Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Work in Progress / MPL3D Solar System

Author
Message
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 4th Nov 2006 17:52 Edited at: 15th Nov 2006 16:39
Link
I'm proud to announce that J. M. Wingfield, a New York artist, has chosen "MPL3D Solar System tour 1" video as material for one of his excellent poetry video compositions.

It is called "System Transit", you can watch it here:

http://www.flmachine.blogspot.com/

I think is worthy to take a look. His work is quite impressive.

Besides that, I released a new WIP video showing around 30 stars that are alpha of their constellation, at a fixed distance of five astronomic units, for a better size comparison:

http://filexoom.com/files/9534/MPL3D_Solar_System_alpha_constellation_star_gallery.avi (better right-click and 'Save as...')

Enjoy!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 5th Nov 2006 21:09
Link
Hello,

I tried posting a reply in response to the videos that you posted of your software on YouTube, but I think it would be more efficient to speak to you here.

You said that Celestia has more objects than your software, but how much more? Will major asteroids, comets, and trans-Neptunian objects be available?

Will Venus have cloud cover, or is there already cloud cover but its transparent enough to see the surface of the planet?

I like how binary and multiple star systems have been added to your program, but will all stars that are supposed to be in a star system be represented that way, like Capella, Antares, or Castor?

Finally, will planets and their moons, or stars in a system revolve around a common barycenter?

Sorry for the specific questions; I dont mean to sound picky or anything. It's just that I have never seen a product like the one that you have created and I would like to know more about it before I make the purchase. Thanks for your time and your fascinating software.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 6th Nov 2006 19:04 Edited at: 6th Nov 2006 19:12
Link
m22587a, thanks for your interest.

To be honest, Celestia has more stars, and more bodies of our own Solar System than my simulation. One of the reasons is that I can only use media (images, etc.) that are free for commercial purposes, Celestia is free itself and does not have these restrictions.
So at this time (remember that I'm still on WIP) only major moons and the comet Halley appear. The asteroid field is represented in a simulated way, more like a videogame. Nevertheless, you can enjoy being there.

So there are less stars, but having into account their variability. As you already might know, stars have their own behaviour. They flare and pulse according to their variability. They also have a changing lava surface. So each one is virtually different from all the others.

On the other side, there are bodies that you won't see in Celestia, mainly the mighty nebulae, the star clusters, star's protoplanetary disks (where corresponding) and Sagittarius A* black hole.

Venus is exactly like you say, it has a cloud cover, but for a better visual experience and as an artistic license, it actually allows to see the 3D surface(with mountains and valleys) of the planet. As an addition, planets with atmosphere, like Venus, will show random storms on them (as seen from space).

About binary stars, not all of them have been added. The rule I followed was that "all celestial bodies that you can see with your naked eye is represented". So only binary systems with both stars below visual magnitude 9 have both stars there. That does not apply to the stars that you mentioned, although it is my intention to add them in the future. Antares companion is very small, but it would be impressive to see that small type B star orbiting the red giant.

All planets orbit their respective stars and move according to the simulated time. There are very strange systems like Mu Arae or 55 Rho Cancri, that appear at the same ecliptic plane at Celestia, and it is not like that, their planets have different orbit inclinations, that are shown at my program. Other premieres that Celestia does not have appear at page 1 of this thread.
I haven't added any extrasolar moons, since they are not confirmed. And I'm afraid that all stars are so far -static-. I don't have data about their respective orbits.

Let's say that I'm trying to develop the simulation in an artistic way for visual (and audio) entertainment. Astronomers won't find it useful for observations, as there are already better programs for that. But non astronomers and the whole family will enjoy it with friendly single clicks and not getting 'lost in space' with concepts that are hard to understand.

The good thing is that it is all WIP, so tell me what would you like to find and I'll see what I can do.

This is the right place to post any suggestions, as I check it oftenly. Thanks in advance.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mr Tank
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Nov 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Nov 2006 03:16
Link
This looks really great. The whole space thing is fascinatining for me and i imagine most other people. Can't wait to play with it.


You'll be able to click on this someday.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 10th Nov 2006 02:18
Link
Thank you for answering my questions. From the beginning I knew that there was something different about this program from the ones that I have seen so far. I think this program will serve as an excellent visual representation of the solar system and beyond.
I'm glad to hear that you are open to suggestions. I think it would be great if binaries and multiple star systems would be represented as their real life counterparts, or as close as the imagination allows. As of yet, I still have not seen a program represent Castor as a sextuple-star system, and I think that would be impressive to see. I understand the difficulty of obtaining this information, especially for spectroscopic binaries, but you have the artistic license to do as you please. Orbiting stars would be a plus as well, although I understand the limitations. One more idea could be binaries like Algol that pull matter from their companion star.
As far as completing the solar system, we all understand your limitations. One idea that you probably already thought up of is to allow your product to be updated through internet downloading. That way you have all the time you need to find your resources to complete the solar system, and when you do, you can simply upload the files and make the update available for everyone. I think it would be neat to see most of the satellites of planets, major asteroids like Juno, Vesta, Eros and Ida, the dwarf planets and TNOs and their moons, and major comets; but we have to understand what you are working with.
I think I mentioned before the idea of having planets and stars and satellites revolve around a common barycenter. In most of the programs that I have seen I haven't noticed the distinct wobble that planets and stars have due to orbiting bodies, and I think that would be very interesting to see.
The visual animations for your stars are incredible, and to imagine that we have only seen a fraction of your product so far. But as far as animations are concerned, how about some erupting volcanoes on Io, or cryovolcanoes on Enceladus?

That's all I can think of. So far you have only showed us a fraction of your product and I can tell you right now I'm already a willing customer. You have an amazing talent; so what made you interested in creating such a unique program? Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 07:04
Link
Sorry for the double post, but I found some data in case you wanted some information on binary and multiple star system orbits. http://www.solstation.com/orbits.htm
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 07:53
Link
Thank you for answering my questions. From the beginning I knew that there was something different about this program from the ones that I have seen so far. I think this program will serve as an excellent visual representation of the solar system and beyond.

I'm glad to hear that you are open to suggestions. I think it would be great if binaries and multiple star systems would be represented as their real life counterparts, or as close as the imagination allows. As of yet, I still have not seen a program represent Castor as a sextuple-star system, and I think that would be impressive to see. I understand the difficulty of obtaining this information, especially for spectroscopic binaries, but you have the artistic license to do as you please. Orbiting stars would be a plus as well, although I understand the limitations. One more idea could be binaries like Algol that pull matter from their companion star.

Is the Milky Way's galactic plane going to be visible from our view of the night sky? I ask because I don't see the galactic plane in your sample videos.

As far as completing the solar system, we all understand your limitations. One idea that you probably already thought up of is to allow your product to be updated through internet downloading. That way you have all the time you need to find your resources to complete the solar system, and when you do, you can simply upload the files and make the update available for everyone. I think it would be neat to see most of the satellites of planets, major asteroids like Juno, Vesta, Eros and Ida, the dwarf planets and TNOs and their moons, and major comets; but we have to understand what you are working with. BTW, what was your inspiration for making the surface of Pluto the way you did? It looks similar to Ganymede, but has its own unique design.

I think I mentioned before the idea of having planets and stars and satellites revolve around a common barycenter, rather than having a planet or star that remains "fixed" in orbit. In most of the programs that I have seen I haven't noticed the distinct wobble that planets and stars have due to orbiting bodies, and I think that would be very interesting to see, especially for the Pluto-Charon system.

The visual animations for your stars are incredible, and to imagine that we have only seen a fraction of your product so far. But as far as animations are concerned, how about some erupting volcanoes on Io, or cryovolcanoes on Enceladus?

That's all I can think of. So far you have only showed us a fraction of your product and I can tell you right now I'm already a willing customer. You have an amazing talent.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 12:46
Link
m22587a, thanks a lot for your feedback

I think you got the idea of the program, it is a multimedia representation for enjoyment, knowing that it is all real-data based and not just sci-fi.

I agree about binaries. It is the weakest part of the simulation right now, and it will give remarkable features if I implement it.
I'm already gathering data and analyzing some catalogues. This is a real challenging task that I was likely to leave for a second release, but since I'm still waiting for DGDK to be ready, I guess I can spend some time with this.
Visual and eclipsing binaries are likely to be there, and also most of astrometric and spectroscopic ones.
Contact binaries like Algol will be hard, but I'm going to try.

About internet updates, that will be possible, although I have to finish the base version first! So, step by step
Anyway, I'll try to make the base version as complete as possible, and all this visual detail has also a performance hit that limits the number of objects to represent for most computers.

Common barycenter? Not for planets. Remember that this is just a visual simulation and therefore some simplifications have been made to the calculus.
Wobble movement caused by gravitational forces are visually inappreciable, unless as you said, the bodies are similar in mass, like Pluto-Charo example.
But it is likely to be observed with binary star systems, since some star companions are big enough to move the main star itself. A Castor star system barycentric representation would be amazing, but I guess I'll start with 2 stars at the beginning, and I will decide depending on results.

I already thought about creating some effect for the Io and Triton eruptions, but I thought it was an expensive resource for such small effect. Anyway, it is in my 'someday' list, so I won't forget it. I'm afraid that I only have Titan and Mimas for Saturn moons ( ) Although I know about the singularity of Enceladus, it is not there right now. Not sure about the future. But I'm aware of the importance of including it, as well as some others. Still I have those performance and real images limitations.

I'm happy with Pluto's appareance. It is made with the help of an artist, so I did not decided its base looking, but it suits in my imagination. (I wonder why they re-qualified it as a dwarf planet, they could be spending the money in more important things.)

About the Milky Way, I have to say that it is one of the hardest bodies to deal with. And currently that galactic plane is hard to appreciate, although it is there. I'm not completely happy with it's final appareance, but I haven't been able to complete it, since DGDK shaders are a little bit buggy. Anyway, I turned it off for some of the videos to improve performance, and also, details are not seen with the divx compressed format. But it is not that great right now.

It is true that I only have been able to show a fraction of the simulation, but bear in mind that it also has its limitations. There are some things that I dislike (author's self-criticism) or that I cannot improve, but I hope to accomplish most of the expectations. I'm sure I'll offer a good value for money.

Thanks for your suggestions, encouragement, ideas, info and understanding.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 11th Nov 2006 17:45 Edited at: 5th Dec 2006 06:42
Link
Sorry about the triple post, I merely tried to edit one of my messages after I realized that editing posted messages was an option, but I ended up putting a third post accidently.

About barycenters, the Earth is about 80 times more massive than the Moon, so that would mean the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is about 1/80th of the Moon's semimajor axis away from the center of the Earth. The barycenter is still inside the Earth's radius, but if one were to look at the Earth-Moon system with its barycenter fixed, Earth would move similar this:



Pluto and Charon like this:



The wobbles are pretty distinct; the Sun-Jupiter system has a barycenter that is slightly greater than the Sun's radius, and Jupiter is about 1/1000th the mass of the Sun. But I would imagine that implementing this visual feature for planets with multiple moons would become a little daunting as the planet's wobble would vary. I understand the simplifications that were made, however, but it would be a nice feature to see for planets with large moons compared to the planet itself, and stars with one planet.

Speaking of Pluto, it looks very nice I think your vision of Pluto is one of the nicest that I have seen in any space-related program.

I appreciate your work on the multiple star systems and their orbits, although it was not my intention to seem like I was rushing you to get started. Like you said, I am only providing suggestions for the future of your product. I hope the website I provided you will be useful, even though you probably have all of that information and much more. At least you have some interesting java animations to look at.

As far as everything else, I completely understand. I was only asking out of curiosity. I do, however have one more thing to ask; will stars with high rates of rotation be represented as oblate spheroids, and will Wolf-Rayet stars be available in your program?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my long posts, and I am glad to be of some assistance.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 13:11 Edited at: 12th Nov 2006 13:11
Link
Don't worry for posting. It is better to post a new comment than to edit a previous one, since we could miss the changes.

I understand the barycentric orbit behaviour, but I'm not getting into major engine changes, I'll leave that parked by now.
Nevertheless, I'm going to try to represent barycentric orbits for binary systems, since that implies developing some new algorithms.
Thanks for the pics and the link, very illustrative. The link could be useful to validate my testings after developing.

You didn't rush me, it's ok. I think binary orbits could give to this product the final differentiation, so I'm going to try. But it is also a matter of time, I don't want to be developing this forever, I want to end it at some point.

Oblate spheroids stars are subtle, but they can be observed. How much the star is oblated is not based on the rotation speed, but on the mass and the pulse rate. The higher the supposed mass, the more oblated. And the pulsating stars use to expand their size more at their equatorial line.
Smaller stars rotate faster, but they are less oblonged in the simulation. That's my current approach.
Here is a picture of Enif, with a round circle to compare:



Perhaps too much sublte? I prefer not to exaggerate the effect.

Wolf-Rayet stars are not available. They are usually spectroscopic binaries, and right now I have none. Unless I have that info when I gather the binaries catalogues, it will be hard to know which one is and which one is not.

It was a pleasure to read your posts. All opinions are appreciated. Please feel free to ask any question or suggest any improvement, change etc. I'm just listening, not obeying!
Thanks

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 14:43
Link
The shor story...

Quote: "what made you interested in creating such a unique program?"


I fotgot to answer this one. I have to say it all started as a
little test. I put the Earth in front of the camera, and it looked so beautiful...

I put the Sun, and got the Earth orbiting. That was exciting. And then I decided that if I could have the Moon orbiting the Earth, while the Earth was orbiting the Sun, then I could have it all.

And there I was, I constructed most of our solar system. Then I took a look beyond while finishing the background stars.
Since I wasn't getting good looking and realistic results at the same time for background stars, I decided to start a whole new simulation for them.
When I added the stars, I wondered what more was there. So I added extrasolar planets, nebulae (challenging), star clusters and galaxies, to finally integrate the previous developed Earth's solar system into it.

Finally I moved all the project from DBPro to DGDK, to get a performance boost, and finished the user interface with the 'object selectors', to give the users functionality to play around with the simulation.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 12th Nov 2006 16:34
Link
About barycentric orbits for planets, that's completely understandable. Not being a program designer, I cannot imagine the work that would be required to change the engine of your program just to make the feature available for planets. Thanks for listening, though.

As for oblate stars, I learned something new. Thanks for the insight. I think what I had in mind were stars like Altair that rotate at very high speeds, making it "flattened" at its equator by some 14% compared to its poles. I cannot get enough of those particle effects; your supergiant looks outstanding. The subtlety is perfect.

Quote: "But it is also a matter of time, I don't want to be developing this forever, I want to end it at some point."


By this you mean the base version, right? I don't think any of us would want you to drop the program as soon as you were finished if you know what I mean.

I could only imagine how much of an inspiration that would have been to get the Earth properly orbiting the Sun. You've gone a long way, and have done an excellent job. If I have any more suggestions or ideas I will let you know, and again thanks for listening.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 13th Nov 2006 04:49
Link
By the way, are there any elliptical, lenticular, or barred spiral galaxies in your program? Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 13th Nov 2006 13:58 Edited at: 13th Nov 2006 16:49
Link
Thanks m22587a.

I don't have any data about spin speeds of stars, I believe there is little information about that.
[Edit: ]I found some data but not for all stars, analyzing...[End edit]
At this moment, I made an approximation for spin period, and as I said, smaller stars rotate faster than bigger ones, based on diameter.
Now there is something I didn't say right. How much the star is oblated is not based on the mass and the pulse rate, but on the diameter and pulse rate. Big diameters imply low densities, and low density bodies tend to deform more easily than high density ones (small stars).
Therefore a big star will high spin value will be the more ellipsoidal, but that combination is not likely to appear at the simulation, since I don't have such singular real-data.

Yes, I'm talking about the base version. Nevertheless, I hope that the base version will be complete enough to stand alone, but that does not mean in any way that I'm dropping it or dropping support after releasing. But how much it is updated may have a word with sales numbers. I don't know if this is going to be a hit or there will be just a couple of copies around. That unknowing puts some pressure on me.

There are currently two types of galaxies simulated: spiral and irregular ones. This is the list, as they are the only ones that are visible with unaided-eye:

Andromeda (M31): Spiral
Silver Coin (NGC253): Spiral
Small Magellanic Cloud (NGC292): Irregular
Triangulum (M33): Spiral
Large Magellanic Cloud (ESO 56-115): Irregular
Milky Way: Spiral

The LMC has represented inside of it the huge Tarantula nebula.

Thanks for feedback
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 15th Nov 2006 06:50
Link
Glad to hear that you found data. All I know is that Altair, Vega, and Regulus have high rotation rates, and even though they aren't that much larger than the Sun, they are distored in shape. According to the link I provided you, Regulus A has a diameter about 32% greater at its equator than at its poles.

We all know you wouldn't abandon this project after its release. I was only implying that we would all love to see this program expand over time. About this program and sales; well as far as I am concerned, there isn't another program like the one you have created. Starry Night is a great program, because it contains a tremendous amount of information. What's lacking in Starry Night, in my opinion, are the visual effects, and I don't mean photos because Starry Night has PLENTY of them. I am glad to see that there is a program that features what Starry Night doesn't have, and that is more of a visual representation of the universe. I think that is where all of the sales are going to be, and the more attention to detail that is provided, the more people are going to notice this program as being complementary to Starry Night.

This is the reason why I would ask you such specific questions regarding what is provided, because those are features that I have yet to see in a program, such as barycentric orbits for planets and their satellites, multiple-star systems with barycentric orbits, contact binaries, accurate star rotation speeds and distored shapes due to the factors that you described and rates of rotation, etc.

You have already shown us a very unique program with your particle effects, stellar eruptions, planetary storms, pulse stars, 3D nebulae, an accurate solar system model, extrasolar systems, supermassive black holes with accretion disks , music that sets the atmosphere, and more that I don't even know of. Hopefully, our suggestions will be supplementary to your outstanding work.

So far, everyone seems very content with your program on this forum. Finding the best ways to promote this product would help it gain more attention. I actually stumbled across your sample videos on Youtube when I was looked up "Solar System". I see you have uploaded your demo to various sites, and put more samples on Google video and Yahoo. I don't know in particular what else you could do, unless anyone else has an idea, or unless you got that covered already.

I wish you the best of luck on this project and your completion of the base version. I will continue to think of suggestions in case they might be appealing for the future of your program. Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 18th Nov 2006 11:41 Edited at: 18th Nov 2006 11:42
Link
I'm updating the spin rate with the real data available (not available for all the stars) and therefore I'll update the shape of the affected ones.

Here is an example I found, and right now not a single star is so oblated at the simulation as Achenar shows here:



Regulus is going to be a tough case. Its huge speed, close to break it apart, may cause the star to rotate >360º per second, and this can make it look "still" or rotating at less speed, but we'll see.

m22587a, thanks again for your great encouragement. Your attitude is highly appreciated

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 19th Nov 2006 02:18
Link
That's incredible. From what I have read, Achernar is the flattest star that we know of so far, so that is probably as oblate as the stars in your simulation are going to get unless you have data stating otherwise. Seeing Achernar close enough to view its oblate profile in your simulation would be amazing. I also found another picture to reinforce the one you provided:



I see what you mean about Regulus, but I thought that the star has a rotation period close to 16 hours. If the time scale was adjusted so that the star did rotate once in less than one second, even with a constant frame rate of 20 frames per second, you would be able to decipher the star's rotation. I'm sorry, would you clarify if I misunderstood your statement? Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 20th Nov 2006 12:07
Link
Thanks for the picture, I hope to be able to represent them properly.

Although there is a range of 30-70 frames per second, most calculus only take place once per second. That should be far more than enough for stellar bodies movement.
Yes, 16 hours for rotation period is ok, I was thinking it was shorter.

I guess it will rotate weirdly when using increased time speed. But that's the intention. These are the existing scales just for info:

Time speed normal : 1 sec = 1 sec

Time speed 1 : 1 sec = 1 min

Time speed 2 : 1 sec = 1 min

Time speed 3 : 1 sec = 15 min

Time speed 4 : 1 sec = 30 min

Time speed 5 : 1 sec = 1 hour

Time speed 6 : 1 sec = 2 hour

Time speed 7 : 1 sec = 4 hour

Time speed 8 : 1 sec = 8 hour

Time speed 9 : 1 sec = 16 hour

Time speed 10 : 1 sec = 1 day

Regulus is also a binary system, but I'm remembering why I didn't get into them. Most of their numbers are too huge: 2 very faint companions that orbit each other every 2,000 years and they both orbit Regulus itself every 130,000 years !!! Those will look definitively still even at max time scale speed. Also, they are too far away from Regulus (>4000 AU) to make any visual difference or enjoyment.

So I don't know whether to put this kind or just astrometric and spectroscopic, who I guess will be closer to the main star, and therefore, more spectacular and worthy. Perhaps I'll put companions further than 1000 AU as static. I have to think this.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 21st Nov 2006 02:37
Link
Was I correct about Regulus' rotation period? I only got that from the link I gave you, and I know that the data that you have has more credibility.

If 1 sec = 1 day, someone would have to leave the simulation running for over 8 days to see Regulus' companions orbit one another, and over 549 days to see the companions orbit Regulus. Unless you were able to make a higher maximum time scale speed, maybe 1 sec = 1 year, not that many people will be willing to leave the simulation and their computer running that long in order to see the pair complete one orbit around Regulus.

As for actually adding the companions, I think you should follow through with it. Even though they are very far apart, it is just as spectacular to know that there is a celestial body extremely far away that is orbiting Regulus, and then finding out that it is actually a pair of stars that orbit each other, as well. As you said, I think the consequence that distance plays in your simulation is the orbital period. As far as to what stays static, I think the companions should actually orbit one another. 8 days is a much better wait than 549 days .

Increasing the maximum time scale speed might be helpful, but I don't know the kind of work that is involved to reach that speed. From my standpoint as a user, however, I think you should have the companions actually orbit Regulus rather than staying at a fixed position, because even though the user would have to wait a LONG time in order to see some movement in the pair of companions, they still are moving and knowing that would make the simulation more interesting and realistic. There will not be much visual appreciation, but visuals are not the only important aspect of a simulation like this. I think the best way I can compare this is to mention video games that take place in cities like the Grand Theft Auto series. The cities in those games are huge, and the way that the games are designed is that pedestrians, vehicles, etc. all interact with one another at all times and all locations, even though the user cannot see all of these interactions on screen. So even though the user cannot visually appreciate this feature, they will acknowledge the fact that the creators of this game sought to implement a feature to make the game more realistic.

The small details can make a huge difference, and even though the users will not be able to visually appreciate everything, realism is complementary and just as important. I say all this, yet I do not realize the work that must be put into creating such time-extensive orbits. Just know it is not my intention to convince you to do more tedious work if it is time-consuming to make such large orbits . It's all up to you.

As for you representing the stars properly, I think you have everyone convinced that you can. I saw a new video of yours on Youtube; I think your music choice certainly defines all that is mystic according to your video's description. The music and the video are outstanding.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 21st Nov 2006 12:50 Edited at: 21st Nov 2006 12:53
Link
Yes, the data was right. I only have a lot more of decimals.

Even if 1 sec = 1 year, it will take 2000 secs (33 min) to see them orbit. They will look still anyway.
That would lead me to further problems. You know, the time where the simulation has place is limited, from year 1800 to year 2200.
Having figures further than that will make them to loose precision.
So, most stars won't even move in just those 400 years.
You can travel directly within this range with the 'Enter date' functionality, but to go further, you have to leave the simulation working, as you said.

This is a kind of technical explanation:
There is a hardware limitation for big and small numbers. Home PCs are not that good for scientifc calculations. They can add big numbers and small numbers, but they have problems adding small numbers to big ones. For example, I cannot take into account 1 sec and add it to 5000 years, the result will be 5000 years unchanged.
The same limitation applies to sizes and distances. It is hard to have small bodies like Phobos, and at the same time, huge or far away ones. Because that implies to add or manipulate small and big numbers at the same time.
End of the pseudo-technical explanation.

I have lots of details that only happen when you are 'there', but there is a limit. It is an honour that you mention GTA, but that's a project with hundreds of people working, and probably several millions invested. Even Celestia had a team. I'm doing the whole thing by myself, plus a sound engineer and an end-user tester, that is three persons. I have to balance time expended vs results.

The new super-oblated stars, have their challenge, as it is easier to work with spherical or almost spherical bodies, than to work with oblated ones, depending on view angle.

I'm making a sandbox testing, and will decide upon results.
Thanks a lot for your comments. Glad that you like last video
Here is a link of the video, Iota Draconis tour:

MPL3D_Solar_System_Iota_Draconis_tour.avi

It has higher resolution than youtube's ones. (As they can be found at my web page http://www.mpl3d.com/videogal.htm).

This is Iota Draconis b (full-res at my web page too):

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 22nd Nov 2006 05:40
Link
It completely slipped my mind that you are working on this all by yourself, which only magnifies the talent that you have. You could fool anyone into believing that this simulation was done by a large group of people.

I had no idea about the limitations of PCs. I mentioned 1 sec = 1 year, because as far as wait times are concerned, waiting 33 mins for the companions to orbit one another and 1.5 days for the companions to orbit Regulus is much more practical than waiting weeks and years. I also forgot about the loss of precision. Thanks for correcting me on the technicalities.

So where do you see the simulation heading as far as large, time-extensive orbits are concerned? Will you stick to your original idea and make orbiting bodies that have a semi-major axis equal to 1000+ AU static, and what would have to be done in order to have the simulation maintain large orbits like Regulus' companions despite current limitations?

I'm not familiar with the term sandbox testing. Do you mean just applying various features and removing the ones that displease you and adding the ones that you like? Pardon my ignorance.

For the oblate stars, I stumbled across a 3D model of Achernar a few days ago, but I cannot find the link. I don't know how helpful it would have been as it was only a set of pictures and not an actual 3D model. However, for contact binaries I did find a website that had several examples of these mass-transfer companions in 3D. I will continue looking for the websites in the mean time. Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 22nd Nov 2006 11:26
Link
Forgive me if I didn't explain myself. A sandbox is just a test environment, where I can change and try whatever, because the real project is safe somewhere else.

I have not decided yet about the large orbits. To calculate them would be kind of excessive, since the user is not receiving any data output about situation, but just visual output.
For any object with orbital period greater than 400 years (usually orbiting >1000 AU), what would be the point of animate them, if they are not going to complete one single orbit?
As I said, I have not decided yet (even if they will be there at all). Step by step. I have prepared the revised rotational velocity data and hopefully I will be doing some testings about oblateness soon.

Don't hesitate to post any related links. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks for your feedback.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 1st Dec 2006 19:28 Edited at: 1st Dec 2006 19:36
Link
Ok, I have the oblated stars

Oblateness is based on known rotational velocities and sizes for around 3000 stars, and it has been aproximated for the unknown ones.

They actually look like this:



I've added a circumstellar disk for the very high rotating ones, and apart from very little improvements, that's their final appareance.

Please note that I'm still using DGDK 1.1.1(beta) to obtain these results.

I'll release some video soon to show them in action

Next week I'll start with the animation of binary star systems.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 2nd Dec 2006 23:30 Edited at: 4th Dec 2006 08:39
Link
Well, it looks like I was a little too late to find the 3D model of Achernar . I have been on Thanksgiving vacation for a few days, followed up by a few final exams so I have not been able to look for or post any information in a while. The first thing that I noticed when I opened this thread was your image of the oblated stars: another excellent job. The new oblated stars look amazing, and I like the attention to detail with the circumstellar disks around stars with high rotation periods. I am glad to see that everything has worked out for you.

In reply to your previous message, I can understand why you would not want to place objects with orbital periods greater than 400 years into orbit in your simulation. However, I think you should leave those objects in the simulation regardless. To substitute the loss of orbital movement, maybe the orbital period can be displayed within the current data of the object in the simulation. Also, just like how you did in your video of Iota Draconis b, display the actual orbit of the object to give the user an idea of just how long the object would have to travel in order to move across the screen... let alone complete one orbit. This will hopefully give the user the idea that the object will not noticably move in the simulation, while giving them an idea of just how large those orbits actually are.

On the subject of large orbits, this idea came to mind. Might it be possible to include the stars and their respective orbits which revolve around the supermassive black hole in Sgr A*? This came to mind, because few weeks ago we learned about the star S2 which has an orbital period of about 15 years, but a semimajor axis of about 950 AU!

Here is an example from YouTube of the many stars around Sgr A* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyY7waPQT4k I believe S2 is the innermost star.

Here's an animation of a supermassive black hole in an elliptical galaxy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBT3RZ-RZCw&NR

I love the supermassive black hole that you have created, but might it be possible to lengthen the jet streams and flare out and expand the accretion disk to give the black hole a much more massive appearance similar to the animation?

For binary star systems, I have been trying to find out how one can calculate the volumes and radii of a star system's Roche lobes, and how to calculate the Langragian points, as well. I am only an astronomy undergraduate, and we haven't learned this information yet. Do you mind explaining how one would find that information? I don't know if this sort of calculus can be implemented into your simulation, but if it could, it would allow for accurate models of semidetached and contact binaries. Here are some models that I have found:


Constuction of GW Cep


GW Cep


XY Leo

http://wonka.physics.ncsu.edu/~blondin/Movies/algol.mpg
A really nice animation of Algol. More videos like this illustrating the physics of accretion disks and mass transfer can be found here http://wonka.physics.ncsu.edu/~blondin/Movies

I also found this program... http://www.binarymaker.com It is not exactly free (US $100.00), but it seems like a program ideal for the creation of the various types of binary systems.

Nevertheless, here are some sample models that can be found on the website: http://caleb.eastern.edu/binary_type_definitions.php

The Catalog and AtLas of Eclipsing Binaries can be found here: http://caleb.eastern.edu/choose_star_view.php

EDIT: [ It looks like I completely missed something very important on that website. This link http://caleb.eastern.edu/choose_star_view.php shows you all 305 stars in the catalog, but after clicking on one of the stars there should be the words Library Sets. Clicking on any of the sets sends you to a page with light-curve information and graphs, radial velocity data, but most importantly, a model of the binary system. There are currently 305 models that have been made already on the website.]

EDIT 2: [ Well, it looks like I found something better, for it's FREE. This is the original website that I was trying to look for, and here it is http://www.midnightkite.com/binstar.html This is where I found those 3D model GIFs in my unedited post. There is a lot to offer here. There are PDFs on the calculus behind contructing eclipsing binary models, and how to model stars based on their rotation speed and other tangible properties (this could be used to check if any approximations that were made in contructing the oblated stars were correct). There are .xls spreadsheets on Roche Lobes and Langrangian points, but most importantly, the StarLight Pro program. By downloading the program the user can construct their own models based on stellar data, but it also allows the user to view over 300 3D rotating models. By clicking the "Extra" tab, the user can save the 3D model as an image or an animation, adjust the inclination of the system, etc. The "Help" tab features parameter details such as Roche lobe radii, etc. There are also more hyperlinks in the website I gave you which contain more information and programs that might be of assistance, such as Alexander Hobbes' Binary View. This program is like StarLight Pro, but it allows the user to view the axis of rotation of the binary system, and stars are created through particles instead of grids and dots. The problem that I have with this program, however, is that the animation seems to be stretched horizontally as the coordinate grid should be a perfect square and not a rectangle, any adjustment of the animation window will permanently distort the animation until the program is restarted, and you cannot save the images or animations. Other than that, there are many catalogs regarding eclipsing binaries and other interesting information on the website.


Attached is a GIF of Algol that I created with StarLight Pro with the Stefan-Boltzmann feature unchecked. I used Irfanview to convert the images into GIFs and UnFREEz to create the animated GIF.]

On that note, there is something else that I would like to ask. Are there going to be any cataclysmic variable star systems such as a white dwarf surrounded by an accretion disk from a nearby companion star? Will there be neutron stars and binaries modeled into your simulation? And finally, , will there be any black hole binaries in your simulation?

I saw this video on YouTube illustrating the latter, and the model looks very similar to the black hole that you have created: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbGDQMZeI0

That's all I have, and again outstanding job on the oblated stars, .

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 4th Dec 2006 13:23
Link
m22587a, thanks a lot for your long post and feedback.

About far away binary stars:
Maybe you are right, so at least I'm going to try to make them appear.
I'm gathering data, I have to cross several catalogues. Once the final data is obtained for its use, I'll analyze and test the results. Too far away ones may crash my current algorithms.
Long orbits also have their challenge! They spend machine resources (as everything). The larger they are, the more resources (mainly polygons in this case). Still I'll give them a try.

About the black hole:
I didn't know there were stable stars orbiting Saggitarius A* with data available. I was going to add some stars ramdomly that would appear gradually to be finally swallowed by the hole. But just as an animation, not using real data. I'll take a look around to see if I can get more info about S2 and their companions. Saggitarius A* is still quite visible at 950AU (at least at the simulation).
It is hard to improve the look of the accretion disk, that actually has represented a radius of 120AU. The jet streams have 240AU per side, and I still can see tiny particles at 15000AU. I try to maintain its dimensions as real as possible.
By the way, great video example.

About semidetached and contact binaries:
Please remember that this is just a real time simulation, and that implies calculus simplification. I have no idea so far about how lagrange point are going to be calculated at binary systems of any kind. I just hope this can be deducted with the catalogues data. But it will always be a simplified approximation. Not to talk about Roche lobes. In my best dreams, there will be a generic lobe, that may vary with the system own properties, but that's all. I'm not intending to make any scientific accurated data simulation, just a real-time visual and real-data based (of course) one.
I guess you'll soon be able to calculate all this much better than me, I'm just a software engineer and all my astronomy knowledge is amateur.
The links provided are great. They are going to be extremely helpful in data verification and testing, but please do not expect such level of detail by now.

About cataclysmic, dwarfs, neutrons and others:
The visible stars catalogued as cataclysmic are there (they behave cataclysmically )No white dwarfs companions so far, just some brown dwarfs that are treated as extrasolar planets. No neutron stars either. And no black hole binaries unless the catalogue data says so when I apply it. Remember that I'm just representing visible stars (Vmag<9 or so), so the combination must exist for one of those if I'm going to put it there. Nevertheless they are always good ideas for future versions.

Many many thanks, again
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 5th Dec 2006 00:26
Link
You are very welcome. I didn't even realize how much I wrote until I saw it posted on the forum.

I hope that everything works out well for you and your simulation in the upcoming weeks. From what you have shown us so far, I can only imagine how your binaries will look.

As for the black holes: I think I understand why my eyes were deceiving me when I saw your black hole model for the first time. As you already know, the size of a black hole is based on its mass. The radius of the event horizon, or the Schwarzschild radius is equal to 2GM/c^2. I have a textbook that says the mass of Sgr A* is approximately 3.7 million solar masses, based on the movements of the star S2. However, it says that of that mass, 2.6 million solar masses is the mass of the supermassive black hole by itself. With that mass, the black hole should have a radius of about .05133 AU. This is where my perspective deceived me with your model. I thought the event horizon was the right size, and so the accretion disk seemed too small. But now I know that the event horizon radius needs to be MUCH smaller. So the accretion disk should have a radius of about 119.95 AU, while the imaginary black sphere should have a radius of about .05 AU, or about 11 solar radii. It's mind-boggling to think that a black hole with the same mass as the Earth would have about a 1 cm radius!

As for the star S2 and the others, I will try to look up information when I can. I see my professor tomorrow, so maybe I can ask him for details on where to find the information.

About the semidetached and contact binaries: Yeah, I looked into those PDFs about the Langrangian points and the Roche lobes..... VERY complicated indeed. I didn't make this statement earlier, but I provided the edited posts to correct my earlier statements about integrating that sort of calculus into the program. With StarLight Pro, I was thinking that you could use that to establish just how the model should appear in your simulation, without having to create some sort of universal equation in your simulation that can create binary models based on stellar parameters. I was thinking that the programs would provide for you an outline or foundation to follow. Due to the fact that the parameters in the program can be changed, you can practically model any eclisping binary you want as long as you have the information, and the program does all of the hard calculus for you, such as how the stars will be distorted by tidal forces and so on. I was thinking that this would be the approach that would be taken. I apologize for any misinterpretation. I would definitely not want you to implement Langrangian calculus when those programs on the website can do it for you, .

I hope the Algol and mass transfer videos will be of assistance as well. I have never seen animations like those before, and I thought they were very interesting.

Let's see, when I said cataclysmic variables, I was thinking about white dwarfs that are approaching their Chandrasekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses due to mass transfer from a nearby companion. This website http://archive.stsci.edu/prepds/cvcat/Forms/varcat_query.html features many of those types of stars. I managed to find binaries from that website that have a maximum apparent magnitude less than 9. For X-ray binaries, I believe the neutron star binary Vela X-1 has an apparent magnitude of 7, but I am not quite sure. SMC X-1 is modeled in StarLight Pro, but I do not know its apparent magnitude. X-ray flares from Sco X-1 can be as bright as 1.5 in apparent magnitude. For black hole binaries, I think Cyg X-1 cuts it very close to the apparent magnitude limit, but I am not very sure. For a longer list of these X-ray binaries, check out page 2 of this PDF if you like... http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/science_quirrenbach.pdf So at least we know that there are X-ray binaries and cataclysmic variables that can make it into your simulation, and as you said I think this would be a good addition in the future, as well.

For a moment when I read your comment for the first time, I was thinking that you meant stars that have white dwarf companions like Sirius and Procyon will not have their tiny companions in the simulation, until I read about the apparent magnitude limit of 9 which I had forgotten about, . So how are white dwarfs going to be modeled into the simulation; will they look comparable to an Earth-sized main-sequence star of the same temperature, or will they appear differently?

Thanks for your time, I appreciate it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 6th Dec 2006 05:59
Link
Let's see, I found another video clip of a supermassive black hole. The accretion disk here is also shown to be much larger in terms of radius compared to the actual black hole. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Videos/general/blackhole.avi

I have not had the time to research the stars in orbit around the black hole in Sgr A*, but I will try to do so this weekend when I get another temporary break from final exams. My professor was unsure as well of where exactly to find the data, but I know it's out there, for in his own words "Google is your best friend." I know for sure there is plenty of information for the star S2, including animations, graphs, charts, etc.

I hope everything is going well for you and your binary stars. For some inspiration and motivation, here are a few beautiful space images from http://www.novacelestia.com created by the talented Fahad Sulehria:


Algol


Antares


Beta Lyrae


Rigel


Cygnus X-1

That's all I have for now, and like I said, I will try to look into Sgr A*, S2 and others over the weekend. I can't think of anymore suggestions at the moment, though I do have a question in mind regarding the apparent magnitude limit of 9 and a previous post of mine, but I feel like I have asked enough for now, . It seems like the day I stepped into the thread, everyone has kept quiet and I've been wondering where did everyone go? (lol) I know there are a lot of people viewing this thread as the numbers go up each day, so don't hesitate to comment if you have questions or suggestions. I know I'm not the only who thinks this simulation is outstanding, . Thanks Morcilla, I'll ask when the time is right.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 6th Dec 2006 17:59 Edited at: 6th Dec 2006 18:02
Link
Yep, I have made a mistake with the size of the event horinzon. I'll have to revise that. Thanks for correcting me. I may have some other litle errors like this one, here and there, at the simulation.
Your info is quite useful and the animations are great. I wish mine could look like them, but I cannot achieve such results since real-time rendering cannot beat batch rendering. It is a challenge to make a realistic black hole.

Thanks also for checking the S2 data availability. But of course, take care of your exams first! It seems very interesting and it shouldn't be very difficult to add it. I use to gather data from some catalogues at http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cats/cats.html
As you know, to represent it properly, I would need the data about the orbital elements, physical parameters or parallax and spectral class, at least.
That info is the one I'm actually collecting for binaries. I found orbital elements, but it is harder to find their mass relation (m1/m2) and their spectral kind. I guess I'll be doing some approximations due to that. If I don't have the mass relation, I cannot picture a realistic barycenter orbit, but it is ok, I can figure out some numbers

Contact binaries will come later. Step by step! The aim of the simulation is to provide a 3d animated and user-controlled interpretation of the space. As you pointed out, If anyone needs scientific results, it is better to use a specific program for those results. This simulation is on the other side of the balance, it uses real data, but just a portion of the data available. Nevertheless, the more I know about any kind of system, contact, cataclysmic, etc, the better I can understand the data and develop the simulation.

I've seen Alexander Hobbes' Binary View. It is a great help. At the readme says the recommended screensize for the software is 1024x768; with a smaller screensize some of the user interface windows may not be displayed correctly. To adjust the display settings to the recommended screensize you will need to go to: Control Panel -> Display -> Settings and change the screen resolution to 1024x768. Maybe that's the problem you are having.

Thanks for the videos and all the info. I reviewed white dwarfs behaviour and now I uderstand what you say. I have not seen
any binary cataclysmic system with vmag<9 at the catalogue of cataclysmic binaries available at CDS. The link you provided
returns 179 records (just with ">9" for "Magnitude max" query field), but it says "Catalogue and Atlas of Cataclysmic Variables", and it is not the same "Cataclysmic Variables" than "Cataclysmic Binaries" or is it?
I've already got "Cataclysmic Variables", but I was thinking they were mostly cataclysmic by themselves, like unstable and super-flaring stars.
So by now, all white dwarfs will have 0.5-1.0 solar masses and yes, I guess they all will be the same size as and like a dull white sun. Or maybe I should find out their main sequence spectral kind that once was, to be able to color them properly.
But hey, it seems I'm adding them!

I have queried at Simbad (http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-fid.pl) the references that you posted:

Vela X-1 : HD77581 -- High Mass X-ray Binary. Visual magnitude: 6.926, but I do not have it!
SMC X-1 : X SMC X-1 -- High Mass X-ray Binary. Visual magnitude: 13.30 (I don't have it)
Sco X-1 : V* V818 Sco -- Low Mass X-ray Binary. Visual magnitude: 12.2 (I don't have it)
Cyg X-1 : HD 226868 -- High Mass X-ray Binary. Visual magnitude: 8.95, but I do not have it!

I also checked the .PDF references, but the brightest is V4641 Sgr with Vmag=9. It doesn't mind, I don't know how to paint x-rays either, lol Thanks anyway.

And thanks for the images, they are really inspiring. I think we could see binaries in action in around 2-3 weeks, but these dates are not very favourable, so they could be delayed.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 05:21 Edited at: 8th Dec 2006 04:43
Link
Hey, from what we have seen so far you can practically do anything as far as astronomical animations are concerned. Don't worry, we all have faith in you, . I found some more animations that may be of interest.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/j1655/j1655_lg.mpg Here is an animation of the binary system GRO J1655-40.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/grb050709/bh_eats_neutron_lg.mpg Here is a black hole "devouring" a neutron star.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/animations/sgra_bh_flare_lg.mpg Here is an impression of a high-energy flare from the black hole in Sgr A*.

I misunderstood you when you said that you can't paint X-rays. As you know, an X-ray binary is a binary system which is very luminuous in X-rays, involving mass transfer from a companion star onto a neutron star or black hole. X-ray binary is just a way to classify binaries which have a black hole, neutron star, or rarely, a white dwarf in the system.

Black holes emit X-ray radiation due to the extremely high temperatures in their accretion disks, caused mainly by friction, resulting in emission of radiation in varying intensities. The same is true for neutron stars and their accretion disks, however, periodically this can be explosive. Neutron stars with mass donating companion stars are X-ray bursters, for the material in the accretion disks form layers on the surface of the neutron star which build up over time. Pressure builds up and so does the temperature, eventually fusing hydrogen all at once on the star's surface, releasing a HUGE amount of energy in the form of X-ray radiation. Here is a really nice animation of just that event:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/97911main_Puff.0539.mpeg Here is a close up of the neutron star: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/97912main_PuffCloseUp.0779.mpeg This is pretty much like how a nova occurs on a white dwarf with an accretion disk, only on a much larger scale due to the neutron star's stronger force of gravity.

Since black holes have no surface, these X-ray bursts cannot occur. However with some black holes, namely supermassive ones and microquasars like V4641 Sgr, can periodically flare up due to atomic interactions in their accretion disks, just like the video of Sgr A*. Here is a link that talks more about X-ray flares and coincidently, a little bit about the stars in orbit around Sgr A* http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php Please correct me if I am wrong about any of this.

So if X-ray binaries were to be added into the simulation in the future, like an X-ray binary update, you wouldn't have to worry about having to design X-ray emission since it's invisible... if I understood what you said correctly. X-ray binaries with black holes will not flare up unless they are microquasars, which I believe there are only a few black holes that have this label. X-ray binaries with neutron stars would burst periodically like the animation, and I believe that information is available. But like you said, it might be a good idea for the future.

Yeah, cataclysmic variables and cataclysmic binaries are the same thing. They are called variables, because of the build up of hydrogen from the accretion disk on the surface of the white dwarf will build up and eventually ignite as a nova periodically. So they are cataclysmic because they explode violently, and it is a variable since the apparent magnitude changes with these novas.

Here is a nice but long list of most of the different type of variable stars... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star Maybe the stars you have currently labeled as cataclysmic are actually an eruptive type. I don't know about Wolf-Rayet... speaking of which, I remember I asked you a question about those types of stars in your simulation. I read up on them, and apparently there are about 159 of them in our galaxy.... 12 of which have apparent magnitudes less than 8. One that I know of from researching is Gamma Velorum. After finals I will try to look up more information on those.

I found this catalog that contains stellar mass, orbital, and spectral class information for over 1000 multiple stars. The data is currently set on Castor if I am not mistaken http://www.ctio.noao.edu/~atokovin/stars/index.php?cat=HIP&number=36850 I will try to look for more sites like that over the weekend.

For the white dwarfs, I believe there is plenty of data on their exact radii and masses, and I could calculate the radii for you if you knew their temperatures and luminosities. I was wondering though if you could tell me what impact would the spectral class of the original star have on the color of the white dwarf. Hearing the term white dwarf can be a little confusing sometimes, since I have heard people call main-sequence spectral class A stars white dwarfs.... similar to calling our Sun a yellow dwarf and so on. But referring to a white dwarf as the core of previous star, I think the color will depend only on its age. The younger, the hotter, the more luminous and blue it is; the more older, the more red it is and less luminous... to the point where it completely cools down, and no longer emits any light as a black dwarf. But please, correct me if I am wrong.

As for Binary View, I tried adjusting the resolution but that didn't work. Every time, the coordinate grid is stretched horizontally, and it makes the stars appear more oblate than they should be. Thanks for the info, but I'll keep looking to see what's the problem.

Other than that, thanks for the reply and I'll be sure to post more information when I can. Thanks.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Crazy Fish Bait
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Sep 2006
Location:
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 17:56
Link
In a word, Stunning! Simply stunning! One of, if not, THE BEST looking space simulater ever, and one of the best looking programs I've seen on this forum!

This is an absolutley incredible project! I was thinking about expanding my current project into outer space, but after seeing the quality of your work, I don't dare venture into space... I'll never be able to do it as much justice as you have!

Crazy Fish Bait
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 8th Dec 2006 04:35
Link
I agree, .

I hope the Multiple Star Catalog helps if you didn't have it already. It features star systems which contain between 3-7 stars. What other stars are you having trouble finding mass relations for? As I said I will try to look up more over the weekend.

I'm still looking for more specific information for the stars S2, and stumbled across this interesting PDF: http://physics.bu.edu/documents/chizinski.pdf It has more detailed information on the orbital properties of S2, like its orbital period, inclination, and eccentricity, but I'm still trying to find more info on the other stars.

For the Wolf-Rayet stars, here are 20 of the brightest WR stars in the sky. http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Astronomy/WolRaySta.html There are probably a few more 8th magnitude WR stars, but I will find these later.


Here is an animation-still of a Wolf-Rayet star. The video clip is about how Wolf-Rayet stars with collapsed cores are thought to be the precursors of long-term gamma-ray bursts. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mov/97770main_HETEBHsmall2.mov Maybe super-flaring effects with nebulae can be added to these stars in your simulation in the future.

Speaking of stars again, are the superluminous stars like Eta Carinae and the Pistol Star and others with an apparent magnitude less than 9 in your simulation?

Any word on the update that you are waiting for to use for your simulation?

Well, I hope everything goes according to your plans. I know that you are busy with one task at a time, so don't mind me making these suggestions, like the oblated stars, eclipsing binaries, a smaller event horizon for Sgr A* and its orbiting stars, the cataclysmic variables, X-ray binaries and now Wolf-Rayet stars. They are only for you to hear, and for me to remember... usually if I do not say what is on my mind at the time I will lose my train of thought once I become busy with daily tasks of my own. I could make a list, but I would like to hear your opinion, as well. So to play it safe, I will keep the suggestions to a minimum until you are free to hear more. Until then, I will continue looking for more data. Thanks, Morcilla.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 9th Dec 2006 18:48 Edited at: 9th Dec 2006 20:01
Link
Sorry for the delay.

Crazy Fish Bait, thanks a lot!
Please don't give up your space ideas! I don't want to intimidate anyone's project! Just give yourself a try

m22587a, those are great links and animations.
The x-ray painting was a joke, but glad to know that those systems are not completely invisible!

I've revised the variable systems definitions and I attach the document (red button below). I used the combined general catalogue of variable stars. As you know, I'm using a simplified model, and this is a summary of the current approach:

-Eruptive : Stars varying in brightness because of violent processes and flares occurring in their chromospheres and coronae. Taking into account that all stars are eruptive by nature, I thought Wolf-Rayet stars were included here, but I revised the list and they are classified just as binaries at the simulation. See picture at next post.

-Pulsating : Stars showing periodic expansion and contraction of their surface layers. They can be seen at the videos published.

-Rotating : Stars with nonuniform surface brightness and/or ellipsoidal shapes, whose variability is caused by axial rotation with respect to the observer. I'm waiting for DGDK to work properly to show them, since they look better with shaders and ghosting (not working right now). Although I could be posting some pic.

-Cataclysmic : Stars showing outbursts caused by thermonuclear burst processes in their surface layers. As it says at the doc, the majority of explosive and novalike variables are close binary systems. But I have represented no companions so far, so they all look more like SS Cygni-type or Z Camelopardalis-type.

-Binary : Close Binary Eclipsing Systems. I only have companions of Vmag<9 and they are static. Actually represented as a periodic change in brightness. Realistic when watched from Earth, but unrealistic when you get there. This is where the main improvement is going on right now.

There are no sub-classes represented. Neither the info, because there are too many sub-classes and I don't want to overwhelm the user with data that he or she may not understand. Attached document will be hard enough for some people, I want to make easy the way people see universe. If there are any who may want to investigate further, I'll be then more than happy, because one of the simulation purposes would have been achieved.

The current addition of companions for the represented stars will throw more realistic results. When the simulation reach that, I'll play around to see if there happens to be cataclysmic binaries or any peculiar systems.

Meanwhile, let me thank you once again because your explanations help me to better understand all aspects of the data. Videos are exactly showing it how it should be, and the link provided for Multiple Star Catalog is just what I needed. I has all the data for many systems, so I'll be querying it.

Thanks for your offer about the dwarfs calculus, I already have some excel spreadsheets that do the job. Yeah, there is a lot of oppinions when talking about astronomy. I thought that the main sequence spectral class would have a word to say for the final appareance of the star. I believe you are right with the age argument. I'll see if there is any more data like b-v filters one of these days.

About the S2 star, the period, inclination, eccentricity and semi-major axis are given at the pdf that you provided, so I'll try to reproduce this star as well.

I've checked and Eta Carinae is not at the simulation, it seems it doesn't appear a Hipparcos, at least with HD identifier. To add it is another great idea. Pistol Star is also a very interesting case. Eta Carina nebula is represented, but to be honest, there are no stars represented inside any nebulae right now. That would lead me to some technical difficulties that I'm still not ready to deal with. What I mean is that the result is not good enough or it presents some undesired results.

Thanks also for asking about the DGDK product update. I'm really discouraged with the TGC support. I don't think they are updating it anymore until DX10, that means like month of May or so. I wish I were wrong, but for now they have left me stranded.

I know I cannot face all this info ant once, in fact I'm going pretty slow. But your comments really point me in the right direction, and they are really useful. What can I say, the ideas list is growing. If you keep on like this I'll have to credit you just for your suggestions! You are right, all this stuff takes time and mine is limited. The more I develop the more time it will take until release, that's why I'm trying to keep changes to the minimum. The DGDK delay gives me time but, will I ever be able to release if they don't fix it?

Anyway, I'll take some time to do what is already planned, that's animated binary systems.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 9th Dec 2006 18:52 Edited at: 9th Dec 2006 19:29
Link
I revised the list of Wolf-Rayet stars at the link you posted, and I have none above magnitude 7 (HD93131 and HD190918 aren't either although they have lower Vmag). Right now, there are no special effects applied to these ones other than the change of brightness for binary systems.
That is, for example for Gamma Velorum, a fading of -0.03 units at irregular periods. Hard to perceive. I realize now from what you said, and the amazing picture and video that this kind should at least emit a lot more of particles. Super-flaring effects with nebulae is a great idea for future updates, as you said. But I'll take this into account.



This is mosaic of the matching stars with its data as known by the simulation. I only have five "W" type stars.
HD152408 y HD113904 appear as defined at Hipparcos. Maybe I should revise them.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 10th Dec 2006 00:44 Edited at: 13th Dec 2006 23:51
Link
Well I feel foolish, . Sorry for missing the joke. I was trying so hard to decipher what you were saying... lol.

Anyways, that is a great text of all the different variable types and subclasses. I see what you mean about the original data from the catalogues; nice job simplifying that down.

I see what you are saying about the completion of the binary stars. Along with the cataclysmic variables, will your search for any peculiar systems include the X-rays and the semi-detached/contact binaries, as well? Also, if those systems are not found currently in your simulation, as you specified with Cygnus X-1 and others, might you add them in the future?

I want to say thank you as well, because you are providing a very unique program, if not the first one of its kind, to actually represent the Universe the way it actually is. Most programs like this are very situated with the Earth and views from Earth, but fail to realize that there exist endless viewing opportunities else where in the galaxy and the Universe. While your simulation is designed to be a wonderful viewing experience, it is a very accurate one and takes all accounts into consideration. I have not seen one program with pulsating stars which actually pulsate, binary stars that actually have their companions, etc. You pay very close attention to detail, and that is what stands out from this wonderful program the most. So thank you for your hard work and your team for this program.

I am glad to hear that the Multiple Star Catalog is what you needed. I hope everything works out well.

You know, I think you are right about the main-sequence spectral class having an impact on the appearance on the white dwarfs, too. Main-sequence stars follow a trend on the H-R diagram, and tpyically, the hotter the star, the greater the radius and the more luminous the star is. Assuming that our Sun represents an average radius and luminosity, that would mean that K and M type main-sequence stars are typically smaller than the Sun, and that O, B, and some A and F stars are larger than the Sun. Since mass generally increases with the increase of radii, O, B, and some A and F stars will be able to produce more heavier elements at their cores during their process of dying. A massive red giant applies enough pressure at the core to fuse various elements which produce various layers of chemical products on the core's surface. Typically, main-sequence stars with a mass greater than 12 solar masses will become a supernova, 8-12 solar masses a neon-oxygen white dwarf, .25-8 solar masses a carbon-oxygen white dwarf, and .08-.25 solar masses a helium white dwarf. Anything with less mass would be a brown dwarf. I don't know the exact difference the various compositions of chemicals will have on the surface of the white dwarf, but I believe that is the answer. At least we know that age and spectral class/mass determine the appearance of a white dwarf.

I once gave you a link to a website: http://solstation.com/x-objects/s2.htm This might have some more information about S2 that you can use, such as spectral class and radius. Still on the search for the other stars.

Do not worry about Eta Carinae right now, and I agree that stars which produce nebulae would be a nice add to the future. The Pistol Star lies within the Pistol Nebula, just like Eta Carinae. There are other stars like this that I will research as well. Neutron stars in supernova remnants would be nice to see as well, like the pulsar in the Crab Nebula.

May is very far away from now... another semester away for me. I am sorry to hear that the update is much farther away than what you would like. Regardless, I know it will be worth the wait. I do not think you have to worry about completing a certain task before the update gets through; if you know that adding various features before the release of your simulation will be time-extensive, you should worry about those until after the product as been released. I know that the first version is supposed to be the attention-grabber, but with over 3,500 people who have viewed this thread I think that goal has been accomplished, .

I am glad to have helped with the Wolf-Rayet stars; would you like me to look for the rest that are under the apparent magnitude limit? There shouldn't be much more to find. To give you an idea of what a real Wolf-Rayet star looks like, here are some lovely examples:


Wolf-Rayet producing the nebula NGC 2359

Wolf-Rayet star WR124 in the constellation Sagittarius
EDIT: [ I added this image as an attachment so that way no one has to scroll left and right to adjust this window ]

I am always happy to provide suggestions, and I am glad to hear that they keep you going in the right direction. It would be an honor to have my name in the program, but I am just another potential user providing ideas. As I said, I am glad to help. I hope all goes well and I will reply when I find more data.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 10th Dec 2006 12:48
Link
I guess contact stars will show up when the data is processed. Then I'll think about the approach to improve its appearance.

I'm not currently adding new stars into the simulation, although it could be wise to have a list of future candidates. It is possible to represent some more stars, and of course those x-ray stars could be there. To add stars implies to have the candidate list, but also to gather all the data needed, and going one-by-one is usually laborious (they are 'selected' ones and do not appear togheter in a single catalogue with all the data).

Yep, I was suspecting that neutron star inside Crab Nebula. I have some planetary nebulae, including that one. However, special effects don't work very well inside my nebula, because of the nebula effect itself. A neutron star by itself is probably too small to put it there. But hey, it could fit into the candidate list by now.
The same applies to the Wolf-Rayet stars. If you can manage to make a list, it is ok. We'll put them into the candidate list. But I cannot promise you anything right now about when will they be added, etc.
Nice example pics. Now I'm having a much better idea about Wolf-Rayet stars apparance and meaning.

Yeah, six months is what my mind tells me about the DGDK update. I've been waiting at least from the beginning of this thread, 4th Jan 2006. That's one whole year. I'd rather have had it released the sooner the better, and I'd have been adding latest improvements as upgrades. But with the future change to Windows Vista, some things may not work correctly anymore or my compiler could get outdated. Things like that would delay the project even more. Risky business.

Meanwhile thanks for your collaboration.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 10th Dec 2006 17:25 Edited at: 13th Dec 2006 01:49
Link
I understand your dilemma, and the new Windows Vista slipped my mind as well. I don't think there is anything you can do, other than to wait it out, but I know that everything will work out for the best in the end.

What exactly will we see differently from this update from the user's point of view?

OK, I understand what you are doing now with the stars, and the candidate list sounds like a good idea. I think that would be much better than me just spewing out suggestion after suggestion when you are still working on the binary star animations, . I'll try to gather all of the data necessary for these possible candidates, and I show them to you when I am finished.

Currently, are you satisfied with the number of visual, spectroscopic, and astrometric binaries in your simulation? Since the majority of the stars in the sky are binaries, it might be a little difficult for me to look up more of these stars if you already have them in your simulation. What I am trying to say is that of the binary systems that are not peculiar in your simulation, are these all of the stars that you want in your simulation, or are there more with an apparent magnitude less than 9 that you know of? Since you have most of the binary star catalogues already I think that might be easier for you to look for, assuming that you would want more visual/spectroscopic/astrometric binaries in your simulation. Meanwhile, I will look for the data of all of the other suggestions that I have made like the contact/semi-detached binaries, X-ray binaries, etc. and possibly more that I think you may find interesting.

I will reply when I have established a good list, thanks.

EDIT: [ I am currently looking through the Catalog and Atlas of Eclipsing Binaries, and I am about 3/4 of the way through. I will combine the candidates with those from the Pictorial Atlas into one candidate list for eclisping binaries. I would like to ask you what star systems are not in your simulation that have a Vmag < or = 9 from the Multiple Star Catalog? Thanks. ]
Back to top
Profile PM Email
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 13th Dec 2006 06:39 Edited at: 13th Dec 2006 07:19
Link
Alright, I have successfully looked through CALEB and the Pictorial Atlas and I have provided the data for you in the form of a .txt file that can be downloaded from this message.

I used data that came directly from both catalogues, and the Multiple Star catalog to confirm the existence any system with three or more stars. SIMBAD was helpful as well for verification.

When I ran through both catalogues while using Binary View I noticed a few things:

First, there are a few errors in the data for Binary View. A few of the eclipsing systems have been duplicated, maybe because the methods to gather the information for the systems obtained different results, and so both systems were included. For example, AW UMa has two systems, with roughly the same parameters except for the inclination. I believe an inclination of 19.1 degrees is wrong, because first the stars wouldn't be eclipsing, and two, the data from CALEB best matches an inclination of 79.1 degrees. Besides duplicate systems, some of the parameters for various stars seem to be incorrect, as well. For example, 44i Boo's primary star has an (R1/a) of -1, which highly distorts the star beyond recognition. Data from StarLight Pro and CALEB obtain the correct information. Not only this, but the secondary star in RX Gem has a temperature that is close to absolute 0. A few other stars have these extremely low temperatures but they should be corrected in the data that I provided.

One minor thing that I noticed is that the star RZ Sct is a double contact star, where one of the stars touches both Langrangian points on opposite sides of the star, giving the star an American football-shaped appearance. I have the correct picture provided in the data, but neither Binary View nor StarLight Pro provide that shape.

Second, the Multiple Star Catalog has a mixed up HD number for one of its stars. TW Cas' correct designation is HD16907 according to SIMBAD. I wanted to check to see if any other stars were a part of this system, however, the Multiple Star Catalog mixes up TW Cas with V377 And. According to SIMBAD, V377 And is HD16097. So just in case you looked up the same information using the Multiple Star Catalog, what is said to be HD16907 is actually V377 And, which is coincidently an eclipsing binary.

Other than those small delays, obtaining the information from those catalogs went by well. I want to note that some of the stars from the CALEB catalog did not have all of the necessary information, such as inclination, mass ratios, radii, etc. It shouldn't be anything major, as you have much more resources than I do. Not only that, like I said before in a previous message, the CALEB website has information on the radial velocities and the light curves for all eclipsing binaries in the catalog. One can estimate the masses of the stars in a binary system by determining how much faster one star's radial velocity is compared to the other. A star that has a radial velocity three times that of its companion is 1/3 of its companion's mass and so on. Determining the radius of each star from the light curve information is a little tricky; I think it would be easier to examine the 3D models instead to get an idea of the correct shape, orbital inclination, size, and seperation of each star. It seems as if the creator of some of the images was nice enough to plot out the orbital paths, the center of masses for the stars, and the barycenter of the entire system. Although not all of the pictures obtain this information, Binary View provides most, if not all of that the necessary information.

I also discovered a few interesting things, such as that a large number of these eclipsing stars are a part of a much larger system. I found several multiple star systems, including a quadruple star system composed of two eclipsing binary pairs, and several 5-star systems. I also learned that CQ Cep is a Wolf-Rayet eclipsing binary of 8th magnitude.

You probably have a lot of these stars in your simulation already, but I added them in just to be certain. I believe this is an excellent number of eclipsing binaries for your simulation. The data will always be here for when the time is right for you to look through it. I do ask that when you do have the time to look through the information, please verify that the data I have is correct in terms of SIMBAD, the Multiple Star Catalog, StarLight Pro, Binary View (apart from those errors mentioned earlier), and through your resources to make sure that the information is as accurate and complete as possible. I hope everything is going well with the binary star animations. I am going to be busy for the remainder of the week with some last final exams, so I will reply after words with cataclysmic variable candidates. Thanks, I appreciate your time.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 13th Dec 2006 17:55 Edited at: 13th Dec 2006 17:57
Link
I think your just one step ahead of me! Thanks for the data, you have done a good work.

I still don't know how many binary star systems have arised, although I manage a number between 250 and 350. That should be enough so far.

I cannot tell you what star systems are not in the simulation that have a Vmag < or = 9 from the Multiple Star Catalog, because that calatogue only allows me to browse stars one by one, and I cannot query the 10,000 stars.

Thanks for revising the data. Don't worry, I'll make also my own validations, but I'm not following the data to the latest word. I mean that I'm just managing to start with a very simple and known system with 2 stars, like Sirius or something like that. So I don't have many expectations by now about other complex systems.
Not to say about all the little details. As you know many data and conclusions for such systems change from discoverer to discoverer.
Besides, checking just SIMBAD and the latest catalogue should be enough to validate the data quality.

I know about the radial velocity method, but I will only use it if there is not any other source, as I'm just composing the data by now.

Yeah, all those systems could look great, like the "double-double", but they orbit like every 5000 years, so we'll see.

Thank you very much for your effort, and good luck on those exams

I made a new video about the oblated stars, called "Rapid rotating stars", you can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwCpcoS0jKc

I added the "gravity darkening" effect, that makes these stars brighter at the poles than at the equator.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 14th Dec 2006 21:22 Edited at: 15th Dec 2006 06:52
Link
Once again Morcilla, those stars look beautiful. I am very impressed with the amount of detail that you put into this simulation; the gravity darkening looks excellent. I was going to tell you that I tried to download the high-res version of the movie from your website, but the link was not working. It appears to be fixed now, thanks.

You are also very welcome for the data. I ran a count on the number of star systems in the .txt file, and I came across over 200, a portion of which are probably already in your simulation like Beta Persei and Delta Orionis. As for using the Multiple Star Catalog, I will run through it myself when I get the chance after my last final exam on Saturday. I think there are about 1000+ star systems in the catalog. Speaking of catalogues, which catalogues are you using to determine whether your stars are double star systems like Sirius? I take that they are probably from the SIMBAD database.

Quote: "...and I cannot query the 10,000 stars."


If the 10,000 stars refer to the stars in your simulation, I can check for you if you like, if I understood your statement correctly. While you focus on the double star systems, I can check to see if any of the 10,000 stars are actually triple star systems or more using the Multiple Star Catalog and other catalogues that I find. I wouldn't mind at all, although I would need the list of all the stars currently in your simulation.

I agree, I only learned about SIMBAD this semester and it's a great database. So once I am done checking the database for your stars and to see if the Multiple Star Catalog has some other possible candidates, I'll go through the cataclysmic variables, as well as more info on Sgr A* and its stars.

Thanks for your good fortune for the exams. I will start researching after my exam and as soon as I get the list of stars. Thanks, and again a wonderful job on the simulation.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 17th Dec 2006 11:54
Link
So far, I'll use CCDM (Catalog of Components of Double & Multiple stars (Dommanget+ 2002)) to find out companions.

I appreciate a lot your interest, but please note that I think it is crazy to query records one by one to get the data. Any IT guy can tell you that. Data must be treated as automatically as possible. The source figures must end unchanged and manipulators should never type it manually.
Also data should be arranged in a database layout (columns & rows).

I have methods to manipulate fast and easily all the info, since that's my job. So by now, please save your enthusiasm for the things that you really could help, like any astronomy related concept, because I don't want you to do such an effort to finally discover that I'm using my own data.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 18th Dec 2006 05:33 Edited at: 18th Dec 2006 05:36
Link
Going through the data one by one is actually what I did to obtain all of the information from the .txt file that I gave you, and it took me a few hours to do so. You mentioned before that it was laborious to gather all of the information one by one for the candidates since they are all not in the same catalog, so I thought I could be of assistance by doing so while you were working on the binaries, but I understand your comments. I'll just look up the names of the candidates and other sources of information that you might find interesting to add into your simulation in the future. So far I gave you about 200 close-orbiting eclisping binaries, and what's next on the list is Sgr A* and cataclysmic binaries.

By the way, you actually can view all of the star systems at once with the Multiple Star Catalog. I just set "Browse at WDS" equal to 0, and then I add as many rows as I want to get the data. The most important information from that data is probably the Vmag, as you will have to view each one individually to see the mass, orbital parameters, etc. So I'll just look through that list to see if there are any other systems that could go into your simulation and get the names down on a .txt file like I did for the close eclipsing binaries.

This semester might be over, but astronomy never stops for me, and going through the names and data of these candidates always keep me interested in the subject, so I really don't mind going through the process of obtaining the information needed, but my concern was either mixing up information with the data you obtained, or finding information that you already have in your simulation. So like I said, I will stick to looking through the Multiple Star Catalog to get the names of those star systems with Vmags less than or equal to 9, as well as obtaining names of other candidates. Thanks, Morcilla.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 20th Dec 2006 13:38 Edited at: 20th Dec 2006 13:42
Link
Thanks for the tip about querying the MSC. It works so far, so I composed a list of all the matching stars, 490 records.

I'm worried because, for example, Sirius does not appear as a matching one. If I query HD 48915 (Sirius) at the MSC, it returns data for HD 50123, so it is not there I've noticed the same about some other like Alpha Andromedae (HD 358).
I've read that it is because their aim is to catalogue physical systems containing at least 3 stars, and it is focused on stars nearer than 10 parsecs.

I have to apologize for a great mistake I made telling you the maximum Vmag. It is 8, not 9. So my faintest star is 7.98 Vmag. Sorry.

I crossed also my catalogue with CCDM, and there are 3,158 matching stars, I guess thats more near to the real numbers, but orbital data is not at that catalogue, so I'm just using it as a reference by now. I will collect the data from some other ones.

I'm preparing a suitable layout for the simulation with the MSC matching codes. If you want to keep on helping me, I appreciate it very much, altough I'd rather have it emailed to you instead of posting it here.
Nevertheless the layout is still not finished. I have to plan carefully the data structure, but I can tell you that there will have to be a record for each circle painted at the MSC graph for a particular system. Also, the simulation is not prepared for having systems with more than 3 levels of orbits (parent star -> companion stars -> components of companions).

All this said, this is stil a major change that I wasn't going to face before releasing, knowing its complexity it was going to be an update. If the data is there it will be working, always with simplified calculus, but I don't know when. Thankyou anyway for your interest and attitude
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 20th Dec 2006 21:36
Link
The magnitude limit is perfectly fine; I'll take that into consideration the next time I prepare a candidate list. There are still some very interesting objects that are just as faint as the limit you specified.

I'd be glad to help, but how exactly should I do so? I would not want to obtain data from another catalog that you decide not to use, or obtain the same data that you have already collected. I provided my email, so whenever you are ready to send the layout just click that little button. Thank you for letting me help. If anything, I will try to collect the data from the most up-to-date catalogs and specify which ones I used.

I would agree with you that the orbits of these star systems are complex. The Castor system, for instance, is composed of two pairs of stars orbiting a center of mass. Another pair of stars orbiting their center of mass orbits the two pairs of stars, each in turn orbiting the barycenter of the entire system. It is much easier to draw it out than to explain it with words, but I know that everything will work out for you. Thanks again, Morcilla.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 23rd Dec 2006 14:24
Link
Thanks for your offering. Glad to know that the magnitude limit is fine, it is mainly limited for performance reasons.

Don't worry, I'll use the data you provide if we get coordinated. The already provided eclispsing systems are a valuable source of information, although the text format cannot be used directly into the simulation, it can be useful for some other checkings.

I'm going to email you an excel file with the matching codes with the MSC. It is just a rough draft, but I don't want to leave you with empty arms. I will take a rest these days and I will be out for a while.
The data that you introduce into the excel file will be used. Feel free to add any other info as columns (although maynot be used by now).
If you feel like adding new stars systems (rows), I'm Henry Drapper code based, so including their HD number is desirable.
But by now maybe you should stick with MSC (the list at the excel file), so I know that I can take care of any other already matching binary systems present at the simulation.

About the complex systems, I'll explain it with other words. The simulation has a limit of 2 barycenter levels. That is, we can have a barycenter (one, two or more stars) and a second barycenter orbiting the first one (one, two or more stars), but we cannot go furhter and I'm not changing that by now. It will involve too much developing time.
That means for Castor, that it can be plotted if we consider that there is one single barycenter at the center of the system, and another barycenter for each star pair, that's 3 more, but all of them orbiting the first one.

Thank you very much, I guess you'll finally get credited.

Merry Christmas to all celebrating
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 23rd Dec 2006 20:09 Edited at: 23rd Dec 2006 22:02
Link
The limit on the apparent magnitude is very understandable considering the amount of work and detail that has been put into every single star in the simulation.

Again, thanks for letting me help. So far I have been compiling a list of cataclysmic variables, so I will organize all information as a seperate spreadsheet within the file, as well as data for Sgr A* and its companion stars. I will keep all additions seperate from the other celestial objects already in the simulation. I will have to also revise the data that I provided you, because I forgot to take into consideration faint binaries which are actually a part of a much brighter system, for instance the eclipsing binary YY Gem in Castor. As you specified, I will first contend with the MSC, and then send back updated information for any possible addition to your simulation. So I will go through all of this as soon as I receive your email.

The limit on the number of barycenters is fine as well, and I don't think you will have to go into any complications by changing that. Most, if not all, of these complex star systems are extremely spacious and will involve orbital periods beyond your 400 year limit. So those far away objects can just be treated as stationary, leaving you to work with a much more simplified star system.

How should we divide the task of finding the data for the binaries? We won't be able to do much right now because of the holiday season, but we can decide on that whenever we are ready.

Thanks once again Morcilla, and I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
qwe
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Sep 2003
Location: place
Posted: 4th Jan 2007 00:25 Edited at: 4th Jan 2007 00:29
Link
amazing program

on barycentric orbits and complex orbits, it may not be very hard to implement. all you should need are F=G*M1*M2 / D*D and F=MA . allowing the bodies to follow these two formulas, it would not matter how complex the orbits are, they would all fall into place. (then again, you'd have to find, for each body, its appropriate initial velocity vector...)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
RickV
TGC Development Director
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Apr 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th Jan 2007 22:50
Link
Please post say 3 of your best in game images to the TGC Gallery.

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=gallery_upload

Rick

Financial Director
TGC Team
[Check out Jed McKenna - http://www.wisefoolpress.com/]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 13th Jan 2007 12:10
Link
m22587a, has been emailed and he will gather data about multiple binary sistems, that's binary systems with more than 2 stars.
Meanwhile, I'll gather the data for the remaining systems, and I'll try to integrate these new systems into the simulation.

@qwe, thanks a lot
Yep, the formulae look fine, but I had to add as well the calculus to orientate the orbits into space (inclination, bearing, etc.)

@Rick, please fix say 3 of the worst DGDK bugs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Morcilla
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Dec 2002
Location: Spain
Posted: 16th Feb 2007 16:02
Link
Well, so far so good.
It seems that all of us have used the magic words and, although there are some issues pending for DGDK, none of them is strictly a show stopper for this project.

I posted some previously unreleased pictures at The Game Creators - Screenshot Gallery just for all of you to enjoy as a premiere.

Here are the links to them:

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=gallery_view&i=244&p=0

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=gallery_view&i=243&p=0

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=gallery_view&i=242&p=0

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=gallery_view&i=241&p=0

Next I'm going to make a video showing the seamless sun lava, and maybe I'll remake the nebulae video
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
m22587a
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 18th Feb 2007 06:58 Edited at: 18th Feb 2007 07:02
Link
Your simulation just keeps looking better Morcilla.

I really like the artistic touch you gave the M33 and all other galaxies. I still have a question that I would like to ask you regarding the galaxies, but that can wait until we have collaborated data for the binary stars.

As for the MSC data, I'm almost halfway through. However, in the next few weeks I am going to have to temporarily stop since midterms are coming up. Spring break is just around the corner, so by then I can really focus on getting the data set up for you. Regarding the data, I am going to add the extra components to each star system that aren't listed in the MSC, but listed in the CCDM. I am not going to add orbital data to them since we can assume that these stars which are more than 30 arc'' away from the primary component have orbital periods which are too long for the simulation. By the way, do you mind telling me what your new restrictions are for orbital periods and semi-major axes? If the orbital periods and semi-major axes can be much larger, then I will go ahead and add whatever orbital data I can find for these far away-components.

I believe I also mentioned something regarding the bolometric luminosities of stars. If you used only the visual magnitude of a star to calculate its luminosity, then I would recommend using the bolometric correction which can be found on that stellar classification website to adjust the luminosity to take into account all forms of electromagnetic radiation being emitted by the star, not just the visual light. But as I remember you saying, that can be something to add to your future to-do list.

Also, when I have finished with the MSC, would you like me to create a new spreadsheet for the eclipsing binaries from CALEB and the Pictorial Atlas?

I don't think I thanked you for giving me the spreadsheet version of the MSC. It has made my life much easier, and I appreciate it very much. You also mentioned that some extra star systems were within the MSC spreadsheet that you sent me. Would you like me to go ahead and add those to my current spreadsheet, or do you have that data obtained already?

Well, that's all from me. I noticed your "Sun Lava" video on YouTube, yet it's not available at the moment so I guess I will have to wait another time to see it, . Take care.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-04-20 05:14:21
Your offset time is: 2024-04-20 05:14:21