Is there a reasonable way to use numbers smaller than about 10^-6

Roger Guay irog at mac.com
Wed Nov 20 22:01:16 CET 2013


Wow Geoff, this is very impressive! I tried to do similar simulations of this kind in the past, but failed. At the time, I chalked it up to the complexities of the "3-body problem" and set it aside. I’ll be very anxious to hear about your progress. Please keep me/us posted, if you will.

Thanks,

Roger


On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Geoff Canyon <gcanyon at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not a secret. I posted about a month ago in fair detail, but I'm doing
> a space simulation, similar to Kerbal Space Program or Simple Rockets, but
> with correct gravity (they both take shortcuts that appall me). I just
> found out that the Animation Engine has a 3D projection function, so if
> that tests out I'm going to switch from 2D to 3D. The end result should be
> fairly simple visually, but with an accurate representation of every round
> body in our solar system (about 50) all of them applying gravity correctly
> and simultaneously to the rocket(s).
> 
> So far I have correct 2D gravity, export/import of universe definitions,
> multiple simultaneous rockets, landing, taking off, and crashing. The
> planets and moons run on set paths (I don't calculate their gravitational
> interactions with each other). I need to at least change the paths from
> circles to ellipses, or let them run freely. I need to finish converting to
> km/s/kg from the abstract numbers I started with. I need to add atmosphere.
> I need to real-ify the rockets (currently they are one-stage, crazy
> powerful, and have unlimited fuel). And if I'm lucky, convert to 3D. And
> start testing on an iPad (the eventual target).
> 
> And I will just say, orbits are hard.
> 
> gc
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Roger Guay <irog at mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> This sounds very interesting, Geoff. Sure would like to know what you’re
>> up to….
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Geoff Canyon <gcanyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ordinary math seems to peter out at 0.000001.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This puts 8.100e-13: put format("%1.3e", (1e0)/(1234567890123e0))
>>>>> 
>>>>> So is something like that the best way to go?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> My plan so far is just to do the math. If the result is 0, then increase
>> my
>>> timescale by 100,000 and try again. (and repeat as necessary) That way
>> when
>>> there is something overwhelming nearby, extremely distant/small objects
>>> will have 0 effect, but if there is nothing nearby/large, then
>>> smaller/farther objects will be applied across timescales that work for
>>> them.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




More information about the use-livecode mailing list