Full list of criteria for terraforming? FDevs?

[Hadarmil]

I'm running into way too many bodies well within the habitable zone of both single stars and multiples - HMCs, WW and RBs that are not terraformable. So I thought well...maybe too little mass? But then I see ones that are 0.22 or 1.9 Emasses and terraformable, but others between those ranges that are not. If composition matters I haven't managed to find any meaninful patterns. I really hope there are no RNGs involved - that would really be the wrong place for it.

I've searched a bit but either my Google foo is lacking or there isn't any actual guide outside of stating HZ boundaries and body types.


I would love to see supplemental material stating what makes UC decide on such things.

 

[Krunchie]

If the temperature and/or atmospheric pressure is too high, it can't be a terraforming candidate.
Highest temp. is slightly above 1400 degrees and highest pressure is little above 4000 atmospheres iirc.

 

[Hadarmil]

If the temperature and/or atmospheric pressure is too high, it can't be a terraforming candidate.
Highest temp. is slightly above 1400 degrees and highest pressure is little above 4000 atmospheres iirc.

Yeah, already ruled those out.

Well, I've checked the "water world" that got me to open this post and it's an earthlike(without a lot of dry land)... I'm an idiot, but I still would like those conditions stated, prefferably in game or some supplementary PDF. "The great explorers guide to humanity's next home" or something.

 

[GunnerBill]

OP I agree!

And damned be to those ELWs that turn out to be high metal planets!

 

[Hadarmil]

OP I agree!

And damned be to those ELWs that turn out to be high metal planets!

Once we get atmospheric landings(/if...) I'll be all over them!

You can BTW use the "listening method" to spot them. Also ELW always have those pretty pretty blue hues - "fake ELWs" are more murky.

 

[GunnerBill]

Once we get atmospheric landings(/if...) I'll be all over them!

You can BTW use the "listening method" to spot them. Also ELW always have those pretty pretty blue hues - "fake ELWs" are more murky.

I'm pretty much there (now!) with telling between them but I still get that initisl buzz when the sysmap comes up with that cloudy blue disc... is it.. yes, no, yes... Noooooo

 

[MattG]

From EDDB, the min/max values for certain criteria.

	gravity	surface_pressure	surface_temperature	radius	earth_masses
Rocky Body (min)	0.400129708	0.000086	203.085251	3023.8145	0.0909
Rocky Body (max)	1.755329598	2611.497498	1338.760376	9493.139	3.89215
HMC (min)	0.400135316	0.000000	199.526306	2603.419	0.066757
HMC (max)	2.0018	7103.195302	1679.753296	12354.147	6.484125
WW (min)	0.400265126	0.000994	229.593323	2798.589	0.082427
WW (max)	1.999942998	1150.401263	663.006042	12397.916	6.792779

I would strongly suggest the biggest criteria for all CFTs (apart from being in goldilocks zone) is gravity between 0.4 and 2.0. For HMCs (and I suspect Rocky Bodies), temp needs to be at least 200K (rounded). 1680K might be the top value, but that could be lack of data. Similarly, for WW it looks like 230K (rounded) minimum with a possible max of 663 - but again, lack of data here, might be higher. I doubt mass / radius play a specific role in terraformability - outside of meeting the gravity requirements. I wouldn't put much value in surface pressure either.

 

[Speccy]

You can BTW use the "listening method" to spot them. Also ELW always have those pretty pretty blue hues - "fake ELWs" are more murky.

It's a lot easier since 2.3 to identify any type of planet, by the holo icon next to the scanner: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/346573-2-3-current-HUD-holo-icons-for-explorers

 

[Hadarmil]

From EDDB, the min/max values for certain criteria.

	gravity	surface_pressure	surface_temperature	radius	earth_masses
Rocky Body (min)	0.400129708	0.000086	203.085251	3023.8145	0.0909
Rocky Body (max)	1.755329598	2611.497498	1338.760376	9493.139	3.89215
HMC (min)	0.400135316	0.000000	199.526306	2603.419	0.066757
HMC (max)	2.0018	7103.195302	1679.753296	12354.147	6.484125
WW (min)	0.400265126	0.000994	229.593323	2798.589	0.082427
WW (max)	1.999942998	1150.401263	663.006042	12397.916	6.792779

I would strongly suggest the biggest criteria for all CFTs (apart from being in goldilocks zone) is gravity between 0.4 and 2.0. For HMCs (and I suspect Rocky Bodies), temp needs to be at least 200K (rounded). 1680K might be the top value, but that could be lack of data. Similarly, for WW it looks like 230K (rounded) minimum with a possible max of 663 - but again, lack of data here, might be higher. I doubt mass / radius play a specific role in terraformability - outside of meeting the gravity requirements. I wouldn't put much value in surface pressure either.

Firstof all, thanks for the pointing me to that list.

Now - I understand the numbers, but I would very much like from FD some details about what made these numbers into Elite. How can a 0.067Em planet be terraformed? What dictates the upper limit of atmospheric pressure? DO certain types of atmospheres have better leverage than others?

Everything not completely dependant on distance to star is unclear to me - were those numbers actually derived from research papers? I imagine it was, but the variability in the chart seems a bit too much.

 

[Hadarmil]

It's a lot easier since 2.3 to identify any type of planet, by the holo icon next to the scanner: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/346573-2-3-current-HUD-holo-icons-for-explorers

I found some holo icons too similar. Only ones for non gas giants I can tell for certain are MRW, IB and WW. Actually, MRW and WW look pretty much the same, only one is way too close to a star. Some HMC look exactly like ELW and AW, especially the "fake earths".

 

[Speccy]

I found some holo icons too similar. Only ones for non gas giants I can tell for certain are MRW, IB and WW. Actually, MRW and WW look pretty much the same, only one is way too close to a star. Some HMC look exactly like ELW and AW, especially the "fake earths".

Personally I have no problems distinguishing ELWs from others using the new holo-icons. There's a sort of cross-like feature to the bottom left of the icon for an ELW/AW which makes it easy to pick out. I got used to it in no time.

As for the MRW and WW icons looking pretty similar, yes that's true. But if you're selecting them from the system map then for a WW you'll be selecting a blueish body anyway, so you know it'll be a WW and not MR.

 

[marx]

For finding ELWs, you can find a handy guide with all the ways of recognizing them in one place here.

As for terraforming, as MattG showed the criteria are quite broad. To be frank, it seems that the terraforming technologies of Elite are almost magical. It would be nice if the "terraformability" of a world were better reflected in its payout, but perhaps that's for the future. What I do find odd though is that it's entirely possible to create terraformed Earth-like worlds that would end up having parameters well outside the limits of the "natural" Earth-like worlds.

The 0.4 g cut-off is probably limited so that the game's galaxy doesn't end up with too many Earth-likes and terraforming candidates. Although I wonder how many would there be if it were, say, 0.17 g. (That of the Moon, rounded up a bit.)

 

[Hadarmil]

For finding ELWs, you can find a handy guide with all the ways of recognizing them in one place here.

As for terraforming, as MattG showed the criteria are quite broad. To be frank, it seems that the terraforming technologies of Elite are almost magical. It would be nice if the "terraformability" of a world were better reflected in its payout, but perhaps that's for the future. What I do find odd though is that it's entirely possible to create terraformed Earth-like worlds that would end up having parameters well outside the limits of the "natural" Earth-like worlds.

The 0.4 g cut-off is probably limited so that the game's galaxy doesn't end up with too many Earth-likes and terraforming candidates. Although I wonder how many would there be if it were, say, 0.17 g. (That of the Moon, rounded up a bit.)

Yeah, the "magical" part is the bit that lodged itself in my seat cushion. Whenever I see things that make no sense like O type stars 480my old or icy bodies with a surface temp of 2500k+, I attribute it to star forge goofs. Can't generate a 1:1 galaxy proceduraly without quite a few of them. But the terraformability bit is a bit too mysterious with way too many numbers that just might add up if someone educated me a bit.

 

[LP Garnell]

I found some holo icons too similar. Only ones for non gas giants I can tell for certain are MRW, IB and WW. Actually, MRW and WW look pretty much the same, only one is way too close to a star. Some HMC look exactly like ELW and AW, especially the "fake earths".

As mentioned above, the ELW/AW holo icon is identifiable, but for me the bottom central feature looks like the end of a hockey stick. When I find one, do a hockey stick happy dance

The distinguishing feature to tell the diff between a WW and a MR planet holo icon is a series of three white dots that are located middle-lower right on the icon. Took quite a few scans to notice this myself.