CoSm1c_gAm3r wrote:Is it hard to make fog effect while descending into gas giant? And then that fog slightly and rapidly change color? Is it hard to make small core that would be like diameter of earths moon and all above till real gas giant size would just be just that dense fog? So at half way ship would just be crushed by atmosphere of that gas giant?
I think that it would prove unfeasible for technical reasons.
Also, gas giants may have small cores, but they have awfully thick layer of liquid/supercritical hydrogen, sometimes underlain with a layer of metallic hydrogen.
I wonder if there is ability to land on star if there would be strong enough engine. Because now only speed can kill. I really though that other ways of causing ship destruction was already implemented in Pioneer but it is not. Weird.
True. I think Pioneer should have at least two other modes of destruction implemented - heat from outside sources (integrated with hull heating on reentry) and pressure.
Then making gas giants would only be a question of giving them atmospheres that would be thick enough to crush you before you hit the 'surface'.
P.S. You could land on gas giant in both FE2 and FFE.
Been there, done that.
FluffyFreak wrote:Your suggestion for fixing the Gas Giant radius is good and I'll look into it as soon as I can.
Hopefully this can be helpful as far as mass/radius relationship goes:
http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/standa ... exoplanets
We also need fixing the atmospheres - most planets that can hold onto hydrogen and helium snowball into gas giants, and we should check if the planet is massive or cool enough to hold different gasses and revise the atmosphere list and selection mechanics. For example, we won't get hydrogen or helium apart from maybe some failed gas giants (still massive by terrestrial standards), I'm not sure if we'll ever get enough argon to get reasonable argon atmospheres and so on.
There should probably be a different category for Neptune and Uranus since they're technically Ice Giants
and the maths is different for those as well it seems. Fascinating what you discover when you start looking into this stuff, I've been into space and planets my whole life and everyday I still learn something, or recently updated/discovered.
Are they different enough from our POV? basically the difference between gas giant and non-gas giant is whether the planet could gorge itself on hydrogen and helium.
There are some other fixes that need to be made:
Lighting should depend on distance from light source, billboards are rendered under naive assumption that something not resolvable is not visible (which is just untrue for bright enough objects, otherwise we wouldn't be able t6o see any stars at night at all (or most planets, or artificial satellites), temperature is calculated wrong in cases where a body orbits a dim star which itself orbits a bright star closely enough (get contributions from all stars in the system when calculating the temperature), and is there any reason why we don't get gravitational influence from multiple bodies in the system?
Anyway, regarding clouds, what is the professional way of doing them?
I can think of a mesh with particles in vertices, and mesh normals used to calculate lighting on those particles, but it's probably smarter than that?