Author Topic: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Solar System Generation: Discussion  (Read 56188 times)

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
Nope. 9.59134ect ect

Ok... weird. My normal calculator seems to like said numbers... urgh. I hate calculators.
« Last Edit: 03 November 2012, 12:45:52 by VhenRa »

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Nope. 9.59134ect ect

Well, sir, I'm not sure what's happening. I can exactly replicate your incorrect answer by plugging 6.674e11 into the calculator I showed earlier. When I insert 6.674e-11, I get 95 million-ish. Are you able to provide some screen shots of your calculation with 6.674e11 and 6.674e-11 in them?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Kendo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Read it cover to cover. Haven't run numbers but on read through found it so appear reasonable enough. I did find the writing styles to be a little jolting. Perhaps an odd thing, but when reading the scientific part it was reasonable formal, and then Chuck's examples came across as very informal. Perhaps I've been reading too many journals. And again, I'm not sure why, but Chuck seemed like the wrong name. No offence to the Chucks of the world but that named seemed like the naming equivalent of X.

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
Well, sir, I'm not sure what's happening. I can exactly replicate your incorrect answer by plugging 6.674e11 into the calculator I showed earlier. When I insert 6.674e-11, I get 95 million-ish. Are you able to provide some screen shots of your calculation with 6.674e11 and 6.674e-11 in them?

It breaks when I am doing the square root.

Quote
sqrt [R^3 / (G x M) ] = sqrt (2.3302x10^14) = 15,265,133

Comes out as 1.52649926301980244356e7. And when I plug that same equation into the basic onboard calculator program... 15,264,992.

Edit: Which appears quite damn similar. I have no idea whats causing this...

Edit 2: Ok... got it. Finally! I really hate calculators. Thank you very much for your help.
« Last Edit: 03 November 2012, 12:58:45 by VhenRa »

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Read it cover to cover. Haven't run numbers but on read through found it so appear reasonable enough. I did find the writing styles to be a little jolting. Perhaps an odd thing, but when reading the scientific part it was reasonable formal, and then Chuck's examples came across as very informal. Perhaps I've been reading too many journals. And again, I'm not sure why, but Chuck seemed like the wrong name. No offence to the Chucks of the world but that named seemed like the naming equivalent of X.

Chuck is an occasional gamer in my BT group with a masters in space systems engineering (aka rocket science), an affinity for Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, and a laid back attitude that seemed perfect for capturing the beer-n-pretzels origins of BT. He is exactly the kind of guy who would write a report on the navigation of an interplanetary probe addressing multi-body gravity effects, sunlight pressure, radiant heat releases, and probe outgassing in the informal tones used in the examples of these system/colony generation rules.

Also, I thought the example text served to take the edge off the severely formal rules text. The contrast might be a bit jarring, but the idea was to show that applying the system/colony generation rules didn't require rigid scientific formality but could instead conform to the needs of gamers. They are guidelines, after all, not rules that will cause the game police to storm into your home and lash you with wet noodles for improvising outside the dice rolls. ;)

Edit 2: Ok... got it. Finally! I really hate calculators. Thank you very much for your help.

If you feel so inclined to capture your trials and travails with screen shots and post them here (or in PMs), I'd appreciate it. If you have trouble, someone else probably will, and the more experience I get at answering problems the smoother these rules will work out. Beta testing is about capturing that experience.
« Last Edit: 03 November 2012, 13:10:34 by cray »
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
If you feel so inclined to capture your trials and travails with screen shots and post them here (or in PMs), I'd appreciate it. If you have trouble, someone else probably will, and the more experience I get at answering problems the smoother these rules will work out. Beta testing is about capturing that experience.

Scientific Notation. No, seriously. I kept missing it when it appeared and not recognising the symbols. I brain derped.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Scientific Notation. No, seriously. I kept missing it when it appeared and not recognising the symbols. I brain derped.

Cool, understood. Thank you for the input. I'll keep an eye out for that with other players.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

specter

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28

Good job! The draft represents an interesting compromise between realism and playability.  O0

I have a few remarks / ideas that might prove useful:

p.21 Titius Bode Law: This law has been proven to be nonsense. One can take a function with roughly as many variables as there are data point in a given observation/measurement and one will  find a perfect match.
There is a very simple way of constructing stellar systems. The key word is Hill sphere. It it the sphere around a mass, e.g., planet, where said mass dominates the gravity field despite a nearby star. The idea is simple: Consider there is a massive planet with a wide Hill sphere. Its orbit can be set arbitrarily. Every other planetary orbit intersecting with the Hill sphere can be considered unstable because the smaller planet will get accelerated strongly everytime when passing the sphere. These planets will be pushed to another orbit or completely kicked out of the system within a few orbital periods. Hence, Hill spheres are taboo for everything but asteroids. One can play this game even further by saying that also at a distance of several Hill sphere radii the smaller planet is still permanently accelerated by the massive planet. The larger the separation between the two orbits (measured in Hill radii), the longer an orbit can be considered as stable. In addition, the shorter the orbital periods, the shorter is the stability of an orbit.
An abstract system construction would require starting with the massive planets at arbitrary orbits followed by inserting less massive planets until no more planets can be added without putting them into another planet's Hill sphere.
Sounds more complicated than it is... By the way, another stability criterion for orbits is an integer ratio between orbital periods such as between the orbits of Venus and Earth...

p.21 Water, Water Everywhere:
Have you considered to add a paragraph on water migration after planetary formation? Simulations have shown that hydrogen is driven out of the inner system rather quickly in the early phase. This is also the reason why Terrestrials are typical in the inner system while mid-distance planets gather much more gas, hence turn into gas giants. Ice giants result from gas being driven out before a full gas giant has formed, because the orbital periods in the outer system are much longer than in the intermediate range. The interesting thing about water on the Terrestrials is that it need to be transported there via comet or asteroid impacts. In simulations, this has proven to work rather good for solar-like stars. However, X-ray active stars dissociate water at much larger distances, which allows the hydrogen to be driven out of the system. In other words, the required ice comets and asteroids can not form as efficiently. Therefore, such systems will rarely feature habitable planets because the water is not only necessary for the oceans but also for oxygen enrichment in the upper crust and atmosphere. On the other hand, presuming that water is already present on a planet, the X-rays can accelerate the oxygen enrichment of the atmosphere, therefore, also accelerate the bio-cycle and evolution. This is a mechanism that could cause more habitable planets around M-dwarfs than one would expect from the first glance.

One last remark in my own interest:
p.18 quotes the IAU definition of brown dwarfs, specifically the lower mass limit of 13M_jup. Unfortunately this number is based on a "political" decision rather than actual science. There are examples of more massive planets and also of notably less massive brown dwarfs than the 13M_jup dividing line. According to simulations brown dwarf masses can go down to about 1M_jup. This does not even consider issues such as metallicity and formation history that would outright kill the idea of a single number for distinguishing planets and brown dwarfs. Of course the number is irrelevant for the game purposes but since I've been working on the brown dwarf topic for several years now, I cry a little everytime this arbitrary number is mentioned. So please, please, take this number out.   :'(


wwwjason

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • Some People Call Me the Space Cowboy
I've attached a picture on my TI-85 of how I set it up.

Cray, I always figured you for an HP48 man  ;)
Jason Williamson, Captain of the Dragoon's Home Guard, witness to the Death of Jaime Wolf at Harlech, Outreach, Oct. 18 3067.

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
According to simulations brown dwarf masses can go down to about 1M_jup.
I'm somewhat out of my depth here, but I recall reading that Jupiter's albedo is higher than it should be, suggesting it may actually be emitting light in addition to reflecting sunlight.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Cray, I always figured you for an HP48 man  ;)

My high school sold TI-81s on installment plans c1990 for calculus classes, and I upgraded to the TI-85 when I went into college in 1993. I've used both my original TI-81 and TI-85 since then.

p.21 Titius Bode Law: This law has been proven to be nonsense.

Absolutely true. But the Bode law, as incorrect as its been proven, was convenient and laid out the basic orbit radii in one succinct table and 3 paragraphs.

Quote
One can take a function with roughly as many variables as there are data point in a given observation/measurement and one will  find a perfect match.

Here's your challenge, should you choose to accept it. Come up with a scientifically correct replacement for Step 2: Placing Orbits and the Orbital Placement Table that is no longer than 200 words. (Microsoft Word has a handy word counting functions.) You have an additional 140 words to provide an example of Chuck laying out the star system according to your new rules.

Quote
p.21 Water, Water Everywhere:
Have you considered to add a paragraph on water migration after planetary formation? Simulations have shown that hydrogen is driven out of the inner system rather quickly in the early phase. This is also the reason why Terrestrials are typical in the inner system while mid-distance planets gather much more gas, hence turn into gas giants. Ice giants result from gas being driven out before a full gas giant has formed, because the orbital periods in the outer system are much longer than in the intermediate range. The interesting thing about water on the Terrestrials is that it need to be transported there via comet or asteroid impacts. In simulations, this has proven to work rather good for solar-like stars. However, X-ray active stars dissociate water at much larger distances, which allows the hydrogen to be driven out of the system. In other words, the required ice comets and asteroids can not form as efficiently. Therefore, such systems will rarely feature habitable planets because the water is not only necessary for the oceans but also for oxygen enrichment in the upper crust and atmosphere. On the other hand, presuming that water is already present on a planet, the X-rays can accelerate the oxygen enrichment of the atmosphere, therefore, also accelerate the bio-cycle and evolution. This is a mechanism that could cause more habitable planets around M-dwarfs than one would expect from the first glance.

So, how would this influence the Habitability Modifier and Life Zone Inner/Outer Radii of the Primary Stats Table? Further, how would this influence Step 3: Filling Orbital Slots?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

specter

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
I'm somewhat out of my depth here, but I recall reading that Jupiter's albedo is higher than it should be, suggesting it may actually be emitting light in addition to reflecting sunlight.
Careful! The excess radiation is easily explained and does not imply that Jupiter is brown dwarf.
Jupiter is contracting slowly due to its own gravity. This causes additional emission. However, its not incredibly much. The albedo is not relevant for this problem.

specter

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Here's your challenge, should you choose to accept it. Come up with a scientifically correct replacement for Step 2: Placing Orbits and the Orbital Placement Table that is no longer than 200 words. (Microsoft Word has a handy word counting functions.) You have an additional 140 words to provide an example of Chuck laying out the star system according to your new rules.

Admittedly an incredibly hard task but I'll give it a try, fully aware that I will fail. Impossible tasks are the most interesting ones!  ;D
I suppose I will be allowed to replace the table with one of similar size?
And I thought this evening was going to be lame...

So, how would this influence the Habitability Modifier and Life Zone Inner/Outer Radii of the Primary Stats Table? Further, how would this influence Step 3: Filling Orbital Slots?

I'll take a closer look.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
I suppose I will be allowed to replace the table with one of similar size?

Yep.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

specter

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Aaaand done!
Here is my first attempt: Main text: 200 words (including the equation); Example text: 149

Step 2: Placing Orbits
Most stellar system configurations are not stable over time, typically resulting in ejection of bodies from the system. Some of these issues are discussed under Optional Rules (Realistic Planetary Placement). For longterm stability it is mandatory to start with the most massive planet that is put at a distance to the star of your choice. The next planet must weight less than the previous one and may also be assigned to any orbital distance, however, it must retain a minimum distance to the other planet:

Distance [AU] = 4.4e-6 * Distance to Star [AU] * Planet Diameter [km] * (Planet Density [g/cm^3]/ Star Mass[M_sol])^(1/3)

Required diameters and densities of planets are listed in Object Type Table (p. XX) while star masses are listed in Primary Solar Stats Table (p. XX). Continue assigning planets for all orbits calculated in Step 1 while taking care that no new orbit intersects the minimum distance to its neighbours. It is worth noting at this stage which orbits fall within the life zone of the star, as defined on the Primary Stats Table (p. XX.) Note that orbits are assumed to be roughly circular (“low eccentricity”). For more elliptical planetary orbits, see Options, p. XX.

Chuck moves on to pick types and orbits for his 8 planets. He checks the Primary Stats table and finds that an F3V weights 1.5M_sol. Starting with a Jupiter-clone (Orbit: 5.2AU; Diameter: 140000km, Density: 1.3g/cm^3), the minimum distance of neighbour planets is 3.1AU (4.4e-6 * 5.2AU * 140000km * (1,3g/cm^3 / 1,5M_sol)^(1/3) ). That's good because he wanted to put another planet at a 1.5AU orbit which is distant enough. This second planet shall have properties like Mars (Diameter: 6800km, Density: 3.9g/cm^3). The minimum distance to it computes to 0.06AU. Chuck notes from the Primary Stats Table that the star’s life zone ranges from about 220 to 446 million kilometers or 1.47 to 2.97AU (1AU=150 million kilometers). Hence his second planet is inside the life zone. He continues until all 8 planets are assigned and makes sure that none of them lies within the minimum distance of any other.



I've tried to maintain continuity with the surrounding text but of course it does not fit in perfectly, considering that the density and diameter of the planets must be chosen in Step 2 rather than in Step 3. On the upside, there is no need for the Orbital Placement Table.
Sorry for the bad English. Secondary language combined with midnight being long past and, of course, the limited word count...  #P

EDIT: Forgot to mention: the equation that is given above calculates 10 times the Hill sphere radius, meaning that all orbit will remain stable for billions of orbital periods as long as the resulting minimum distances are considered.

So, how would this influence the Habitability Modifier and Life Zone Inner/Outer Radii of the Primary Stats Table? Further, how would this influence Step 3: Filling Orbital Slots?

I'll look into this tomorrow.
« Last Edit: 04 November 2012, 01:54:16 by specter »

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4855
T = 2 x Pi x sqrt [R^3 / (G x M) ]

In the pg8 example, you've got a star with a mass of 3x10^30 kg, a gravitational constant of 6.674x10^-11, and a planetary orbital radius of 3.6x10^11 meters.

I got annoyed by the extra terms, and converted the above equation to:
T = k * sqrt (R^3/M)

Then solved for k:
k = 2*pi / sqrt(G)
k = 2*pi / sqrt(6.674e-11)
k = 2*pi / 8.169e-6
k = 769107

This way you don't have to worry about figuring out all the equations, you just plug in two numbers, cube one of them, divide it by the other, take the square root of the result, and multiply it by a single constant.  Same equation, just much simpler to use.

Colonel Voss

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 34
I got annoyed by the extra terms, and converted the above equation to:
T = k * sqrt (R^3/M)

Then solved for k:
k = 2*pi / sqrt(G)
k = 2*pi / sqrt(6.674e-11)
k = 2*pi / 8.169e-6
k = 769107

This way you don't have to worry about figuring out all the equations, you just plug in two numbers, cube one of them, divide it by the other, take the square root of the result, and multiply it by a single constant.  Same equation, just much simpler to use.

Ah but could you explain all that t your grandfather? I know I couldn't to mine and I have a few friends who would still be scratching their heads without performing some sort of brain enhancement surgery on them. Might need a small math symbol meaning section added.

With regards to the lost colonies/star league facilities, might be nice to add modifiers depending on the period in time.

Overall, I think this is a good step up from AToW. It's got a lot of crunch and details without making it ulcer popping hard. The examples provide a nice demonstration of making a system and really helped me keep up with the math part. Maybe I missed it but did you make any mention of strange alien hybrids for native life?

Ryumyo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 466
  • Out site seeing...
Cray, I have a question on a few things I didn't see in the I.O. open Beta test. First is System Quirks, followed by what  kind of quirks? Some examples being; Solar Flares, Background Solar Winds, Background Solar Radiationand Elliptical Orbit Objects. What are you'r thoughts?

WONC

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 762
  • Don't Stop Believin'
Yep. Please report that in the errata thread.

I can fiddle with the base orbital diameters, but the rules was working with G and F-type stars. Have you found any other stellar types (other M sub-types, K, G, F, etc.) whose life zones don't match up with the planet orbits?

[edit] Looks like Mukaikubo has checked others. I'll go through and tweak the orbital diameter results to get a planet in the life zone.

T = 2 x Pi x sqrt [R^3 / (G x M) ]

In the pg8 example, you've got a star with a mass of 3x10^30 kg, a gravitational constant of 6.674x10^-11, and a planetary orbital radius of 3.6x10^11 meters. Filling out the equation:

T = 2 x Pi x sqrt [3.6 x 10^11^3 / (6.674x10^-11 x 3x10^30) ]

Per the order of operations, taking care of the paranthetical terms first:

R^3 = (3.6 x 10^11)^3 = 4.6656x10^34
(G x M) = (6.674x10^-11 x 3x10^30) = 2.0022x10^20

And then divide those two, completing the work inside the parentheses:

[R^3 / (G x M) ] = [ 4.6656x10^34 / 2.0022x10^20] = 2.3302x10^14

Then you apply the square root:

sqrt [R^3 / (G x M) ] = sqrt (2.3302x10^14) = 15,265,133

Then you multiply by 2 and Pi:

T = 2 x Pi x sqrt [R^3 / (G x M) ] = 2 x Pi x 15,265,133 = 95,913,533 seconds

And to convert seconds to years:

95,913,533 / 31,536,000 = 3.04 years

How are you applying parentheses in your calculator? I've attached a picture on my TI-85 of how I set it up.

Cray I... why couldn't you have taught my college math classes? You just made the year calculations make sense (a planet with a year equal to 264 Terran years, orbiting a class K star?! Wow, I suck at numbers.)

Gushing aside, I've slugged my way through three systems so far. All in all, it's more number crunching than I'm, admittedly, comfortable with. Beyond that, it really sucked me in with the sheer depth of it. Definitely a big step up from the old Explorer Corps method.

One idea that came to me after doing this process a few times: could you possibly include a page that just contained all the calculations used in the process? You know, something of a "cheat sheet" for quick reference?
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

"Being tactful in audacity is knowing how far one can go too far."
Jean Cocteau

The Once & Future WiseOldNovaCat

Kendo

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Chuck is an occasional gamer in my BT group with a masters in space systems engineering (aka rocket science), an affinity for Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, and a laid back attitude that seemed perfect for capturing the beer-n-pretzels origins of BT. He is exactly the kind of guy who would write a report on the navigation of an interplanetary probe addressing multi-body gravity effects, sunlight pressure, radiant heat releases, and probe outgassing in the informal tones used in the examples of these system/colony generation rules.
, I thought the example text served to take the edge off the severely formal rules text. The contrast might be a bit jarring, but the idea was to show that applying the system/colony generation rules didn't require rigid scientific formality but could instead conform to the needs of gamers. They are guidelines, after all, not rules that will cause the game police to storm into your home and lash you with wet noodles for improvising outside the dice rolls. ;)

In regards to Chuck, fair enough. Clearly the Chucks you roll with and the ones I have encountered have left us both with different bias. As far as the contrasting writing styles, I appreciate the explanation and the approach. It was just an observation.

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Sorry, nitpick

Pg. 11 very top of right hand column of text - Terrestrial Planets: - is not in bold text like the other headings.

Thank You
   - Shane
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

Dukeroyal

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
I definitely second the idea of a page explaining the formulas.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
I got annoyed by the extra terms, and converted the above equation to:
T = k * sqrt (R^3/M)

Then solved for k:
k = 2*pi / sqrt(G)
k = 2*pi / sqrt(6.674e-11)
k = 2*pi / 8.169e-6
k = 769107

That is handy.

One idea that came to me after doing this process a few times: could you possibly include a page that just contained all the calculations used in the process? You know, something of a "cheat sheet" for quick reference?

I think so. The system / planet creation record sheet needs a major overhaul, and the equations could probably be stuffed somewhere in the fringes of the sheet.

Cray, I have a question on a few things I didn't see in the I.O. open Beta test. First is System Quirks, followed by what  kind of quirks? Some examples being; Solar Flares, Background Solar Winds, Background Solar Radiationand Elliptical Orbit Objects. What are you'r thoughts?

Elliptical orbits are discussed under Options...or they're not. Gee, I made the reference in Step 2, Placing Orbits ("For more elliptical planetary orbits, see Options p. XX"), but never got around to including them. At least I made sure to support elliptical orbits in some of the calculations. I'll have to add that option.

The problem with flares, solar wind, and solar radiation as system features is that they don't bother BT spacecraft, which seem to have foil-thick hulls that are magically resistant to any radiation. As for planets, strong solar winds are not a short-term problem (they might prevent terrestrial planets from having an atmosphere, but that's factored into stars' habitability modifiers), and a habitable planet's atmosphere is a good radiation shield. Solar flares are factored into the habitability modifier of flare-prone stars (red dwarfs). All that kind of renders flares, solar wind, and solar radiation into "nice to know" features of a star system with no game effects.

Sorry, nitpick

Pg. 11 very top of right hand column of text - Terrestrial Planets: - is not in bold text like the other headings.

Thank You
   - Shane

Good catch. Please report that in the errata thread.

Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
More little things. ;)

pg. 20 under "Realistic Planetary Placement" - Asteroid Belts: - is not bolded.
Pg. 26 under "Industrial Development" 2nd paragraph down - "production of medium lasers and BattleMech chasses is not indicative...." should be chassis (plural is same as singular)
pg. 31 top of left column 2nd paragraph - Dictatorship: - is not bolded

Thank You
   - Shane
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Pg. 26 under "Industrial Development" 2nd paragraph down - "production of medium lasers and BattleMech chasses is not indicative...." should be chassis (plural is same as singular)

Crap, then why is "chasses" passing so many spell checkers?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Quote
Crap, then why is "chasses" passing so many spell checkers?

Just has to have someone press the "add to dictionary" button once - like you probably did with BattleMech.

Thank You
   - Shane
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Nope, that doesn't apply to Google Chrome's spellchecker, only MS Word. It seemed to follow a pattern: axis, axes; basis, bases; chassis, chasses.

In fact, I just went over to a computer with a never-used-before copy of MS Word 2010 and its unmodified spellchecker passed chasses.

So what's chasses mean, if it's a valid word?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Nope, that doesn't apply to Google Chrome's spellchecker, only MS Word. It seemed to follow a pattern: axis, axes; basis, bases; chassis, chasses.

In fact, I just went over to a computer with a never-used-before copy of MS Word 2010 and its unmodified spellchecker passed chasses.

So what's chasses mean, if it's a valid word?

It's a technical square dancing term.

"a gliding step in which one foot is kept in advance of the other. "
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

vidar

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 607
Well this is fun, I like math and astrophysicist.  And like the level of detail, just enought to cover all the bases well, but not needed a degree in astrophysics to understand.  Well done, now I can to build a gas giant with habitable moons!

Colodie

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Hohohoho
A few random comments:

On page 6, there are references to the Proximity Point Distant Table on page 86 of Strat Ops.  However, the table on page 3 lists the Safe Jump Distance for every star.  Since this is the same data, it's kinda weird to direct me to a table in another book, when the information is just a few pages away.  Granted, you have to go the Strat Ops for the transit time calculations, but again.  Kinda weird.

I created a G0V star.  Easy enough.  Found out that it had 6 orbits.  Cool.  Determined that orbits 3 and 4 were at 1.1 and 1.76 AU, respectively.  Checking the Primary Solar Stats Table, I find that both of those orbits are in the life zone, albeit just barely for orbit 4.  Calculating the km distance, using the approximate AU value provided of 150 million km, I find that orbit 4 is at 264 million km.  Checking the Solar table again, orbit 4 is now outside the life zone.  Using the actual AU distance, I can get orbit 4 inside the life zone.  So that's kinda confusing that you can get can a planet that is inside the life zone (by AU), and outside (by km calculated from the provided approximate AU value).

Also, on the example on page 6, 'Chuck' calculates the AU distance for the inner and outer life zones.  It is confusing why this is shown, because those AU values are shown in the chart he just reference to get the km values.  In addition, the calculated AU values don't match said chart.

So there are some random thoughts and observations I had.