Re: [nbos] [AS] Binary Star SystemsCharles Sykora Mon Dec 11th, 2006
I know very little about FWE or its sister program from nbos, Fractal
Mapper. If you want to edit your landforms, I'd recommend Fractal
Terrains, the other program AS can link to. FWE is probably easier
to do landform editing (I really haven't tried), but the problem
there is that it doesn't handle negative elevations (i.e. ocean
bathymetry), whereas AS does. I am part of a group trying to put
together a tutorial for taking Fractal Terrains to CC3, but the
current weaknesses in FT Pro make the procedure so complicated that I
doubt anyone has the patience to do it (I actually got very far with
the tutorials for the FT Pro part of taking a hand-drawn continent,
adding random additional landforms in FT Pro and controlling climate,
etc). I have currently shifted, however, to the Celestia<->AS
To answer your question, I'd start in FT Pro and then substitute the
map into your solar system in AS.
On Dec 11, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Doug Jessee wrote:
> I for one would greatly appreciate something like that. I am
> working on learning AS to build a custom solar system and would
> like the kind of renderings that Celestia can do of this system.
> I have a newby type question. Where do you start to map your
> planet? Do you start with AS or FWE? I have a pretty good idea how
> I want continents laid out and specific details of one of the
> continents, but as I am learning, I am not sure where to start.
> Thanks in Advance,
> Lloyd D. Jessee
> On 12/10/06, Charles Sykora <charlesdsykora-at-mac.com> wrote:
> Mike, if you want photorealistic astronomy renders, check out
> Celestia. I am working on import and export scripts for AS that will
> take data from or send data to Celestia. While you can load
> artificial systems/worlds into Celestia, they are hard to generate,
> and that's why I think the answer is to generate much of your
> universe randomly in AS, edit it to your liking, and then export to
> Celestia for photo-realistic renders.
> On Dec 10, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Mike Oliver wrote:
> > I don't know how complex orbital mathematics (mechanics?) is, but I
> > suspect it would be beyond the ordinary member of Joe Public. It
> is my
> > belief, from gaming experience, that the average player doesn't
> > actually
> > recognise whether some of the science is inaccurate. For instance,
> > in my
> > current game, I showed them a system diagram in AS with all-circular
> > orbital paths (VERY unusual, I suspect) and nobody mentioned it.
> > I don't even know if AS is capable of showing elliptical orbital
> > paths.
> > I would LOVE to see detailed, astronomically accurate, 3D views of
> > space
> > within AS but, until Ed and his colleagues can employ an astronomer
> > who
> > has an intimate knowledge of 3D visual programming and doesn't want
> > more
> > than a small financial nod, I suspect we may have a while to wait.
> > Meanwhile AS does almost everything I really need and I suspect a
> > more if only I had the courage to try to understand, write and
> > implement
> > scripts. So thanks and congratulations to the NBOS boys.
> > In the long run, I suspect it is we Game Masters who have the
> desire -
> > the players just want a good scenario, well run and pretty to
> look at;
> > no need for scientific accuracy.
> > Cheers,
> > Mike
> Nbossoftware mailing list
Nbossoftware mailing list