Curious thought on the mass. I do like the fact that size and mass are linked -- in that it makes the screen really easy to understand (ah, that's the massive one, those little ones are negligible). By you're right, star density, earth density, Jupiter density, they are different. I could maybe add in a) a set of options for density (gas giant, rocky planet, star)... or b) a way to disconnect the size from mass entirely. As a side note, the size doesn't vary realistically now anyway. The radius scales logarithmically (so sizes aren't *so* drastically different).wtg62 wrote:Shouldn't mass and size be two different independent variables? ... Will we be able to create a circular orbit for an object around our reference (followed) object?
Option 'a' could be cool, since maybe I'd be able to change the images for the objects depending on what they are. (Stars a bit luminous, rocky planets, well, rocky). Still, I'd hate to lose the easy visualization of the mass... I'm open to other thoughts here.
As for circular orbits around tracked objects: yes! Love it. An easy, easy way to make a moon.