the escape velocity, but doesn't seem to be completely consistent with a supernova. For example, a white dwarf will type 1a supernova when adding hydrogen to its out layer, or you can just use the explode button-- but the explode button gives a tiny fraction of a type 1a yield, implying using the 'explode' function might be orders of magnitude smaller than a true type 1a supernova.

edit: I just noticed this, when using 'explode' on white dwarfs, instead of a type 1a supernova, a type II supernova is achieved and a remnant is left which appears to be a copy of itself, but with more mass. Is this a nova?

I verified there was an actual difference by placing two of the same white dwarfs in a simulation, one was supernova'd by adding hydrogen to its outer layer and the other by using 'explode. The result was fairly clear the one that detonated as a result of the hydrogen was much larger and appeared faster.

--If we want to see the most realistic depictions of supernovas, whether type 1a or type II, how should we go about it?

--When modeling the planetary effects of a nearby supernova such as atmospheric venting, oceans boiling and other thermal effects, does the ejecta cause the observed effects or is direct radiation modeled? i.e, is the difference in typ1a and type II supernova modeled at all? I'm curious because type 1a and type II supernova are differentiated in the sim, and type 1a, while less energetic includes much more ejected material than type II which emit a large part of their energy as neutrinos. Just curious if any differences exist between type 1a and type II in the sim.

Solar wind and magnetic field
-What affects the intensity of the solar wind? Any way to change this?
-Do promininces and flares have any real effects or is it simply a cosmetic feature of stars?
-Do extreme mag fields, when added to stars, have any effects on a planets atmosphere?
*When adding a magnetic field and spin to a neutron star, there are none of the Pulsar effects which are observed from the tutorial using the white dwarf.

Thanks in advance and sorry for the wall of questions/issues!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 03:29:44 AM by cavok84 »


  • *****
  • Posts: 147
  • | Take Me Higher |
    • Steam
Re: A few bugs and questions
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2017, 05:51:26 PM »
I won't be able to answer all of these, but I'll do my best.
  • The issue with very small objects causing huge craters has been mentioned multiple times, and I believe the devs are considering a solution to this problem.
  • I believe the differences between Type 1a and Type II supernovae are not yet modelled except for explosive power. Stars are not very realistic at the moment and this is also being worked on.
  • I suppose increasing the luminosity of the star would increase the strength of the stellar winds. More luminosity means more energy released by the star.
  • Prominences and flares are currently only for aesthetic effect.
  • The strength of a star's magnetic field does not have any effect on planets and can really only be seen around pulsars. Strengthening a pulsar's magnetic field makes the visual effect larger.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 08:08:43 PM by SyzygyΣE »