Suggestions for Alpha 13

[Jim Jam Science Mans]

While Alpha 13 is probably quite a handful as is - especially with SPH having been bumped to it or a later patch - there are a few ideas I'd recommend implementing in it if they aren't already. This list is only for things I think are feasible without SPH, and so it omits broader ideas like tidal heating.

1. Fix multi-stellar system editing.
As it currently stands, attempts to manually edit the behaviour of stars and planets - especially the SMA - in multi-star systems fail. All objects default to, regardless of their location and orbital parent, the 'base' star of the system for their new orbit, and choose seemingly arbitrary values as well. This severely limits the replication of extant multiple-star systems, and can be verified by anyone who wants by loading the Alpha Centauri system, placing a planet around AC-A, and attempting to edit it in the right-click edit panel.

2. Incorporate additional nearby star options.
Fairly self explanatory. At present, only the nearest 100 stars and the nearest+luminous models exist.

3. Measuring tools.
The most useful tool that could be added at present is one that would allow us to determine the distance of a body to another, independent of its orbit. While we -can- do this with some effort at present, it should be a simple thing to code in and was, IIRC, present in the first Universe Sandbox.

4. Brown dwarf heat radiation.
At present, brown dwarves do not radiate heat at all. While brown dwarves are very cold, they do in fact radiate heat, particularly larger brown dwarves.

[Gordon Freeman]

1. Fix multi-stellar system editing.
All objects default to, regardless of their location and orbital parent, the 'base' star of the system for their new orbit, and choose seemingly arbitrary values as well.

Not sure if this is relevant, but changing orbital properties does indeed teleport/delete bodies, as Cryo once said.

[gabriel.dac]

3. Measuring tools.
The most useful tool that could be added at present is one that would allow us to determine the distance of a body to another, independent of its orbit. While we -can- do this with some effort at present, it should be a simple thing to code in and was, IIRC, present in the first Universe Sandbox.

This. I totally want/need this.

I have a complementary suggestion on this:

A left click and a right click on an object do the same thing. They both open the properties window, right? My suggestion is: a right click will temporarily open a small list next to the planet with its properties (which will include the distance to the parent object), just like in the previous version of the game. That was quite useful and I don't see why not. Why let both left and right click do the exact same thing?

[smjjames]

1. Fix multi-stellar system editing.
As it currently stands, attempts to manually edit the behaviour of stars and planets - especially the SMA - in multi-star systems fail. All objects default to, regardless of their location and orbital parent, the 'base' star of the system for their new orbit, and choose seemingly arbitrary values as well. This severely limits the replication of extant multiple-star systems, and can be verified by anyone who wants by loading the Alpha Centauri system, placing a planet around AC-A, and attempting to edit it in the right-click edit panel.

Plus the fact that the barycenter stuff doesn't work and you can't create a barycenter either.

Be able to force a body or a group of bodies to orbit something
While the auto-orbit button is great, it doesn't always quite work and instead of making something orbit a larger main body, it'll just go straight towards it. Say I want to have a cluster of moons orbit the sun, if I use the auto-orbit button, they'll just try to orbit each other, I'd like to have them orbit the sun first and then try to orbit each other. Probably requires fixing binary barycenters first.

As far as the Alpha Centauri system, they are so far apart and they actually have a noncircular orbit, that a planet orbiting the two would either orbit far from them or would be unstable. A better example would be to try and have something orbit a close binary.

[Josh]

3. Measuring tools.
The most useful tool that could be added at present is one that would allow us to determine the distance of a body to another, independent of its orbit. While we -can- do this with some effort at present, it should be a simple thing to code in and was, IIRC, present in the first Universe Sandbox.

I really like this idea, and I'd love to see it added.

[Jim Jam Science Mans]

1. Fix multi-stellar system editing.
As it currently stands, attempts to manually edit the behaviour of stars and planets - especially the SMA - in multi-star systems fail. All objects default to, regardless of their location and orbital parent, the 'base' star of the system for their new orbit, and choose seemingly arbitrary values as well. This severely limits the replication of extant multiple-star systems, and can be verified by anyone who wants by loading the Alpha Centauri system, placing a planet around AC-A, and attempting to edit it in the right-click edit panel.

Plus the fact that the barycenter stuff doesn't work and you can't create a barycenter either.

Be able to force a body or a group of bodies to orbit something
While the auto-orbit button is great, it doesn't always quite work and instead of making something orbit a larger main body, it'll just go straight towards it. Say I want to have a cluster of moons orbit the sun, if I use the auto-orbit button, they'll just try to orbit each other, I'd like to have them orbit the sun first and then try to orbit each other. Probably requires fixing binary barycenters first.

As far as the Alpha Centauri system, they are so far apart and they actually have a noncircular orbit, that a planet orbiting the two would either orbit far from them or would be unstable. A better example would be to try and have something orbit a close binary.

That's actually why Alpha Centauri is such a strong example. They are sufficiently distant that a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri A at 1 AU has no reason to suddenly enter Alpha Centauri B's sphere-of-influence when you adjust its SMA by .5 AU. It's a bug, not something to do with the nature of the star arrangement. Alpha Centauri is just a simple, easy one to demonstrate on and since its stock it removes the possibility of the error being from a user-created system.

[Plutonium]

Some GUI improvements suggestion:

1. Possibility to set up a scene in which the choreos or collisions will be loaded.
Currently if you load the preset collision or choreo by default the grid, traces and camera reset are on. A possibility to change those defaults would be great.

2. Selecting and changing the parameters of body A while keeping body B and it's parameter tree in view.
This will be very useful if one wants to dynamically change the parameters of the star while watching at the planet to see how it reacts to those changes.

3. Constant logging of a chosen parameter.
Currently we have a possibility to view certain parameters as graphs, but as soon as you close the graph window you lose all the data. Would be good to have an option to keep logging regardless the window and some more graphing options as well (moving average, changing the scale and etc....).

[Universip]

Suggestions :
Saving large groupe of objets
You can save individual custom planets and stars, but it would be very nice to be able to select multiple objects and to save them !

[Plutonium]

Lava starts appearing along plate boundaries after collisions
Currently the lava (the red stuff not counting the crater related red spots) starts appearing randomly, but would be much more realistic if lava started flowing along Mid-ocean ridges then plate boundaries then randomly.

[Cryo]

The molten factor should be added back in for the sake of magma covered worlds like oh I dunno Venus? The saved planet's also need fixin no more distorted looking earths that took hours of terraforming that be great and could the  rings be coded to have less lag? There computer killers at the default settings

[TheDylarianGamer]

Maybe you should add the Roche limit, It doesn't seem to be simulated in-game.

[smjjames]

Maybe you should add the Roche limit, It doesn't seem to be simulated in-game.

They will, they're just trying to work on a way to get bodies to fracture, both with and without SPH. The ability to explode the bodies is probably a step in this direction.

We've been talking about adding Roche limits (and doing it without SPH) so that bodies will break apart when the gravitational forces are too high... so this feature will likely make it into the game at some point. But first we need to add the ability for bodies to fracture, which is slowly in the works right now.

Also, to add, having the hill sphere and roche limit indicators and possibly an infobox saying what the numbers are for those would be good.

I know the previous iteration of Ubox had a hill sphere graphic, but I don't remember if it had the roche limit indicator or not.

[Gordon Freeman]

I think those circles around bodies indicate orbit stability according to density of the circles.

[Jicanfield11]

I Have a little suggestion that could be interesting :

Possibility to add random stars :
I explain : I saw that we can add random planets , moons , and other objects . But why would the stars be apart ?

I thought about it for a long time , tell me what you think

[Plutonium]

Make Betelgeuse look like in simulation
It looks kind of ugly, but it is what it is......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-oR7hTTYY

[Haxor1337]

You just made my day,
Oh btw there are a few steps in a stellar nebula, six minute video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZL7VBmeFxY






it'll probably be in beta 2 -__-

i dont know how to post videos so click the link