Do you guys believe this moon could support life? - Page 3

Trafalgar · 2012-06-25, 01:16 AM

I was wondering if it was still cloning on death/respawn, personally, as that would mean you were technically dead still, and a clone was living your life after you respawned.

I don't think there's been anything in the new lore about the respawn system yet, though.

Ratstomper · 2012-06-25, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

I was wondering if it was still cloning on death/respawn, personally, as that would mean you were technically dead still, and a clone was living your life after you respawned.

I don't think there's been anything in the new lore about the respawn system yet, though.

In the original lore, once troops moved through the warp gates they sort of attuned themselves to the planet itself and automatically revived upon death. That's what "reconstruction" and "deconstruction" meant; since everything, including the soldiers, was made with nanites.

At least, that's how I understood it. No cloning necessary. Just rebuilding the same body over and over.

ODonnell · 2012-06-25, 01:36 AM

Its a moon in a game. That means they can do what they want. Hell MiB had an entire town of little people living in a locker. In closing, if we can have warp gates with limitless energy, we can have a moon that supports life with virgins throwing pickles at everyone.

Huh?

Ainte · 2012-06-25, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

The problem is that once that gas giant goes above a particular mass it isn't a gas giant anymore, and you can only hit 75-80 jupiter masses before it becomes a star and starts to fuse hydrogen. Anything big enough to have moons with earthlike gravity is probably going to have to be a large brown dwarf, if it's even possible for a brown dwarf to have satellites that massive and that close together (though brown dwarfs do not fuse hydrogen, or anything else after a few million years, if they ever fused anything at all, e.g. deuterium).

What about titan that has got all elements needed to sustain life if only our star where brighter

indirect · 2012-06-25, 02:27 AM

More than likely not a moon. You're assuming that 'moon' isn't a planet, and that 'planet' isn't a 'super-planet.'

Remember, Jupiter is about 110 times the size of earth.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/interacti...lanetSize.html

Canaris · 2012-06-25, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

An alternate explanation, of course, would be that the habitable moons have artificial gravity generators either installed by Vanu's civilization or the TR (I would doubt the TR would have the tech to do that).

It's exactly the TR who terraformed them, it's already been written in the backstory that the TR is quite accomplished at terraforming planets and moons to small to sustain their own atmosphere, no alien tech nonsense just good old terran know how

MrKWalmsley · 2012-06-25, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by PsychoXR-20

It's nice to know I am not the only one who thinks this. Being a sci-fy buff and an astronomy buff, this is one of that areas that to me, is very important. It's all about making the atmosphere of the game believable, and the current sky is a little iffy in that regard.

In order for this sky to be even remotely believable, it means that Auraxis is a moon. The massive object that is only ever seen as a very think crescent has to be a gas giant, anything else and the entire Auraxian system would cease to exist, as that object and Auraxis would have been decimated by tidal forces. (for fun, if that object were the size of our moon it would be some 30k km away from Auraxis, 10 times closer than our moon is to Earth.

While sort of true, we can guesstimate using the known sizes of objects in our solar system. For example, if we take a picture of our moon, and put it in a screenshot, and scale it to a size that looks right, we know have a basis to use for every other object. When you do this you find that the rocky moon is visually about three times as big as our moon. We can hypothesize two scenarios then, if that moon is the same size as our moon than it's three times as close. If it's the same distance as our moon than it's three times as big. Both of these could be wrong, because it is impossible to know exactly without the devs telling us the size of the moon or the distance of the moon. However it is clearly large enough to have coalesced into a nice sphere, so we can assume it is of sufficient size (not a super close asteroid sized moon like Mars)

If either of the above two hypotheses are true than that's bad. If the moon is as far away as our moon, than that "moon" would be bigger than Auraxis (which I suppose isnt too bad since Auraxis itself is already a moon) and if it's the same size as our moon than it would be three times as close and the tidal forces of an object being that close would wreak havoc on Auraxis.

I don't even know where to start with the other garden world orbiting that giant object, but everything I know tells me that planet is wrong. Make it way smaller and put it behind the gas giant and you might have something that's believable.

Just throwing my own wishes and suggestions, in here, but I say get rid of the two smaller moons and put something a little more fantastical in the sky, either give Auraxis a ring system (image how cool that would be if certain continents at certain times of the day were shadowed by the rings) or give the gas giant a ring system. If you ever get to the point where you give the moons phases that could also be very cool having for a few days bright nights as the world is illuminated by this giant.

All I know for sure is that at best, the current night sky feels cluttered.

Right on brother! Nice to see other people playing this game who are Sci-Fi nerds and not just FPS buffs! I would love to see the sky looking realistic, at the moment it just seems like something you'd see in the sky of World of Warcraft; a massive cluster of nonsensical Sci-Fi-yness!

Originally Posted by Rbstr

We've got up-close experience with 9 planets out of so many it's practically uncountable.

You mean 8. I know it's hard for all of us but I think it's about time we accept the fact that Pluto is not a fully fledged planet.

But onto your actual point, we may not be able to have close experience with the hundreds of planets discovered by Kepler and other observations, but we have the laws of physics to judge this by. We should just all accept that the devs put absolutely no scientific thought into what the sky would look like or what kind of planetary system Auraxis would be a part of. It was just made to look spacey and pretty. Which is unfortunate to a hard-sci-fi nut like me.

Canaris · 2012-06-25, 06:18 AM

I like how the Auraxis sky looks at present, it has character, making it look realistic with just blue sky and a far off moon robs you of the feeling you're on an alien world.

Toto we ain't in Kansas no more

Toppopia · 2012-06-25, 06:22 AM

I want to see nice nebulas and stuff, and awesome weird looking sky when all the moons and gas planet line up to cause amazing patterns. Sure it doesn't look realistic but my could make it happen once every 1-2 months. Just make the sky look amazing and everyone will love it.

MrKWalmsley · 2012-06-25, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

making it look realistic with just blue sky and a far off moon robs you of the feeling you're on an alien world.

Well if the weird ass trees, crazily rapid environmental shifts over short distances, and the mass of elaborate high-tech buildings isn't enough to make you feel like your not at home, then I fear for your imagination.

Also it does not have to just have one moon to be realistic. Auraxis could be a moon, orbiting a gas giant with other moons circling it all of which are visible, but just not on such a jarringly unrealistic scale. Would you say that seeing a gas giant and a nearby moon would suddenly feel like your back on Earth if they are realistically sized (which would still be quite some size by the way), and the only way that sight can feel at all alien is if it is basically coming right at you?

SztEltviz · 2012-06-25, 06:36 AM

Big thing on the left is a high mass gas giant, earthlike thing is a moon of the giant, with a very dense core, Auraxis is an another moon of the giant, the thing on the right is an extremly small ice moon.

About orbits: maybe these are not stable orbits, for example: the right side moon is a deep space wanderer that just captured, soon they will crash into each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet#Size_and_mass
To be round:

For a body made of less rigid water ice, the limit should be about 320 km (diameter) and ×1019 kg.

Sabrak · 2012-06-25, 06:37 AM

Not exactly on topic, but I was trying to remember something.

Didn't the orginal Auraxis in PS1 have rings you could see from the ground?

If so, I hope they'll be back in PS2, that'd look pretty cool with Forgelight's magic.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-25, 07:33 AM

Auraxis is a moon circling a gaseous super giant planet. Auraxis is too small to have the mass to sustain any kind of atmosphere so I believe auraxis was terraformed and has an artificial gravity holding everyhting in. That small planet in the picture is another small terraformed moon with artificial gravity also orbiting the gas giant. This is really a pretty fantastic situation and Im loving it.

Whats cool is this gas giants could have dozens of moons in orbit around it. It means if there was to be any kind of space travel addition to the game the distances would be trivial compared to interplanatary flight=more fun because flying for hours in space is kind of dull(eve)

Also if those moons happened to be other Auraxis game servers then the potential of interplanetary wars as a future update could happen. The competition could be limitless.

MrKWalmsley · 2012-06-25, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

lol the person who wants to remove the sci-finess of the sky fears for my imagination,

Dr. Evil - Riiiight [HD] - YouTube

Well you've just proved it since you think that changing the size of objects takes away it sci-finess, and are incapable of perceiving a gas giant and a different moon in the sky and a clearly alien environment in the future as sci-fi unless the planet and moon are absolutely colossal in size. Since the only thing I am advocating is the shrinkage of the astral bodies appearances.

So no you idiot, I do not want to take the sci-fi out of this game, I want to reinforce the "sci" part of that term, while still encompassing the fictional time frame. If I was trying to take the sci-fi out of the game I would be suggesting that this game be based on Earth either in the present or the past now wouldn't I?

Tell me, what is sci-fi-less about being on a life permitting moon orbiting a gas giant with other moons orbiting it, but those happen to be realistically sized visually?

Canaris · 2012-06-25, 08:22 AM

So either we have stunningly beautiful

or realistic

I'll go with stunningly beautiful thanks