Katawa wrote:

Flatfingers wrote:I do find Space Engine a little annoying, though (beyond not actually being available as an engine). It works so well that it makes my feeble efforts at 3D code look like the random hand spasms of a not-especially-clever infant. That's a bit embarrassing. It's the main reason why I wish SE were available as an engine, preferably with its functions exposed via an API -- I really don't enjoy the idea of having to go back to chasing stupid C++ pointer fails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_pointer

Gibberish like that is why I skipped from C to Java. Converting ideas to code is hard enough without having to coerce the language itself not to break in dumb ways.

That said, I appreciate the reference. I'm still done with C/C++, but it doesn't hurt to learn new things.

Like a Space Engine API (I hope).

Coerce the language? Smart pointers are part of the standard library. Java is just as bad if you want the same performance.
Scala might interest you as powerful and beautiful language since you already use Java.

They may be part of the standard library now, but as far as I know, they weren't when I moved to Java a decade ago.

Thanks for the pointer to Scala. I just read the "Scala Tutorial for Java Programmers," and although some commenters insist that Scala is both more powerful and more consistent than Java, they never back up that assertion. From what I've read, I'm not sure why I'd want to switch. This just looks like another case of people inventing some rarefied, arcane complications to a working language ("our language implements reverse back-encabulation") and declaring that this "fixes" some supposed flaw in the original language (that somehow never stopped anyone from writing readable working code).

I'm not blind to Java's faults. In particular I don't like how it's gotten progressively fussier from v5 on, adding ever more baroque syntactic and notional requirements in the way of just banging out code. (And do not get me started on Sun selling out to Oracle.)

What I really want, if I must learn some new language, is what might be called a "meat-and-potatoes" language. I want a language that provides the core toolkit of straightforward procedural programming -- variables, control structures, functions -- in a concise but readable and consistent format, and that doesn't waste my time pretending that some bit of theoretical Computer Science filigree is going to substantively help me get from idea to code. And then I want whoever created this language to leave it alone instead of making things up to add and remove and change because they have to sell upgrades to stay in business.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what Josh's node-based programming looks like.

Sorry, were we talking about Space Engine...?

Flatfingers wrote:What I really want, if I must learn some new language, is what might be called a "meat-and-potatoes" language. I want a language that provides the core toolkit of straightforward procedural programming -- variables, control structures, functions -- in a concise but readable and consistent format, and that doesn't waste my time pretending that some bit of theoretical Computer Science filigree is going to substantively help me get from idea to code.

http://dlang.org/

Katawa wrote:http://dlang.org/

Now that is interesting. D retains some C-isms I don't care for, but the intention is pretty much exactly what I described.

Thanks.

http://en.spaceengine.org/forum/21-11-1

Just seen that post in the SE forum, and i just have to say:

SO MUCH YES!!

At the point where this actually get released as a game engine we'll have another explosion in terms of space game amount
(Maybe we can get josh to work at it and including LTSL )

For some time now, Space Engine has had most of my Yes that Josh didn't get.

Last I saw SE was on Steam Greenlight and maybe would be getting an indiegogo option (since Kickstarter is not an option), but I haven't seen anything concrete on letting people build games based on the SE engine.

I just browsed the forum -- is there someplace where Vladimir recently talked about moddability features once SE 1.0 is released?

Flatfingers wrote: I just browsed the forum -- is there someplace where Vladimir recently talked about moddability features once SE 1.0 is released?

Im not frequenting the forum.

Im mainly drooling over the tech and spend half an hour every six months with it, wishing SE and the outerra engine would merge.

Flatfingers wrote:For some time now, Space Engine has had most of my Yes that Josh didn't get.

Not sure if i would agree with that. If you look at their plans for gameplay, and how much they have achived in 3 years, i would rather stick with Josh The engine has her beautyfull moments, but right now, it is like euro truck simulator 2014 in space ^^

Well, Josh did get an awful lot of my Yes.

Mmmmm, there's a new version out

HowSerendipitous wrote:Mmmmm, there's a new version out

Really?

Linkee

HowSerendipitous wrote:Linkee

And there was much rejoicing.

It looks ok.

Im still using good ol Celestia for things like this, and if you bother to download some high res textures it doesnt look any worse then this...

How detailed is our Solar system here? Specifically, does it show most of asteroids, comets and dwarf planets that we know about?

-edit- found it:

all Solar system planets and moons, including minor moons of gas giants, ~2000 asteroids and ~1000 comets (many asteroids and comets are disabled in the universe.cfg due to very long loading time, but you can enable them).

That should be enough for me...


And since i see some people here have some experience in programming these things... could i get some sort of input on, how hard it would be to build a semi realistic version of just our Solar system in an engine like say, Cryengine that became so nicely cheap and available recently. Or would Unreal engine be better? Im just looking for some general pointers.