Cataclysmic Variable Binaries (was SS Cygni Addon (almost))

buggs_moran · Post #1by **buggs_moran** » 20.04.2006, 00:54

I am just ironing out some kinks, but I should have a beta version of my SS Cyg addon any day now. Just some shots to give an idea of the addon. The first is the system as it looks now. Need to refine the middle part of the disk. The last is a comparason with Sol.

Dollan · Post #2by **Dollan** » 20.04.2006, 14:39

Most awesome!

...John...

bdm · Post #3by **bdm** » 23.04.2006, 08:54

It looks like a very good addon but I can suggest an improvement.

The shape of the primary star looks wrong. If it's feeding matter onto its companion, it should be nonspherical due to its filling of its Roche lobe. The primary star should have a model to simulate the full Roche lobe.

The teardrop shape of the Roche lobe is shown in a diagram on this page.

Echo · Post #4by **Echo** » 13.05.2006, 11:46

Hi, buggs_moran.
Where is this cygni addon?
Pleace post the link...
Thankful in advance!

buggs_moran · Post #5by **buggs_moran** » 13.05.2006, 12:36

Soon...

I am working on refining the model and data. We are also looking at the possibility of mass producing this style of binary in a similar fashion of Fridgers galaxies.

Echo · Post #6by **Echo** » 13.05.2006, 12:51

Eah...it`s good news.
Waiting for...LEBED` X1 (on ENG. Cygnus X1).

buggs_moran · Post #7by **buggs_moran** » 13.05.2006, 14:30

Check out the motherlode Echo. Cham has done a wonderful black hole addon for Cygnus X-1.

http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/creat ... gnusX1.zip

Chuft-Captain · Post #8by **Chuft-Captain** » 13.05.2006, 15:40

Buggs,

The matter transfer stream appears to be in a straight line (This could be just the viewing angle but if not, you might like to consider the following constructive criticism).

I'm no astrophysicist but IMHO this stream should spiral in a parabolic arc into the accretion disc, because it will take some time for particles in this stream to give up their angular momentum (from the rotation of the originating star).

Regards
CC

buggs_moran · Post #9by **buggs_moran** » 13.05.2006, 15:51

The transfer stream is on a curve. That is one of the most damning parts of these addons. (you experienced it in your 2001 addon) There is no cyclical movement. The stream is supposed to fall off of the Lagrange point where the star overfills the Roche lobe. In this system, the stars are so close together that it doesn't seem to curve.

Chuft-Captain · Post #10by **Chuft-Captain** » 13.05.2006, 16:38

buggs_moran wrote:In this system, the stars are so close together that it doesn't seem to curve.

Perhaps then, the curvature is fairly true to life... the closer they are, the greater the pull of the companion, and hence, the straighter the stream.

PS. I'm sure if I understand what this has to do with my 2001 addon. Are your referring to the docking of Orion?

Cham · Post #11by **Cham** » 13.05.2006, 16:46

What buggs_moran is doing is an heroic effort, considering Celestia's limitations on 3D representations of gases and nebulae. I also tried before to make an oblate star with a smooth matter bridge accreting to a black hole or to a pulsar. The results weren't satisfying to my taste, so I abandonned the project. It's just too frustrating to fight against Celestia's limitations. There are three things which kills my motivation here :

1- There are no cyclic (or periodic) movements along a simple path like a straight line, arc, or part of an ellipse. Actually, there's no way we can defiine a movement along an open segment (half an ellipse, for example). This is very important for mattter bridges.

2- All transparent 3D models have some "hard edges" which makes the matter bridge looking artificial. It should be smooth and fuzzy from all angles. This is currently not possible to do.

3- When we attach a bridge (transparent model) on a star, moving around makes the model to "blink" in some artificial way. There's a depth sorting problem when several transparent parts of the same model are showing. This is very frustrating.

I tried many tricks to overcome those limitations, using all sorts of models (cones, planes, torus, etc...) and trajectories. But I never found a way.

Dollan · Post #12by **Dollan** » 13.05.2006, 18:05

buggs_moran wrote:Soon...

I am working on refining the model and data. We are also looking at the possibility of mass producing this style of binary in a similar fashion of Fridgers galaxies.

That is something that I'll be looking forward to, most defintely.

...John...

Chuft-Captain · Post #13by **Chuft-Captain** » 13.05.2006, 18:07

Cham wrote: 1- There are no cyclic (or periodic) movements along a simple path like a straight line, arc, or part of an ellipse. Actually, there's no way we can defiine a movement along an open segment (half an ellipse, for example). This is very important for mattter bridges.

I can think of a huge number of useful dynamic things that could be done using this.

Cham wrote:2- All transparent 3D models have some "hard edges" which makes the matter bridge looking artificial. It should be smooth and fuzzy from all angles. This is currently not possible to do.

I've experimented with using atmospheres, but they can only be spherical. (ie. planets only). It would be quite good if an atmosphere could conform to the shape of any object.. I'd quite like to fill my O'Neill cylinders with an atmosphere.

Cham wrote:3- When we attach a bridge (transparent model) on a star, moving around makes the model to "blink" in some artificial way. There's a depth sorting problem when several transparent parts of the same model are showing. This is very frustrating.

IMO Depth-sorting bug is a serious problem.

Cham wrote:I tried many tricks to overcome those limitations, using all sorts of models (cones, planes, torus, etc...) and trajectories. But I never found a way.

Likewise.

buggs_moran · Post #14by **buggs_moran** » 13.05.2006, 23:17

Cham wrote:What buggs_moran is doing is an heroic effort,

Hmmm, heroic. You are far more skilled with the graphics I think Cham. One thing that will result from all of the efforts is a database of close binaries for Celestia. The pretties (cyclic motion for the matter stream and cataclysmic brightening) will have to wait until 2.0. At least all the data mining on actual systems should be done. I am working with Dr. Darren Baskill of the University of Leicster, UK to put together all of the systems. I will then be running a merge (Word, yeah it's tacky but I don't know anything but Pascal and Fortran and that was 15 years ago) through our data to create the systems and the disk structure (along with magnetic field influences

on a grander scale than one pair at a time). That is the main reason this is taking so long.

Cham wrote: 1- There are no cyclic (or periodic) movements along a simple path like a straight line, arc, or part of an ellipse. Actually, there's no way we can defiine a movement along an open segment (half an ellipse, for example). This is very important for mattter bridges.

Dreeeeeeeam, dream, dream, dream... If there was one thing that the programmer gods could grant celestia it would be that.

Cham wrote:2- All transparent 3D models have some "hard edges" which makes the matter bridge looking artificial. It should be smooth and fuzzy from all angles. This is currently not possible to do.

Volumetric fills. If ya can do it with an atmosphere...

Cham wrote: 3- When we attach a bridge (transparent model) on a star, moving around makes the model to "blink" in some artificial way. There's a depth sorting problem when several transparent parts of the same model are showing. This is very frustrating.

Agreed. Most of the creation troubleshooting centers on this item.

4- I would like to add one more. Ability for stars to have dynamic magnitude with a, once again, cyclical nature... I think the ability to set and Absolute magnitude minimum and maximum with a period would be fantastic. Not to mention the data is already out there (AAVSO), it might take a little mining, but not much and I would be up to the task.

Echo · Post #15by **Echo** » 24.05.2006, 09:28

Privet, guys!
What about other binary sistem & Black hole like LMX X-3 M(.)=9.

Rassilon · Post #16by **Rassilon** » 24.05.2006, 13:29

Cham wrote:
2- All transparent 3D models have some "hard edges" which makes the matter bridge looking artificial. It should be smooth and fuzzy from all angles. This is currently not possible to do.

Did you try using the built in nebula rendering to simulate a gasious effect? Overlay with this would produce some better results... Even better if Fridger would add a color script to the code in the dsc files... Unless Ive overlooked this....

You could miniturize a spiral galaxy over the ascension disk...

buggs_moran · Post #17by **buggs_moran** » 24.05.2006, 19:32

No I haven't. I should look in to that. There is some code out there that might be adaptable to Celestia which could have those sprite spheres (no better terminology) move along the path from the star into the accretion disk. However, this may be an idea for version 4.0 :wink:

. I don't even know how to call up nebula rendering in a file like an ssc or stc. Is there a whole part of this program I am unaware of?

buggs_moran · Post #18by **buggs_moran** » 02.06.2006, 03:24

Just an update on my progress with CV systems. In the picture below you can see three different systems SS Cyg, V426 Oph and LS Peg all shot 6 million km from their repective white dwarfs. The bottom two are preliminary models built from a file containing data on the systems They are also Intermediate Polars as you can see in the 2nd picture, note the magnetic field lines. More data will be able to be added to this file with the hopes of building hundreds of CV systems on the fly. I have been working hard on this in my spare time which is why nothing has been released yet. I will hopefully have something during the summer for all of you.

Malenfant · Post #19by **Malenfant** » 02.06.2006, 03:53

That really looks rather fab!

ANDREA · Post #20by **ANDREA** » 02.06.2006, 06:39

Wow Buggs, what a wonder!

Very nice and eyes-catching.
Bye

Andrea