I would suggest that planetary composition would be made more realistic:

1) Planetary types would be more dependent on star type; Proto stars with more asteroid belts etc

2) Planets inside the system would follow some rules. No arctic planets closest to the star while jungle planets are the furthest.

3) More gas giants and barren planets per system. Only one or two planets with atmosphere. The only realistic comparison here is the solar system, so there should be more barren and gas giant planets than there is now.



would better the immersion factor...

PekkaTa wrote:
I would suggest that planetary composition would be made more realistic:

1) Planetary types would be more dependent on star type; Proto stars with more asteroid belts etc

2) Planets inside the system would follow some rules. No arctic planets closest to the star while jungle planets are the furthest.

3) More gas giants and barren planets per system. Only one or two planets with atmosphere. The only realistic comparison here is the solar system, so there should be more barren and gas giant planets than there is now.



would better the immersion factor...

This is a similar suggestion that has been suggested and is listed on summary list (linked on my signature planel). If you feel you have any sugestion or ideas for the game create a detailed thread and link it with a summary of your suggestion to the discussion thread (linked on my signature panel) where I can add it to the summary list so that the Devs Team to look at for possible development into the game.

Another addition to this is realistic anomalies for planet types, as in: Gas Giants don't have soil, so how could it have corrosive soil? There were some other example I was talking to my friend about but can't remember right now.

We don't know what realistic is. We have exactly one data point, and can barely make out some very large planets beyond our solar system.



So at least for a few decades more, there is no such thing as realistic. There is only imagination.

Collabone:



[Suggestion] Realistic solar systems/planets



a) lets say planets are from left to right in the order of distance from the star. it just doesnt seem very realistic to have the closest planet be arctic and the furthest a lava.

b) planet amount and types based on size and heat of star

c) multiple moons based on planet size

d) terraforming based on all the above (eg. you cant make a lava planet out of arctic on the outskirts of a red giant system.. an ocean maybe, but no lava)



note that im no astrophysicist, but this feels logical to me.



-------------------------------------------------------------------



True that is almost identical to my suggestion. I have been following the stickied suggestion list, just didn't notice that on the list.



Thanks jetkar for your job keeping the list updated



AngleWyrm: We have just one observation for the the total composition of a star system, but we also have laws of physics and probabilities. Like more heat in the system for the closest planets. Green zone around the star for habitable planets (where water is liquid) etc. So at least those should observed.

AngleWyrm wrote:
We don't know what realistic is. We have exactly one data point, and can barely make out some very large planets beyond our solar system.

I would expand on that by saying that we barely know what exists in our outer solar system (we seem to keep tripping over small planetoids floating around out there). We have only been able to detect planets outside our solar system for a year or two and we can usually only guess at their size and composition.

JStarr wrote:
Gas Giants don't have soil, so how could it have corrosive soil?

Well, theoretically, the gas giants do have a solid core. I guess that is corrosive...?

Unfortunately realism can't come into system design so much. We would expect to see more gas giants, which are a pain in the ass to colonize, and barren planets. Also large gas giants tend to have several moons.

While it is hard to tell how frequent gas giants and lava planets should be, can we at least re-sort the existing planets in a system, with desert/arid closer and tundra/arctic further from the star? This is trivial to implement, and it deals with most of the perception issue. Seeing in order from the star, "arctic tundra desert" bothers me.

PekkaTa wrote:
Collabone:



[Suggestion] Realistic solar systems/planets



a) lets say planets are from left to right in the order of distance from the star. it just doesnt seem very realistic to have the closest planet be arctic and the furthest a lava.

b) planet amount and types based on size and heat of star

c) multiple moons based on planet size

d) terraforming based on all the above (eg. you cant make a lava planet out of arctic on the outskirts of a red giant system.. an ocean maybe, but no lava)



note that im no astrophysicist, but this feels logical to me.

Astrophysicist here. Yeah that's a good rule of thumb but it's not quite explicitly true, for example we have seen gas giants orbiting close to stars and stuff like that when it's normally rocky types through to gas planets on the outskirts. Also with stellar type, again we can't really say since we've only seen planets around a few hundred to a few thousand, stars. A planet's temperature is more due to what the atmosphere consists of, which is why Venus is much warmer than Mercury as it has a thicker atmosphere leading to a greenhouse effect, and Mars is very cold as it has a virtually negligible atmosphere. In short, there's so many variables in stellar and planetary formation that I think the game is fine as it stands and we shouldn't worry too much about it. I'm more concerned about anomalies being on planets that are illogical, such as the soil on gas giants.

werewolf_nr wrote:
Well, theoretically, the gas giants do have a solid core. I guess that is corrosive...?

Gas giants tend to have a core of degenerate "metallic" hydrogen, meaning that it would be impossible to settle on due to the ridicously high density and many other factors.



Urgh trying to condense 4 years of astro into a few sentences

bwfcnut wrote:
Urgh trying to condense 4 years of astro into a few sentences

Sorry for the headache. At least for the gas giants, while it may have a solid core, I either see colonization on such planet as either a airlocked spacestation structure inside the atmosphere or just out side the atmosphere, which is why it didn't make sense to say corrosive soil on gas giant. That and a solid metallic core doesn't count as soil to me

JStarr wrote:
Sorry for the headache. At least for the gas giants, while it may have a solid core, I either see colonization on such planet as either a airlocked spacestation structure inside the atmosphere or just out side the atmosphere, which is why it didn't make sense to say corrosive soil on gas giant. That and a solid metallic core doesn't count as soil to me

Ha it's no worries at all, just very hard to condense all of the factors I described into a few short sentances without resorting to paragraphs of text or just plain maths. Back to what I was initially trying to say, yeah a LOT of the anomalies don't really fit in with gas giants. They're incredibly harsh, unforgiving environments. If I remember correctly Jupiter has lightning storms many orders of magnitude more powerful than ours on Earth, and Neptune or Uranus (can never remember which) has wind speeds in excess of 1200mph, which means consistent wind speeds of almost mach 2.

bwfcnut wrote:
Astrophysicist here. Yeah that's a good rule of thumb but it's not quite explicitly true

Although we cannot say anything for a fact about planetary systems, it doesn't mean that planets should be completely random. Probabilites is what I'm after here. Planets closer to the star tend to get more heat from the star. And planets on the green zone have larger probabilities to fall under the terran, ocean and jungle types. Right? And the size of the Green Zone is dependent on the star type. Larger and brighter stars have larger green zones and thus probably larger probability for habitable planets. And we do have theories of star system formation? Like planets building up from smaller chunks of materials and being more geologically active in the early years?

PekkaTa wrote:
Although we cannot say anything for a fact about planetary systems, it doesn't mean that planets should be completely random. Probabilites is what I'm after here. Planets closer to the star tend to get more heat from the star. And planets on the green zone have larger probabilities to fall under the terran, ocean and jungle types. Right? And the size of the Green Zone is dependent on the star type. Larger and brighter stars have larger green zones and thus probably larger probability for habitable planets. And we do have theories of star system formation? Like planets building up from smaller chunks of materials and being more geologically active in the early years?

Yeah yeah, I get you. Whilst I agree I don't think that it should be a priority fix, but something that should possibly be done later. And yeah, there are theories of star formation, being (again condensed) protostars having lots of material such as dust swirling around that accretes together to form planets, with the inner planets tending to be rocky and/or metallic (as the temperatures are too high for volatile materials such as water and methane) with the gas planets forming further out. But as I said there are exceptions.

At least some planetary array considerations can be ameliorated with the "Endless Did It" excuse. This could be justified if (for example) first-planet-Arctic systems were unusually likely to generate Endless artifacts of one stripe or another.



As for earlier conversation regarding Corrosive Soil on Gas Giants, that's more like saying that establishing agriculture would be unusually difficult, which makes sense. There are structures that permit limited agriculture on gas giants and some gas giants could plausibly resist that. Nevertheless, gas giants should probably draw from their own unique anomaly list... as should asteroid belts. Low Gravity shouldn't show up on either; gas giants because they have way too much mass for it to be plausible, and asteroid belts because they should always be low gravity (and thus the 'anomaly' isn't anomalous at all). Hollow planet is another one that shouldn't show up on either. Many of the standard ones are fine in terms of effects, but they need to be rethemed (given new names and descriptions).



Ancient Ruins and Artifacts are another one that shouldn't show up on either; any civilization advanced enough to settle one of those two environments will be leaving Mundane Artifacts instead of just ruins. This even goes for Slylandro Gasbags (which is to say, for extremophilic friendly locals). Would the Slylandro create OOPA? No.



Asteroid belts in particular should probably have a very restricted anomaly set. That's not to say they should be less likely to have anomalies, just that the variety which can show up should be small.