. /../Known Noctis IV Bugs, and.../ 123456..71
written by Megagun mk. ii on Dec 12, 2004 10:24
I think that screenshot bug is caused by temporary files.

Go to a planet, shoot GAZILLIONS of panorama shots, then alt-tab out and look in the Gallery folder. It's crammed with .TMP files!

My guess is that it doesn't remove those, and just gets buggy. (either that, or it keeps trying to *process* those, and thus fails.)
written by Perry-substitute on Dec 12, 2004 15:36
Shadowlord said:
Could you describe that last one in more detail, if possible?
It often happens to me that, if I leave the capsule on an uneven spot, I slowly slide down the slope. During this time I am unable to move and skip up and down a few times. This only happens one time after a landing.

Shadowlord said:
And as for the temperature one, what class/type is the star that the planet orbits?
It was an S05 star.
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Dec 12, 2004 19:22
Perry, do you have parsis coordinates so I can check out this planet myself? :o

I want to see what the temperature is in space, too, etc, and on the other planets.
written by Perry-substitute on Dec 12, 2004 19:55
It's the first moon of the third planet of an S05 star, located near: -581072, -37814484, 879230.
The system has three planets and two minor bodies.
Oh, yes, there's a bug in the "navigation instruments" menu if the local planets finder is activated.
If you name the star of an undiscovered system, it will count for the "x labeled out of x" display. Thus it is possible to have, for example, nine bodies labeled out of eight. This is corrected after NIV is restarted, though.
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Dec 13, 2004 23:39
Recorded 525-526 degrees C in orbit of that moon (M1/P3) when the sun is visible, -268 degrees C when the moon is between me and the sun.

More or less the same temperatures recorded in orbit of planet 3 (which the moon orbits) (they varied by a degree or three while I was orbiting it (in a high-speed orbit)).

[I also measured the temperature of other bodies in the system, but appear to have misplaced the results. They simply indicated that closer bodies were warmer.]

P.S. To record the temperature in the shade I entered a high speed orbit until the planet was between me and the sun, and then I pressed 8 to fly close to the planet, and then rapidly pressed 8 again to turn off drive tracking (Without pressing 8 the second time, the SD would fly around the planet to get into what it thinks is a good position for chasing it).

That's one EXTREMELY HOT sun.... But it's supposed to be a small, weak, cold, brown dwarf substellar object. :o

Methinks perhaps the temperature is a bug, and I'll modify that as long as it doesn't affect world generation - doesn't look like it does, or that planet wouldn't be icy, but I need to make sure it has no impact on the surface too.
I don't want to change anything that would change the world generation algorithms, since that would mean old starmap & guide entries would no longer be applicable to some planets, stars, etc.
└> last changed by Shadowlord on December 14, 2004 at 07:30
written by Shadowclaw on Dec 14, 2004 02:23
The temperature generation, I seem to recall, is a rough approximation hack. It is possible, you will recall, to find planets with lesws than zero Kelvin temperature.

My suggestion: tighten the code
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Dec 14, 2004 07:23
Update: The on-the-roof temperature appears to be unrelated to the star's class ATM, and also appears to be unrelated to the surface temperature of the star.

Additionally, the temperature listed by the external information thingy doesn't match the temperature you get when you're actually on the roof, but I'm chalking that up to the stellar radiation increasing your temperature when you're on the roof, though I haven't confirmed that that's the reason for the discrepancy.

For example, I just visited a blue giant, whose surface temperature is above 40 thousand kelvin, the surface tmeperature of that S05 was miniscule by comparison, yet when I get as close as I can get to said blue giant with the radiations limit off, the temperature on the roof only reaches 634 C. I visited a young star with surface temperatures ~4000 kelvin, and the temperature as close as I could get to it was around 800 C. I'm guessing I was further away from the blue giant than the young star, especially since the young star looked BIGGER than the blue giant.

I can't see distances very easily with this, but I guess the bodies around that S05 are very close to the star.

Ok, now I've extracted the various temperature algorithms from the source (stellar surface temp, external environment temp and also external environment radiation level, and on-the-roof temperature), and also the base temperature which is fed into the planet temperature calculator thingy.

It looks like the temperature equations all diverged at some point. The one which is fed into planet-temperature stuff is the simplest, with just one line of code (before adjustments for planetary conditions etc) and the on-the-roof temperature starts out the same, and adds some additional adjustments, then accounts for eclipses and includes a minimum temperature value. The stellar surface temperature seems to bear no relation whatsoever the other temperatures, and is based on the stellar mass of the star and some "random" (always the same for a particular star of course) fudging for stellar classes 8 and 9. Stellar class 6 stars are very cold (Their temperature is 0.22% of what it would be if they were a different stellar class but the same mass). The external environment temperature uses the same seed (for getting random values) as the roof temperature, but the equations are totally different. (note: They are 5 lines of code for external, and 6 for roof. For your reading pleasure I've rewritten them both into one line, and omitted the minimum temperature check, and the eclipse check (the code for that is the same on both):
External environment temp: ((16-dsd*.044)*fabs(16-dsd*.044))-(eclipse factor)
On the roof temp: ((46-dsd*.33)*fabs((46-dsd*.33)*.44)-(eclipse factor)
If either of those go below -269 C they are brought back up to a random value just above that (the randomness is based on secs/2, so it actually does change as you watch it).

Planet temperatures are based on (90-dsd*0.33), which is the same as the first line of the on-the-roof temp (the second line of the on-the-roof temp subtracts 44).

The external environment *radiation level* is based on the external environment temperature, with additional adjustments based on the stellar class, and then some random noise. This one is the most sophisticated.

Planets also check for a minimum temperature - after doing the atmosphere and night/day adjustments, but BEFORE doing the adjustments for terrain-type - But it doesn't look like those adjustments could bring the temperature to be below the minimum possible... Hm. SC, you wouldn't happen to have location details for a planet where the surface temp is below 0 kelvin?

If you want to look at this in the NIV source, you can either search for some unique text (I'll list in a sec), or go to particular line numbers. Whichever is easier for you.
If searching, search for 1e-3 * qt_M_PI to find the stellar surface temperature, search for 0.044 for the external environment temperature (the radiation level stuff is a little below it), search for dsd * 0.33 for the on-the-roof temperature, and search for dsd1 * 0.33 for the on-a-planet temperature stuff.
Line numbers: Stellar surface temp: noctis.cpp, 2920. External environment temp: noctis.cpp, 2998. On-the-roof temp: noctis.cpp, 3359. On-a-planet temp: noctis-1.cpp, 3077.

If anyone wants to put forth their opinion on what they think should be done with these, please do so, and if you know something about how temperature is in space, please please help. I don't know a damned thing about how temperatures in space work IRL.

Correction: I just googled it: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-14.html
The google search itself: http://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+in+space&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

There's no temperature in space? Ooo. I should have known that, since I should have remembered what temperature IS... Heh.
who needs titles?
written by Pomelos on Dec 14, 2004 11:06
There definitely is temperature in space. It's full of photons, after all.
I mean, if there wasn't any temp in space, how could the one from the Sun heat out planet?
(As for the epistemological aspect, keep in mind temperature isn't as a concrete quantity as, say, length - and even this may be discussed. It's got multiple definitions and is more of a statistical mean of the many individual behaviors of the componants of the system you're studying. Anyway...)

The luminosity of star L is given by: L=σ.S.T4, where S is the surface of the star, T its temperature and σ is roughly equal to 5.67 W/m2/K4.

At a distance d, the brightness of the star is b=L/(4.pi.d2). This unit is in W/m2 and tells you how much power is received by a surface.

Knowing precisely what temp would a body reach is hard to tell, as it depends on how much energy it absorbs and how much of it is effectively heated. But you can come up with a general trend that would tell you how the temperature drops when you go far away from the star.
└> last changed by Pomelos on December 14, 2004 at 12:06
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Dec 14, 2004 15:07
Oo, thanks.
absent more than alex
written by Shadowlord on Dec 17, 2004 18:51
This is the second set of stuff, since the first post hit the post-size limit.

  • [Feature] IF you have NEW temperature enabled: When you land on a planet, if the temperature at that point of the world is above 1000 Kelvin, special world-generation code takes over. Conceptually, that temperature is high enough to begin to affect the planet's crust, and to make it glow. At these temperatures all water has been boiled off - anything liquid is molten rock/metal/quartz/etc. At ~1000K the surface begins to fuse to glasslike substances, at ~3000K the glass and other things liquefy, and more durable stuff is spat up through the now-liquid surface to form islands of solid stuff. At ~5000K the surface is almost entirely molten liquid rock/metal/etc. For quartz planets, the molecular bonds of quartz may be broken at this temperature, liberating the oxygen and resulting in a sea of molten silicon, or maybe the bonds aren't broken and it's a sea of liquid quartz. I don't really know. This most definitely changes world-generation of those planets, in fact this largely overrides it. Sorry, the liquid doesn't make waves when you move (but the regular waves still exist and look WICKED COOL, if I do say so myself). P.S. The surface color changes from its natural color to a different one. What color it changes to depends on its temperature. (It's a blend of the original color and the new one, and even totally dark surfaces will glow now, since they're hot enough to emit light, though at low temperatures the light may just barely project red, more of it being infrared, and thus it will appear darker)
  • [Feature] The distance from the star is now shown on the environmental info box. Useful! By the way, one dyam is NOT one quarter of Felysia's orbit (which is what the manual says) -- Felysia is actually 2.18 dyams away from Bal (15,260,000,000 meters).
  • [Feature] Star surface temperatures are now calculated differently if you're using the new temperature model. The old model calculated surface temperature by dividing mass by (0.38e-4 * star_radius), and then applying a scaling factor for S06s only. The new surface temperature is (starMass * class_surfacetemp_mult[starClass]) + class_surfacetemp_add[starClass]. class_surfacetemp_mult and _add hold numbers which were calculated to bring surface temperatures into a desired range for each stellar class.

    These are the algorithms used in the new temperature code:
    The star mass algorithm is the same as with the old model.
    Surface temperature:
Temperature-transmission power (Calculated once for the sun)
Calculating the raw temperature (which doesn't include changes due to a planet eclipsing the sun etc) in celsius:
Calculating the temperature in orbit:

sfx#32 swarm of dead insects
written by Lkraider on Dec 17, 2004 23:07
This all sounds pretty cool : )
I hope NV will introduce similar changes aswell.
written by Ventris gorran on Dec 20, 2004 03:55
There is a minor bug in the clock. The in game clock merely converts local time to felisian time. The "official" desktop clock is synchronized with UTC and the in game clock probably should be as well; afterall, it makes little sense to localize felisian time for each of our terrestrial timezones otherwise we'll be writing times as 6011:661.789.985 UTC-7 or some other silly thing.
omg! toadstoolz!
written by Dumbum on Dec 20, 2004 12:48
(SL) So your new NIV version uses Kelvin instead of Celcius?
written by Megagun mk. ii on Dec 20, 2004 13:00
SL said:
[Feature] You can now choose whether to have the temperature in your HUD appear in Celsius, Kelvin, or Fahrenheit (from the Options menu).
omg! toadstoolz!
written by Dumbum on Dec 20, 2004 13:35
I see...
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../Known Noctis IV Bugs, and.../ 123456..71
47250, 15 queries, 0.121 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network