Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baradrin
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 23:41:00 -
[1]
Has anyone else noticed that the physical information given for stars and planets in EVE are unreasonable? They're all consistent with each other (kudos to CCP for putting the care in to get details like surface gravity and even the temperatures of the planets correct), but a lot of the base stellar parameters (e.g. luminosity, spectral class, and ages of stars) are not at all reasonable. For example, a star that's listed as a "red giant" is about half the radius of Sol, and has a luminosity of .06 ... then on top of that, its age is given as 19 Gyr, which is far too short a span of time for a star that size to become a red giant (not to mention older than the universe itself).
Now granted, this is a fictional game (which is why they have pretty much complete freedom to do anything with planets and moons), but why include all that detail but have the starting point be incorrect?
|
Mr Mozzie
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 23:56:00 -
[2]
I guess that type of infomation is nice eye candy to all but the 0.1% of people who know the expected values for such paameters.
|
Amphetaminer
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 00:22:00 -
[3]
welcome to earth i hope you enjoy your stay
|
CaptainSeafort
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 00:29:00 -
[4]
as much as it may seem unreasonable or stupid to some of you, the OPs point about including high levels of detail and then letting that detail be....wrong... is very valid.
if you bought a screen that could run the worlds best game at 9000x12000 widescreen hi-definition perfectly....wouldnt you be surprised if everything on the screen was a light shade of pink? =P
"Planets and moons no longer hitch rides on player ships. Their towel privileges have been revoked." HHGG Lives on in EVE! |
Taedrin
Gallente Mercatoris Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 00:55:00 -
[5]
Probably, CCP did not manually choose the properties of the stars and planets. They probably used a script to generate the stats.
|
Caldorous
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 00:56:00 -
[6]
a) its a game b) its a darn game c) ffs! it's a game! d) search in the stargates attributes to find real attributes! -----------------------------
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 01:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Caldorous a) its a game b) its a darn game c) ffs! it's a game!
Just because it's a game doesn't mean the rest of us must be too ignorant to know or to lazy to care that details are wrong.
I would love to see CCP hire someone with some real astrophysics knowledge to tweak with the game in such ways.
- - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - or automatic signatures - - - - - - - - "Your weapons deactivate as the eve servers begin to explode." |
Humpalot
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 01:23:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Baradrin For example, a star that's listed as a "red giant" is about half the radius of Sol, and has a luminosity of .06 ... then on top of that, its age is given as 19 Gyr, which is far too short a span of time for a star that size to become a red giant (not to mention older than the universe itself).
Maybe they meant a Red Dwarf and not a Red Giant. If so that would come closer to meeting the other criteria. 19Gyr is silly unless EVE is a future that takes place about 5 billion years from now.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 01:25:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Caldorous a) its a game b) its a darn game c) ffs! it's a game!
Just because it's a game doesn't mean the rest of us must be too ignorant to know or to lazy to care that details are wrong.
I would love to see CCP hire someone with some real astrophysics knowledge to tweak with the game in such ways.
Agreed, especially since seeing as how it's generated by a script, they can just start with the base graphical parameters and then have the script plug in reasonable numbers. Could do the same thing for the planets (which would be great).
|
Siege
Minmatar Siegecraft Bounty Hunting
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 02:43:00 -
[10]
Actually, pretty much everything in the flight physics of the game is totally, utterly, and undeniably wrong as well. Things such as maximum speeds, sound, visible lasers, lack of gravitational effect, planets/moons that NEVER move.
If you want the game to be realistic in its physics, you would have to basically rewrite just about every line of code that isn't graphics or the market.
|
|
Princess Voodoo
Gallente FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 04:24:00 -
[11]
We are also using warp gates, and dooms day in space which is unpossible too!!..?!/!!
|
Baradrin
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 04:49:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Siege Actually, pretty much everything in the flight physics of the game is totally, utterly, and undeniably wrong as well. Things such as maximum speeds, sound, visible lasers, lack of gravitational effect, planets/moons that NEVER move.
If you want the game to be realistic in its physics, you would have to basically rewrite just about every line of code that isn't graphics or the market.
Granted, but all of those things are integral to the enjoyment of game play itself. If you didn't have any sounds, the game would be a lot more boring, so it's not really important that it's nonphysical in that respect. But I'm just saying that (as has been pointed out), it wouldn't have been hard at all for them to get the stellar parameters right, and it wouldn't negatively impact game play at all. For that matter, those that have an eye for detail but not much astronomy background might have even learned something about the real universe. They even put in the detail to figure out what the equilibrium temperature of planets and moons would be (I checked their calculations - they're right), so its very strange to me to go to all that effort, but with an incorrect starting point.
|
Kruugore
Minmatar Vigilant Justice
|
Posted - 2007.03.25 05:24:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Kruugore on 25/03/2007 05:22:04
Originally by: Baradrin Has anyone else noticed that the physical information given for stars and planets in EVE are unreasonable? They're all consistent with each other (kudos to CCP for putting the care in to get details like surface gravity and even the temperatures of the planets correct), but a lot of the base stellar parameters (e.g. luminosity, spectral class, and ages of stars) are not at all reasonable. For example, a star that's listed as a "red giant" is about half the radius of Sol, and has a luminosity of .06 ... then on top of that, its age is given as 19 Gyr, which is far too short a span of time for a star that size to become a red giant (not to mention older than the universe itself).
Now granted, this is a fictional game (which is why they have pretty much complete freedom to do anything with planets and moons), but why include all that detail but have the starting point be incorrect?
It's a small red giant.
Meaning that it was a small star to begin with.
DUH!
We honestly have no full clue of what is possible out there to begin with.
Until you can PROVE that a star of that proportion is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, Quiet in the peanut gallery!
EVE Vault, A Great Community |
Baradrin
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 09:55:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Baradrin on 26/03/2007 09:58:48
Originally by: Kruugore
It's a small red giant.
Meaning that it was a small star to begin with.
DUH!
We honestly have no full clue of what is possible out there to begin with.
Until you can PROVE that a star of that proportion is IMPOSSIBLE to exist, Quiet in the peanut gallery!
I guarantee nothing you say is conclusive. They have found planets they have calculated older than the universe to be. Just sit back, and not care. Unless you can say without 100% certainty that what you know is exactly the right answer. But you can't because what we know today is not always the same what we know tomorrow.
I can indeed prove that it is impossible. For a start, to be classified as a red giant, it has to have stopped burning hydrogen in its core and begun doing so in a shell surrounding the core (e.g. it has a core of degenerate helium). Because of the higher pressures and temperatures that result from a massive degenerate core, the energy output of the shell burning is much greater than that of normal main sequence core burning, so to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium, the star swells to many times its original size. That is the definition of a red giant star. More importantly, it is absolutely impossible that such a star of the size indicated by the luminosity given can exist at an age of 19 billion years, because the reaction rates of hydrogen fusion are far too low to exhaust all the fuel in that amount of time. If you want more details, look at (Despain '81) .
As for the claim of "planets they have calculated older than the universe to be," I have never heard of this before (feel free to cite something a little more specific than "they"). For a time, some globular clusters were calculated to be older than the age that the microwave background radiation data suggested, but that discrepancy was cleared up after more WMAP data was collected.
Obviously, no science is correct to 100% certainty - that is, in fact, what separates science from most other techniques to understand the universe. But that does not mean that some things are not better understood than others, and stellar evolution is one of the best understood areas of astrophysics.
|
Arakidias
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 10:04:00 -
[15]
Well, go and take a look at our current storyline "star" planet Liparer II. IIRC it had a surface temperature of 137 kelvins and other nice uninhabitable properties.
I guess we could reason that there are huge methane harvesting dome cities there for amarr or something.
|
DarkMatter
Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 10:10:00 -
[16]
Edited by: DarkMatter on 26/03/2007 10:06:32 This game will have what you're looking for in terms of realism...
Building the homestead
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |