Gf_neutronstar rendering problem

Just see it as “la goutte qui a fait déborder le vase”

(or the straw that broke the camel’s back for you weirdos)

I’m not sure where any of you are getting your information from, but if you have an hour of your life that you can set aside to learn some truly inspiring and enlightening information, then I sugest watching “wonders of the universe - stardust”.

I guarantee that if you haven’t already seen it, then there’s a fair chance it will change the way you view many things, where you came from, what you’re made of, what everything is made of in fact.

Also explained is the reason for the colour of a star, it’s based on it’s composition, the elements it’s made from determine the colour it burns. Blue, green, orange, whatever, it’s because it’s burning particular elements. In the same way you held an element such as magnesium or copper over a burner in chemistry and it gave a flame of a particular colour, so the same is true for a star.

It also features a great sequencing of the expansion and then collapse of a star in the final stages of it’s “life”, very informative in explaining how elements come to be, where the carbon we’re composed of comes from, where the oxygen we breath comes from, where the gold in jewelry or the uranium in a nuke comes from and why some elements are extremely rare compared to others.

We’re all made from stars

Wonders of the universe - stardust.

The color of a star has nothing to do with whatever it’s burning, sorry to burst your bubble. If you want to learn more, read on black body radiation.

It’s not my bubble you’re bursting FF, so I’m quite relaxed about the whole thing. Unless Brian Cox is brave or stupid enough to bullshit the world and take the bbc on a bullshit ride with him, I’ll take his word over yours for the time being though. If he is, then I guess that calls into question the credibility of everything he says, which would be a shame, considering I felt I learnt a lot from the series.

What are you anyway, a professor or astro physicist or something? That’s a serious question by the way, your word often seems final on such matters, as final as anything can be on such a crazy subject. And just to be clear, that’s not an attempt to take a swipe at you, but not knowing anything about you, it’s unclear as to why you feel so confident in dismissing what someone who is supposedly an expert in such things has to say.

Well, looks like he’s right, and you’re right to. So you’re both right. I’ll have to watch it again and pay more attention to exactly what he says, I know he talked about temperatures, maybe I only grasped the part he said said about composition.

Universe today.

I’m a physics undergrad, so yeah, I’d say I can at least tell you a thing or two about physics. At the very least, those things we are speaking of aren’t exactly quantum field theory. They’re very well explained and detailed by modern science.

Stars happen to be almost perfect black bodies. Yes, the color of a flame is determined by the material that is being burnt, but the sun doesn’t “burn”. That’s a misnomer. It’s a giant fusion reactor. These are not chemical reactions, but nuclear ones. A star’s color is entirely determined by its temperature - the Sun is yellow because its surface temperature matches that of yellow. However, it’s important to point out that the color we see isn’t actually because the Sun is yellow, since its emissions are mostly white anyways. That’s caused in part by atmospheric scattering, which is also the cause for the blue of the sky.

Other components in any star are just traces up and until the star reaches the giant/supergiant state, at which point it’ll fuse heavier and heavier elements. However, anything heavier than iron will require a supernova. Even then, a star’s color isn’t really determined by what it is “burning”, otherwise you’d have disco stars whenever they go end of life as they’d switch elements in relatively rapid succession.

Disco stars would be so cool, though. Way to go and ruin that dream of mine, FF >_<

Timmy51m wrote:
Well, looks like he’s right, and you’re right to. So you’re both right. I’ll have to watch it again and pay more attention to exactly what he says, I know he talked about temperatures, maybe I only grasped the part he said said about composition.

Universe today.

Ah, just remember when you’re watching anything Science related on TV, it has almost certainly been made to have the material accessible to the majority of the population

Undoubtedly Prof Cox is exceptionally clever, and has a marvellous gift when it comes to presenting (a combination of enthusiasm for his subject really capturing the viewer, and being able to break complex things into laymans terms).

Cox won’t give out false info, but he may give a very simple to digest explanation which hides the true complexity from the viewer in order to maintain viewer interest and allow for some degree of understanding

Not many would have watched if he’d gone on about the math behind everything

At a guess (and without trying), if you have a look at the Node_Transforms in gf_neutronstar_pulse.app#1.app, gf_neutronstar_pulse.app#2.app and gf_neutronstar_sparkles.app you’ll see there’s a 360 present. In the XML Project, it’'ll look something like:

 <single type="4" count="1">0: 0
      <loop count="2">0.0061660000: -0.001737, 0, 50.015507
          360.0000000000: 1000, 50.015507, 0</loop></single> 
```I think that **360** is the time at which it will increase to that size. If, say, you halve it, it should pulse twice as fast. (If it doesn't, sorry to have wasted your time. :))

Nope, tried changing it 180, no effect (at all, ~weird~)

Having another look, I see the emitters have a value of 360, which might need to match. The only other thing that looks promising is the BasicApp_Size. There’s two that look to be particularly interesting: gf_neutronstar.app and gf_neutronstar_outring.app. The latter especially, but I don’t really know how to change it. Perhaps something like this:

 <float type="1" count="2">0.0000000000: 400
     1.0000000000: 20000</float> 

 <float type="1" count="4">0.0000000000: 400
     0.5000000000: 20000
     0.5010000000: 400
     1.0000000000: 20000</float> 
```My reasoning is that it starts at 400 and ends at 20000, where it immediately resets to 400 and starts again. So just insert another one at the half-way mark. But even if it works, it's just a work-around, since it still doesn't control the overall duration.

Thats the ring that expands out. I messed with this one a long time back and kicked it way up so the ring would expand a very long way.

Well, I tried adding the space_farclip option and I notice something odd. If I look at the star from a distance obliquely (in turret view with ship neither pointed directly away or towards the star) I can see the effect at 26k away. But, if I’m in cockpit view looking directly at the star from that same point, it doesn’t show unless I turn the ship away.

This is my entry:
[SystemInfo]
space_color = 0, 0, 0
local_faction = li_p_grp
space_farclip = 100000

Yeah, yeah… I know. li_p_grp???!
I’ll get rid of that in the next iteration…

spin rate of 0.05 works great btw.

Edit:
After further playing with it I notice that if the solar is in the very corner of my screen in such a manner that I can not actually see the star, but rather just the edge of the rings I can see the effect at around 33k, but not further away. The moment I turn my view so that the solar is visible, the effect disappears until I’m at around 25k away. At that point the solar will remain visible regardless of view angle.

So, 0-25k effect is visible regardless of view angle
25k-33k, effect is visible only from an angle and the solar is off to the side of the view screen.

33k effect is not visible at all.

Figured it out:
Somehow I had two entries for the effect in effect_types.ini.
Getting rid of the incorrect entry fixed it. Working perfectly now.