- #1
AvengerDr
- 3
- 0
Hello there, I'm developing a 4x Space Opera game. For my galaxy generation algorithm I'm using an improved version of the "Accrete" one, which I'm sure some of you may have heard.
It generates fairly believable planets. Rocky ones are placed in the inner system, while gas giants in the outer zones. There are howewer three problems with that.
1) It is not possibile to influence the number of planets generated. While in a game this would be required. As it is now it generates an average of 9 planets per system. Players may want to play with a smaller amount of planets.
2) It doesn't work very well to simulate the accretion of satellites. So as a solution of the first problem I was trying to try to estabilish whether some planets would capture other, smaller, planets as satellites. Simulating a complex gravitational system would be ephemeral I think.. So I'd just need some way to simulate whether a planet could capture another. Is there some kind of calculation that I could use?
3) The algorithm does not generate epistellar gas giants. If I understood correctly those are gas giants who migrate inward. Is there some way to estimate whether one could do so?
Randomly? I was hoping for some pseudo-scientific calculations, so that my conscience would feel good :)
From current results, on 500 planets, only 3-4 on average of "Terrestrial class" (there are also some of "desrtic" or "ocean" types that are not counted as "terran"). Surprisingly (or maybe not so), there are more planets that could sustain ammonia based lifeforms that terran ones. Venusian like worlds also seemed to be rarer. Only 20 on average, with half of them being "wet" greenhouse system with vast oceans. More than 200 of them were uninteresting rocky planets completely frozen over. Another hundred, barren planets a-la Mars.
If someone is interested I can select some "interesting" star system, so that you can look at the details and give me an opinion of the degree of believability of it :)
Thanks in advance
It generates fairly believable planets. Rocky ones are placed in the inner system, while gas giants in the outer zones. There are howewer three problems with that.
1) It is not possibile to influence the number of planets generated. While in a game this would be required. As it is now it generates an average of 9 planets per system. Players may want to play with a smaller amount of planets.
2) It doesn't work very well to simulate the accretion of satellites. So as a solution of the first problem I was trying to try to estabilish whether some planets would capture other, smaller, planets as satellites. Simulating a complex gravitational system would be ephemeral I think.. So I'd just need some way to simulate whether a planet could capture another. Is there some kind of calculation that I could use?
3) The algorithm does not generate epistellar gas giants. If I understood correctly those are gas giants who migrate inward. Is there some way to estimate whether one could do so?
Randomly? I was hoping for some pseudo-scientific calculations, so that my conscience would feel good :)
From current results, on 500 planets, only 3-4 on average of "Terrestrial class" (there are also some of "desrtic" or "ocean" types that are not counted as "terran"). Surprisingly (or maybe not so), there are more planets that could sustain ammonia based lifeforms that terran ones. Venusian like worlds also seemed to be rarer. Only 20 on average, with half of them being "wet" greenhouse system with vast oceans. More than 200 of them were uninteresting rocky planets completely frozen over. Another hundred, barren planets a-la Mars.
If someone is interested I can select some "interesting" star system, so that you can look at the details and give me an opinion of the degree of believability of it :)
Thanks in advance