Space Engine – Free Universe Simulator

[Izack]

I now have a computer capable of running this. It's...amazing.

A life-supporting oceanic moon with a binary sun.

---------- Post added 11-08-13 at 10:40 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-08-13 at 11:21 AM ----------

Found a black hole orbiting an orange giant star.

 

[Keatah]

I, too, see this surpassing orbiter in many ways. But is there way to turn down/off the lens flares? It's overkill.

 

[boogabooga]

I love SE too (when I can borrow my friend's computer), but Orbiter and SE are very different things. SE is to Astronomy what Orbiter is to Aerospace/Astonautics.

Forget atmospheric flight, SE hasn't fully implemented gravity AFAIK, just Keplerian orbits. I think it will be a LONG time before you can launch from the surface and dock realistically to a space station in SE.

But, it is very beautiful. As an astronomy program, it is very, very awesome.

 

[fleurenf]

Have tested this out finally after solving the graphics issue and does look impressive but at this point in time the adrenaline and sheer joy when achieving orbit and reaching another planet gives Orbiter my thumbs up. I will check when SE is further in development though.

 

[JonnyBGoode]

The site seems to be defunct. Anyone have a current working link?

 

[Izack]

The site seems to be defunct. Anyone have a current working link?

Does the main page (http://en.spaceengine.org/) not work for you?

 

[JonnyBGoode]

Does the main page (http://en.spaceengine.org/) not work for you?

That worked. I was going off the initial link in the thread.

 

[Izack]

Ah. Yes, that was just an article about it at Apples for Geeks.

 

[N_Molson]

Interesting, great potential, but right know it's an "universal" planetarium, not a space simulator. Nice to get an idea of how extraterrestrial systems can look like.

Also helps to understand how the heart of the galaxy is a crazy place.

 

[Artlav]

Interesting, great potential, but right know it's an "universal" planetarium, not a space simulator.

He is working on space ships. And yes - add the physics of Orbiter to that kind of graphics, and Orbiter would be obsolete faster than you can get to ISS in a DG.

 

[N_Molson]

OK after a few hours of testing I'm impressed enough to download the 10 GB of hi-res textures & bump maps for the Solar System. The Moon is... wow... :blink:

 

[sorindafabico]

OK after a few hours of testing I'm impressed enough to download the 10 GB of hi-res textures & bump maps for the Solar System. The Moon is... wow... :blink:

Post some screenshots for those unlucky people who can't run SE, please

 

[N_Molson]

Notice that my GPU is an ageing GT-240, that worth nearling nothing nowadays. Also, I didn't adjusted the settings for rendering, so you might notice some aliasing.

First a Terra-like with life fictional planet, in a system 10 Parsecs away from us (really the close neighborhood). There are also rings, and I really like how they cast their shadows on the ground. SpaceEngine really shines on that kind of sharp, uneroded terrain, looks quite spectacular.

And several shots of the Moon (terrain generated from real heightmaps this time)

 

[Unstung]

Notice that my GPU is an ageing GT-240, that worth nearling nothing nowadays.

How well does the game run with that card? I've had the same GPU in my desktop and my laptop's graphics has similar performance. I may try this program out... eventually.

 

[Keatah]

I wonder how well intel iris integrated graphics will work?

 

[Enjo]

I think that an interesting thing to do now would be to create an abstract C++ interface that would allow our addons to work on various spaceflight simulators. Then you'd make an Orbiter-specific implementation, and then SpaceEngine, SpaceWay, Pioneer, etc.

@Artlav, you were working on something like this, right?

 

[N_Molson]

How well does the game run with that card?

Well, it really depends. Also, the CPU and the RAM are probably important for procedural terrain generation. I have an AMD Athlon 64 and 4 GB of RAM DDR3. Of course, in deep space, FPS is maxed out. When closing from a star you have some slowdowns, probably because of the fancy artifacts (that you can deactivate).

On "complex" planets, the first picture I posted is a "worse-case scenario" with an atmosphere, complex procedural terrain, and even rings. That gives 9-10 FPS, and if you want to enjoy all the terrain details, you have to move slowly or wait on a spot for every layer of detail to be generated. Still, it is very "playable", as you control a free camera. You can also roam under the oceans, when present.

The Moon with terrain loaded from heightmaps is much more FPS-friendly, also the lack of atmosphere helps. In counterpart, it is much less detailed when seen from the ground. IMHO what is lacking are procedurally-generated small rocks, like you can see in KSP.

Small bodies like asteroïds are unsurprisingly the most FPS-friendly, but of course there is not much to see there.

Notice that a toolbar you can access at any moment allows you to toggle "display/hide" nearly every feature : terrain, atmosphere, clouds, water (rather "liquids" !), stars, planets, etc etc... This has an immediate effect on FPS.

Also there are a ton of graphic settings you can adjust, including the complexity of generated terrain (max detail layer level), so you really don't need a super heavy config to enjoy it. :2cents:

Oh and using BitTorrent and fiber optics, the 10 GB of download was a breeze. Also when you're familiar with Orbiter, installation of extra textures is quite straightforward.

 

[Artlav]

@Artlav, you were working on something like this, right?

Not really.
The UAP have a Simulator Abstraction Layer that allows my autopilots and tools to be portable between Spaceway and Orbiter - tools call SAL functions, and these call whatever sim is being used. This also lets me use FreeOrbitMFD, Lagrange MFD and TransX in Spaceway, with few modifications.

I've also made something similar for vessels to allow porting Hius to Spaceway:

But this is Pascal-only.

Keyword is, my vessels and tools, it's very far from "anyone-can-use-it" state.

There are many differences between the three simulators, some of them are fairly fundamental, like number representation.
Add-ons would have to be written in the common framework, which is either all-encompassing, or lowest common denominator.
People would have to actually want to do it, to recompile and redo their work to fit that new thing.
I'm not sure it is practical - even Space Engine does not have the kind of community Orbiter have.

 

[Enjo]

There are many differences between the three simulators, some of them are fairly fundamental, like number representation.

Number representation can be solved with a simulator specific template argument or a typedef. No problem here.

People would have to actually want to do it, to recompile and redo their work to fit that new thing.
I'm not sure it is practical - even Space Engine does not have the kind of community Orbiter have.

I don't necessarily expect others to follow immediately. I'd only like to abstract the essential legacy Orbiter addons to something more ... recent. I'm also not starting it today. Just... some day between this job and another one. I find it encouraging that you've already paved the way, even if it's in Pascal. Just please keep it there for now.

 

[Izack]

Ringworlds for SE has been discussed. It would be amazing, as SE is the perfect program for large-scale structures. Perhaps Niven's own ringworld could be re-created in SE... these are the sorts of things that might be possible using a SE SDK.

That would be really cool. It's nice to find a life-supporting world, but it would be far more exhilirating to find evidence of civilisation. Cities, night-side lights on planets, Dyson structures, etc. Maybe a Kerbalnaut now and then. :lol:

If I stumbled on a ringworld in Space Engine I might just die of excitement.