[TML] The Making of SolarCreations

[Knapp]

Yes, you and Tim both are saying the same thing. That there is reality
(at your place in space) and then there is good gaming. I have been
bouncing back and forth between make every system have a planet with
life to have to 100% hard SF and have mining bases and such all over
the place.

The more I read about stars the more I think we are stuck with a
system that is based or at least started with old ideas and is being
stretched to fit new ideas instead of just being redesigned and
simplified.
It looks to me like all stars can be described with just mass, age and
metallicity and not much else. Every thing else can be calculated
given this data. Is this totally off the mark?
Douglas

On Jan 4, 2008 7:12 AM, Jerry W Barrington <jursamaj at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/08 8:08 PM, "Timothy Little" <tim at little-possums.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 07:15:09PM +0100, Knapp wrote:
> >> ['A',1],['F',3],['G',8],['K',14],['White Dwarf',10],['M',49],['Brown
> >> Dwarf',13],['Giant',1],['Special',1]
>
> Of course, a category like A spans a pretty large range in size and
> brightness.  Even a specific class like G2V spans more than a factor of 2 in
> brightness, depending on age.  That's why I'd rather generate a mass and an
> age.
>
> > [...]
> >> What would you experts out there choose for the right settings and
> >> numbers?
> >
> > Those look not unreasonable for our stellar neighbourhood.  The
> > numbers would vary in other settings, e.g. the galactic halo, globular
> > clusters, stellar "nursery" clusters and such.
> >
> > It also depends what you mean by the 'right' settings.  Most
> > realistic, or likely to give the most fun for a game?
>
> As that table shows, realistic means lots of M dwarfs.  Whether that is fun
> for a game depends on what you do with them.  :)
>

Yes, you and Tim both are saying the same thing. That there is reality
(at your place in space) and then there is good gaming. I have been
bouncing back and forth between, make every system have a planet with
life to have to 100% hard SF and have mining bases and such all over
the place.

The more I read about stars the more I think we are stuck with a
system that is based or at least started with old ideas and is being
stretched to fit new ideas instead of just being redesigned and
simplified.
It looks to me like all stars can be described with just mass, age and
metallicity and not much else. Every thing else can be calculated
given this data. Is this totally off the mark?

Given this is right, how would you make your random tables to create
this info for the Sol area of space and how would you calculate all
the other bits? Would this be to hard to do? I wish I knew more in
this area but I don't. I will keep reading and would love and links to
good info. Star counts (stats) that are easy to understand would also
be good.

Thanks

Douglas