Calling all Suggestions

What did you draw?
User avatar
robly18
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by robly18 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:14 am

A Random Player wrote::idea:
Allow changing the value of G.
Negative Gs?

Yes please.

Also, how about an EVEN HIGHER RANGE of r^x laws? I'd like to see r^5
Last edited by robly18 on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Convincing people that 0.9999... = 1 since 2012

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by testtubegames » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:28 am

A Random Player wrote::idea:
Allow changing the value of G.
I like it -- that'd give you some nice control over how the sim behaves.
robly18 wrote: Negative Gs?

Yes please.

Also, how about an EVEN HIGHER RANGE of r^x laws? I'd like to see r^-5
Negative G's?!? What kind of a madman are you? That'd be too awesome. Actually, that sounds neat. Some repulsion instead of attraction. The gravity sim could then even be used to probe electricity a bit.

As for force laws, it's easy to add more, but my sense is that the current range kinda exhausts what is interesting. You can get down to r^-5 already, and objects barely tug on one another anymore (unless they're very close, then they collide). And up at r^2, objects cannot escape one another's pulls. I don't know if there'd be anything terribly interesting to play with beyond those extremes. I could be wrong, though.

User avatar
robly18
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by robly18 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:45 am

I ment r^5, sorry. Anyway, I think it would be kind of interesting to see the other types of curvatures you could make, and who knows: maybe there is some range at which orbits will make a triable shape! Because, you know, with r^-2 it has 2 focci. r^1 has three. Maybe r^4 will have four?
Convincing people that 0.9999... = 1 since 2012

A Random Player
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by A Random Player » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:22 pm

What about:
  • Letting size of planets and stars be proportional to the (cube root of?) mass
  • Letting planets, asteroids, stars, merge (toggleable)
$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢ [1]
Always check your units or you will have no money!

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by testtubegames » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:29 pm

A Random Player wrote:What about:
  • Letting size of planets and stars be proportional to the (cube root of?) mass
  • Letting planets, asteroids, stars, merge (toggleable)
Yes, yes, and yes. The size thing would be a great improvement (originally, you couldn't change any masses, but now that you can, the images really do need to change to reflect that).

And I'd been thinking about merging, not quite sure what to do with it. On the one hand, merging would lead to some neat behaviors (dust clouds collecting into planets). On the other, it'd be harder to make pretty orbits (since random collisions would interrupt the paths). Toggling is a great solution.

DavidAllyn68
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:28 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by DavidAllyn68 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:35 pm

Suggestion #1 is less a "gravity" suggestion and more a "graphic" suggestion. How about specifying the trail properties of each object -- e.g. color, length, velocity sensitive saturation, etc.

Suggestion #2: Allow suns (who=1 objects) to move. Although there wouldn't be much movement, you could allow suns to interact with each other and, with enough objects, the mass could accumulate enough to move a who=1 object.

Suggestion #3: Create a black hole object :lol:

User avatar
robly18
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:03 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by robly18 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:11 am

DavidAllyn68 wrote:Suggestion #1 is less a "gravity" suggestion and more a "graphic" suggestion. How about specifying the trail properties of each object -- e.g. color, length, velocity sensitive saturation, etc.

Suggestion #2: Allow suns (who=1 objects) to move. Although there wouldn't be much movement, you could allow suns to interact with each other and, with enough objects, the mass could accumulate enough to move a who=1 object.

Suggestion #3: Create a black hole object :lol:

#1-Yes. Please.

#2-No. "Stars" as the simulator calls them are merely objects that exhibit gravity but are fixed. If you want a movable star, use planets!

#3-Okay.
Convincing people that 0.9999... = 1 since 2012

19683
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by 19683 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:00 pm

DavidAllyn68 wrote:Suggestion #1 is less a "gravity" suggestion and more a "graphic" suggestion. How about specifying the trail properties of each object -- e.g. color, length, velocity sensitive saturation, etc.

Suggestion #2: Allow suns (who=1 objects) to move. Although there wouldn't be much movement, you could allow suns to interact with each other and, with enough objects, the mass could accumulate enough to move a who=1 object.

Suggestion #3: Create a black hole object :lol:
Black holes? Awesome!!!

With general relativity? Please?
Binomial Theorem: ((a+b)^n)= sum k=0->k=n((n!(a^(n-k))(b^k))/(k!(n-k)!))

A Random Player
Posts: 523
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by A Random Player » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:27 pm

robly18 wrote:
DavidAllyn68 wrote:Suggestion #1 is less a "gravity" suggestion and more a "graphic" suggestion. How about specifying the trail properties of each object -- e.g. color, length, velocity sensitive saturation, etc.

Suggestion #2: Allow suns (who=1 objects) to move. Although there wouldn't be much movement, you could allow suns to interact with each other and, with enough objects, the mass could accumulate enough to move a who=1 object.

Suggestion #3: Create a black hole object :lol:

#1-Yes. Please.

#2-No. "Stars" as the simulator calls them are merely objects that exhibit gravity but are fixed. If you want a movable star, use planets!

#3-Okay.
2: What about letting us color planets? We could make them yellow for a star.

Also, could we have a timer, that shows how much time has elapsed?

And about the moving/rotating cameras disussed earlier; we could center on a planet or the barycenter of selected planets, and rotating views allow you to select a planet/barycenter to center on, and a planet/barycenter to point at, with an optional angle offset. (I'm just adding the barycenter stuff after making the fractal universe things :P) To watch Lagrange points for example, center on the star and point toward the planet. After getting out of rotating view, reset the angle (or even have an option to rotating the viewing screen by default).
I'm not sure if this is any simpler, but it would work.
$1 = 100¢ = (10¢)^2 = ($0.10)^2 = $0.01 = 1¢ [1]
Always check your units or you will have no money!

User avatar
testtubegames
Site Admin
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm

Re: Calling all Suggestions

Post by testtubegames » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:04 am

robly18 wrote:
DavidAllyn68 wrote:Suggestion #1 is less a "gravity" suggestion and more a "graphic" suggestion. How about specifying the trail properties of each object -- e.g. color, length, velocity sensitive saturation, etc.

Suggestion #2: Allow suns (who=1 objects) to move. Although there wouldn't be much movement, you could allow suns to interact with each other and, with enough objects, the mass could accumulate enough to move a who=1 object.

Suggestion #3: Create a black hole object :lol:

#1-Yes. Please.

#2-No. "Stars" as the simulator calls them are merely objects that exhibit gravity but are fixed. If you want a movable star, use planets!

#3-Okay.
A) Agreed, that'd be nice
B) Kinda what Robly said. Though I would like to use slightly different language for the objects. Maybe 'stars' should move, too -- and in addition, there are 'fixed stars' that you can add, that mimic what we call 'stars' in the sim now. Of course, in addition, I'd like us to be able to change the colors of the objects at will, so the difference between 'planet' and 'star' would be purely superficial... default settings that you could change anyway.
C)...
19683 wrote:Black holes? Awesome!!!

With general relativity? Please?
C) ... how hard could it be? ;) (I'm going out on a limb and assuming: very hard.)
A Random Player wrote:And about the moving/rotating cameras disussed earlier; we could center on a planet or the barycenter of selected planets, and rotating views allow you to select a planet/barycenter to center on, and a planet/barycenter to point at, with an optional angle offset. (I'm just adding the barycenter stuff after making the fractal universe things :P) To watch Lagrange points for example, center on the star and point toward the planet. After getting out of rotating view, reset the angle (or even have an option to rotating the viewing screen by default).
I'm not sure if this is any simpler, but it would work.
I've already got a 'go to center of mass' option built into the game. It might be interesting to get more refined, as you say. You can click and drag to select a bunch of objects, and then certain options appear -- center of mass being one of them. (Others being... uh... delete them all? I'm not sure what other changes you'd make that would involve multiple objects at once). That could be workable. I think the rotating frame could be done in a similar, simple manner. (The UI would be simple for the user, that is... I'm sure implementing this will make me curse a lot)

Locked