Planet Distance from Star Should Influence Planet Type

[Daeridanii]

Pretty simple. Seeing an ice planet so close to the star that my ship's hull starts flaking off is a bit of a problem. (Don't you agree?) I believe something similar is already implemented with asteroids.

 

[Kaisaurus]

Yep definitely agree, this would be 100% legit

 

[serge1944]

Unfortunaly planets temperature does not eork like thar,it depends on the atmosphere,gas,presure(theres a planet with fire on ice bur ice does not melt becayse of presion) planet rotatio and plenty of othere facts + plus de star distance.

 

[Daeridanii]

it depends on the atmosphere,gas,presure

Agreed, but if Earth was where Mercury is - Earth definitely wouldn't look like Earth.

 

[Winterhome]

Unfortunaly planets temperature does not eork like thar,it depends on the atmosphere,gas,presure(theres a planet with fire on ice bur ice does not melt becayse of presion) planet rotatio and plenty of othere facts + plus de star distance.

there's a certain point where pressure is so high that the atmosphere simply leaves the planet

 

[Blodge]

there's a certain point where pressure is so high that the atmosphere simply leaves the planet

I think you meant temperature, not pressure?

 

[Winterhome]

I think you meant temperature, not pressure?

No, he was talking about pressure creating 'ice' - which would be impossible on account of pressure causing atmospheric gases to escape the planet's magnetic field, thus relieving pressure.

 

[Valck]

No, he was talking about pressure creating 'ice' - which would be impossible on account of pressure causing atmospheric gases to escape the planet's magnetic field, thus relieving pressure.

IIRC, pressure is a function of gravity and mass, and atmosphere is stripped away because of lack or deficiency of a magnetic field to deflect the solar wind. If the gravity hadn't been sufficient, there couldn't have been an atmosphere to generate any significant pressure.

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist.



On topic: In my opinion planetary environment should vary with distance from the star and its spectral class (or stars if a multiple system), and perhaps the planet's density (in this context, basically its radius). Other factors are way too minuscule to be worth simulating. A brown dwarf might have an ice world orbiting close to it, but around a red giant it'd stretch imagination a bit too thin.

 

[sayerulz]

While distance from the sun is not the only factor that determines a planets climate, it is definitely a big one. Yes, with a different atmosphere, Venus could be earthlike. But mercury could never be an ice planet.

Lets say the distance from the sun affects the probability of certain planets spawning. At max distance from the star, you will have zero desert planets. At min distance, you will never have an ice planet.

In between, you will have something of a mix, with ice planets getting more common farther out, and deserts getting more common closer in. Red planets would mostly be a bit farther out than earthlike ones, and purple ones a bit closer in.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

A "band" system would work the best, with 3-5 different range bands, containing different planet types. Could even use this to diversify planet purpose and resource distribution to an extent, so near the star you get mercury like planets with high resource amounts, but you're at risk without a heat shield. Towards the edge you could get high amounts of other resources, with increased risk of pirate type NPC factions. And towards the Goldilocks zone you get ideal for base building planets etc.

 

[Daeridanii]

Yikes! I thought this was just a common-sense fix, but you guys are really improving on it.

Lets say the distance from the sun affects the probability of certain planets spawning. At max distance from the star, you will have zero desert planets. At min distance, you will never have an ice planet.

In between, you will have something of a mix, with ice planets getting more common farther out, and deserts getting more common closer in. Red planets would mostly be a bit farther out than earthlike ones, and purple ones a bit closer in.

Yes. Definitely yes.

Could even use this to diversify planet purpose and resource distribution to an extent, so near the star you get mercury like planets with high resource amounts, but you're at risk without a heat shield. Towards the edge you could get high amounts of other resources, with increased risk of pirate type NPC factions. And towards the Goldilocks zone you get ideal for base building planets etc.

I like this idea... gives different planets a purpose - they aren't all recolored versions of each other.

 

[Valck]

Towards the edge [...] increased risk of pirate type NPC factions

Pirates should be what they are, part of politics and commerce.
I don't like this "further out equals more pirates" stuff, it just doesn't make sense all on its own. They need to be where transport happens for targets as well as markets, and their bases can't be too far away from that.
They should be hidden until you stumble across them, visually or by scanning, but nobody should ever know for certain where they are until they strike.
It would be amazing if a pirate base "by day" would look like everyman's shipyard or salvage yard, or even pass as a trade station. I hope that one day new "pirate" stations will crop up where there is profit to be made, and old bases get abandoned if trade routes shift.

Got a bit carried away there, but I'd love to see pirates as a faction just as "intelligent" as any other one, and with as much of a background, instead of being a dumb space zombie death cult.

 

[Mike the Reaper 86]

This isn't the first time this has come up, Blodge made a very similar suggestion as part of another thread. (I'm surprised he didn't mention it!) -But this does still deserve its own thread, rather than being piggybacked onto another. If Daeridanii hadn't made this suggestion, chances are, I would have made it myself sooner or later. We already have heat zones in the game for asteroids, thought and work went into programming them. It is wasteful not to use them to their fullest extent.

Since we're on the topic of heat zones and planet types, I might as well reiterate some of the points that were raised before. Barren moon-like planets were suggested in that other thread (and acknowledged by Bench), they could be found more frequently beyond a temperate band where all the existing planets could be concentrated. Having hellish volcanic worlds at the hotter extreme would be pretty neat too. I would chart my suggestions on which heat zones should host a majority of certain planets (sayerulz has the right idea here), but the wiki seems to have been carelessly vaporized.

We should bump this thread once that page is back online...

 

[StormWing0]

There'd definitely be no ice worlds a sector away from a Blue Giant. XD Now making worlds closer to suns have more lava and other heat based things on them while further away they are more ice based would definitely make more sense.

 

[serge1944]

Don't forget that earth was once a ball of fire,once a ball of ice and once a ball of sand.

 

[Daeridanii]

was once a ball of fire

Meteor (and minor planet) impacts, not yet implemented. (It would be cool though. :p)

once a ball of ice

Ice ages have a huge number of factors, none of which are implemented. This would also be difficult to model on a dodecahedron, as ice ages are visually an expansion of the ice caps - which would be a bit hard on a 12-sided figure. While Earth may have experienced super-massive ice ages, these would be quite rare compared to more temperate weather.

once a ball of sand

Granted - sand is not only possible, but in fact probable for temperate zone planets. This is why I support Sayerulz's idea of having a smooth blending from sand to alien to terra to mars to ice - ice won't be really close to the star, and sand won't be far away, but it's quite possible to find an alien planet in a terra zone. If there were multiple "biomes" on our planets, having deserts (and oceans) would be nice, but I have a feeling that has a lot of code that takes a lot of time, and isn't next on Schine's development list.

 

[Blodge]

This isn't the first time this has come up, Blodge made a very similar suggestion as part of another thread. (I'm surprised he didn't mention it!) -But this does still deserve its own thread, rather than being piggybacked onto another. If Daeridanii hadn't made this suggestion, chances are, I would have made it myself sooner or later. We already have heat zones in the game for asteroids, thought and work went into programming them. It is wasteful not to use them to their fullest extent.

Since we're on the topic of heat zones and planet types, I might as well reiterate some of the points that were raised before. Barren moon-like planets were suggested in that other thread (and acknowledged by Bench), they could be found more frequently beyond a temperate band where all the existing planets could be concentrated. Having hellish volcanic worlds at the hotter extreme would be pretty neat too. I would chart my suggestions on which heat zones should host a majority of certain planets (sayerulz has the right idea here), but the wiki seems to have been carelessly vaporized.

We should bump this thread once that page is back online...

My post in that other thread was about general planet ideas that just happened to include thoughts on distance. Good point though, would have saved time to just quote that part of it in here.

Happy my posts are getting read, by the way. Thanks

 

[Madman198237]

The reason that planets have such different appearances at different distances from stars is temperature and materials. Close to the star, ice and gas cannot form, so no Pluto or gas giants. Silicates, however, are plentiful near the star, so you get rocky worlds like Earth. No volatiles (Water and gasses) near the star, so a Mercury won't have water or an atmosphere. There's a lot of rules that govern system formation, and there's lots of exceptions as well, such as "hot Jupiters", which migrate in from the outer reaches of the system.