PPG- Procedural Planet Generator

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Why do we need to keep track of pollen?

I don't think it needs tracking, but we are going to have to simulate it, probably something random, but more likely in areas of trees (possibly taking into account wind, too, which should already exist for flying organisms).

Pollen should also have effects on creatures sometimes.

I don't think we need to actually simulate indirect insemination processes such as pollination.

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Why do we need to keep track of pollen?

I don't think it needs tracking, but we are going to have to simulate it, probably something random, but more likely in areas of trees (possibly taking into account wind, too, which should already exist for flying organisms).

Pollen should also have effects on creatures sometimes.

I don't think we need to actually simulate indirect insemination processes such as pollination.

So what about pollination organisms like bees? Would we allow those to evolve?

Poisson wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Why do we need to keep track of pollen?

I don't think it needs tracking, but we are going to have to simulate it, probably something random, but more likely in areas of trees (possibly taking into account wind, too, which should already exist for flying organisms).

Pollen should also have effects on creatures sometimes.

I don't think we need to actually simulate indirect insemination processes such as pollination.

So what about pollination organisms like bees? Would we allow those to evolve?

We can have a pollinator slot in every biome with flowering plants.

That's the beauty of the niche system

Anyway, have we come up with how will planets be stored? It's hard to store spherical data without artifacts.

I've actually recently downloaded a program called space engine that procedural generates the universe. Before I continue I would like to make it clear that I don't intend for thrive to simply use this program. I wanted to bring it up because its an open source program, so if we want to work out our PPG we may want to consult the one programmer of space engine. If you do a quick google you should find it quickly, I wish I could post the direct link but I can't yet. (although the url is eu(dot) spaceengine(dot)org) Its a new program in terms of development, so it requires a mostly decent comp to run due to a lack of efficiency.

It has a bit less to do with planet generation then it does celestial generation, however I thought it may be a good starting point. ( I can create a separate thread for this if you all want.) The man behind this program has expanded a bit on planet surface generation for the next update of the program so it may not be too much out of question to look at Space engine's programming as a starting point.

(like I said, not saying we should use this program exactly as it is, but learning from it would be better then making one from scratch. And take a look at some youtube videos of it, which I can't post links of them, but I can't sorry.)

Dr_Chillgood wrote:

so if we want to work out our PPG we may want to consult the one programmer of space engine.

Maybe We can Offer Him to join The Team.
I think He can Help.

So basically this space engine contains astronomical preset data for the know universe, and procedurally generates everywhere else, including planetary surfaces? Wow. It does so with impressive visuals too, take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68YK2FHkFjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnucN12uBQ

Pezzalis wrote:

So basically this space engine contains astronomical preset data for the know universe, and procedurally generates everywhere else, including planetary surfaces? Wow. It does so with impressive visuals too, take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68YK2FHkFjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnucN12uBQ

That is immensely impressive. They've built basically everything we would need for large scale simulation of the milky way, I'm going to look into this.

edit:
THIS IS ABSOULTELY FANTASTIC. Thrive is essentially an extrapolation of this, since we're adding life into the universe. The beautiful graphics and high levels of detail are really getting me excited. With thrive, we can essentially just add localized details to a planet as you keep zooming in. We can basically base our game off of this engine. In fact, we could essentially give every player a different galaxy to live in. Which would be utterly, stupefyingly cool.

also, 2000 posts

~sciocont wrote:

Pezzalis wrote:

So basically this space engine contains astronomical preset data for the know universe, and procedurally generates everywhere else, including planetary surfaces? Wow. It does so with impressive visuals too, take a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68YK2FHkFjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpnucN12uBQ

That is immensely impressive. They've built basically everything we would need for large scale simulation of the milky way, I'm going to look into this.

edit:
THIS IS ABSOULTELY FANTASTIC. Thrive is essentially an extrapolation of this, since we're adding life into the universe. The beautiful graphics and high levels of detail are really getting me excited. With thrive, we can essentially just add localized details to a planet as you keep zooming in. We can basically base our game off of this engine. In fact, we could essentially give every player a different galaxy to live in. Which would be utterly, stupefyingly cool.

also, 2000 posts

Can't agree more,
Its open source isn't it? I think you should contact the creator(s) and see if he/she could join us or allow us to take a look at some of the juicy code. The specs are quite demanding but by the time we are done they will be the norm.
I've downloaded it and have been browsing a few galaxies

I shot the developer a PM. I'll be checking in on the site regularly for his reply.

As impressive as this is, remember that buy end-game we'll be asking it to remember where the player parked his car. Can it handle it?

Probibily can, the enginge works like the file browser on your computer. Galaxy>star>planet>planet mesh. As long as we're careful what we render all at once, there should be no problem what so ever. (At least that's what I assume.)

Tenebrarum wrote:

As impressive as this is, remember that buy end-game we'll be asking it to remember where the player parked his car. Can it handle it?

Considering that we're only making one galaxy, complexity is reduced. After all, since everything is procedurally generated in space engine, we'd only need to keep track of things you've already seen. For most of the game you'll be in one biome, on one planet, so there will be much less complexity on the large scale.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

It's plausible, and it will make the game quite interesting.

It may be plausible, but would they really return the same results? i mean, anything that has to photosynthesize to survive could only survive in the goldilocks zone, a Gas Giant moon would be too far from the sun and would have a long period of being eclipsed.

Even out of the goldilocks zone, life can photosynthesize. Europa is outside it, yet there is a range where plants can photosynthesize without getting blasted with radiation.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

STOP USING KINDERGARTEN ASTRONOMY! You're wrong, our star is actually the exception to the rule, normally gas giants are closer.

Deathbite42 wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

STOP USING KINDERGARTEN ASTRONOMY! You're wrong, our star is actually the exception to the rule, normally gas giants are closer.

Not necessarily, many of the close orbiting gas giants we have found are only located because they cause more of the effect that allows us to find extrasolar planets. For all we know, these Hot Jupiters may be relatively rare and only appear common because that's all we could find for many years.

GamerXA wrote:

Deathbite42 wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

STOP USING KINDERGARTEN ASTRONOMY! You're wrong, our star is actually the exception to the rule, normally gas giants are closer.

Not necessarily, many of the close orbiting gas giants we have found are only located because they cause more of the effect that allows us to find extrasolar planets. For all we know, these Hot Jupiters may be relatively rare and only appear common because that's all we could find for many years.

Wouldn't far away gas giants produce a better effect due to a bigger orbit?

Deathbite42 wrote:

GamerXA wrote:

Deathbite42 wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

STOP USING KINDERGARTEN ASTRONOMY! You're wrong, our star is actually the exception to the rule, normally gas giants are closer.

Not necessarily, many of the close orbiting gas giants we have found are only located because they cause more of the effect that allows us to find extrasolar planets. For all we know, these Hot Jupiters may be relatively rare and only appear common because that's all we could find for many years.

Wouldn't far away gas giants produce a better effect due to a bigger orbit?

I am not an expert on this subject, however I believe that the method used is the amount of wobble a star has because of the gas giant's gravity. Which is greater the closer it is to the star, in accordance with F_g = Gm₁m₂ / r².

GamerXA wrote:

Deathbite42 wrote:

GamerXA wrote:

Deathbite42 wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

But will planets have similar materials if they are next to each other, or is that more 'in the next ten years' realisticness of programming?

We can probably define likely materials through position, but it doesn't really matter that much. Theoretically, any planet could get any element, and therefore make just about any sort of material.

I think it's important for us to stick to the generally accepted science of star systems, being that more dense, rocky planets are closer to the star than the large gas giants.

STOP USING KINDERGARTEN ASTRONOMY! You're wrong, our star is actually the exception to the rule, normally gas giants are closer.

Not necessarily, many of the close orbiting gas giants we have found are only located because they cause more of the effect that allows us to find extrasolar planets. For all we know, these Hot Jupiters may be relatively rare and only appear common because that's all we could find for many years.

Wouldn't far away gas giants produce a better effect due to a bigger orbit?

I am not an expert on this subject, however I believe that the method used is the amount of wobble a star has because of the gas giant's gravity. Which is greater the closer it is to the star, in accordance with F_g = Gm₁m₂ / r².

But the farther it is, the farther it'll "try" to pull.

Incorrect, its pull is weaker, and the star exerts a much larger force than any planet orbiting it will.
the closer the planet is, the more force it exerts. It's some of the most basic physics out there.

I never said you were wrong. But if it was as far as OUR gas giants, it would try to pull further than a Hot Jupiter.

Deathbite42 wrote:

I never said you were wrong. But if it was as far as OUR gas giants, it would try to pull further than a Hot Jupiter.

For what reason?


A gas giant which is further away from the star exerts less gravitational pull on the star, and so the star 'wobbles' less. This makes it harder to detect with the widely used system of checking a star for wobble to detect planets.

There is an alternate method, which involves seeing the shadow cast by a planet passing in front of a star. With more distant stars, which are just points when seen through most microscopes, this is just seen as a dimming of it's brightness. Again, the effect is less noticeable when the planet is further away.

You have misunderstood. If it is farther, it'll TRY harder.
But see, a star is both round and massive, so even if it is far away from it, there will be a time when the planet casts its "shadow". And if it is farther away, it will take longer to go around. If it takes longer, it must be slower at completing. This means it will be a dimming instead of a blink, which is good because due to pollution, a star will blink, planet or not.

The further a planet is from it's star, and the further we are away from the system, when the planet eclipses the star it will obscure less of it. In the case of wobble detection, forces due to gravity decrease as distance between the objects decrease. If this was not so the universe as we know it could not exist.

Now, in an attempt to get back on topic. Shouldn't a generated system be composed of different materials (and thus planets) depending on its position in the galaxy when the accretion disc formed.

GamerXA wrote:

The further a planet is from it's star, and the further we are away from the system, when the planet eclipses the star it will obscure less of it. In the case of wobble detection, forces due to gravity decrease as distance between the objects decrease. If this was not so the universe as we know it could not exist.

Now, in an attempt to get back on topic. Shouldn't a generated system be composed of different materials (and thus planets) depending on its position in the galaxy when the accretion disc formed.

No, it won't obscure less. In the case of eclipsing, I know the FORCE will be weaker, but it will TRY harder.
Yes.