Spoiler What comes after Asteroid Belt?

[Nabucodonosor]

Felec, do not misconstrue the absence of Greek from my description for lack of understanding -- as seems to be the case with you, for scotopic vision is just a Greek-Latin way of saying 'visual perception in darkness'. You DO know what 'perception' means? I actually read and write (old) Greek and Latin but I aim to not rely too much on words foreign to the language I try to communicate in; the reference to 'my professor' a few postings back was a not-so-subtle hint that I actually studied physics and astronomy. I suggest, if you have questions you expect me to answer, keep in mind that I don't just read off of Wikipedia pages without background knowledge and be a little less ...confontational, shall we say?

You are not wrong in your observation that a perfectly white, sunlit paper under clear, blue sky at daytime actually stays white, I never stated anything different. But this was kinda my point, that perception may differ from physical reality.
Our Sun's spectral classification is G2V, which makes it a yellow star, because the Sun 'produces' yellow light by wavelength definition.

The moonlight may not blind you but your visual perception apparatus, which includes both eyes and brain, is unable to bring the weak colors to your consciousness, they are being eliminated by the neural math somewhere on the way. So even if you do not feel blinded, you are nonetheless, which happens in many more regards to all of us every day, which is why this concept is an extremely important lesson to always bear in mind: I might be unable to see something although I am not aware of it, and I can not imagine how.

The Moon's surface is not homogeneous, okay, we seem to agree on that one, my goal was not to deliver an exhaustive description of the Lunar surface.
Earth, where clouded, actually looks white from space and many clouds here are darker than the brighter regions of the Moon, and, yes, the very dark, deep ocean looks bright blue from space, the dark green forests bright green from high above, do we see a pattern here? Sunlight is very, very bright and it brightens perceived colors. If you are used to discerning no more than 200 colors and naming even less then, yes, white dominates the Moon. 'Dominates' implies majority/ overweighing, not exclusiveness.

 

[DeletedUser9329]

It is impossible mine jupiter.. the pressure in jupiter is so extreme and its surface is so deep from where it's atmosphere begins... any ship and you (even if you have a sci-fi starship), would be crushed before reach the 50% of the distance to reach it's surace. so, any era where you can mine jupiter would be in all therms very unrealistic.

You say that there is no way to mine Jupiter, even with a sci-fi spaceship. What about drones and constructions like Cloud City from Star Wars?? You don't need to mine the surface, you could mine various depths of the atmosphere.

 

[DeletedUser10265]

Felec, do not misconstrue the absence of Greek from my description for lack of understanding -- as seems to be the case with you, for scotopic vision is just a Greek-Latin way of saying 'visual perception in darkness'. You DO know what 'perception' means? I actually read and write (old) Greek and Latin but I aim to not rely too much on words foreign to the language I try to communicate in; the reference to 'my professor' a few postings back was a not-so-subtle hint that I actually studied physics and astronomy. I suggest, if you have questions you expect me to answer, keep in mind that I don't just read off of Wikipedia pages without background knowledge and be a little less ...confontational, shall we say?

Blah, blah, blah...
Dude, I don't know what did you study, but actually I have a degree in physics. And I can see what bullsht you wrote earlier. That's why I suspect the lack of understanding at your side.
Anyway, a lot of words originate from latin or greek. Especially technical, medical and scientific terms. Don't blame me for that. By using proper terms I make it easier for anyone to find what it actually means.
And scotopic vision means you baiscally do not recoginze colours when it's dark around you - because those tiny 'things' (cones) in your eyes which detect colours are not working. Yes, humans vision in low light intensities is similar to old 'black-and-white' TV. You coould learn that on biology classes at school, or at wikipedia if you were truant at this time.

You are not wrong in your observation that a perfectly white, sunlit paper under clear, blue sky at daytime actually stays white, I never stated anything different. But this was kinda my point, that perception may differ from physical reality.

Oh, really? You never referred to "physical reality", however you define it, just until now. When we talk about colours, we talk about perception of human beings, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise.Various creatures percept colours in a different way. Talking here about how astronomers classify stars is pointless here, as the majority doesn't know much about it. Thus, white is a mixture of all colours from the visible spectrum and we shall stick to that here. The Sun is white.
And you wanted me earlier to have a quick glance on the Sun to "prove" that it is yellow. It is not. The white piece of paper is white in the sunlight because it reflects (scatters) most of the sunlight pretty much uniformly in the terms of wavelengths (colours). If the sun was yellow, the white piece of papaer would look yellow in the sunlight (you might want to try exposing a piece of paper to a setting or rising sun and see whether the colour of paper changes or not). Somebody who claims to have studied physics should know that.

Our Sun's spectral classification is G2V, which makes it a yellow star, because the Sun 'produces' yellow light by wavelength definition.

Lol, dude, now i really doubt if your "studying physics and astronomy" ever went beyond reading wikipedia.
There are different ways to classify stars - mass, surface temperature, etc. The surface temperature indicates where the peak of light emission is, thus it tells us something about the colour. But calling the sun yellow, telling me to have a glance on it "to prove it" and then "backing it up" with some wikipedia entry, which you clearly didn't fully understand, is silly. So yes, in the classification you linked, the sun is classified as "yellow", but if you read further you would discover that the Sun is very close to "white" category and the sunlight is white in fact. And you could also discover that the colour we see may change as the star evolves.
Anyway, the visible spectrum of humans is adjusted to emission spectrum of the Sun. The visible spectrum covers the highest intensity of Sun's emission, and that's why "white" is white. If the Sun was bigger or smaller, or on a different stage of evolution when the more complex life forms on Earth appeared, it would be hotter or cooler, the emission spectrium would be different and we would probably call "white" something different.
Someone who claims to have studied physics should know that.

The moonlight may not blind you but your visual perception apparatus, which includes both eyes and brain, is unable to bring the weak colors to your consciousness, they are being eliminated by the neural math somewhere on the way. So even if you do not feel blinded, you are nonetheless, which happens in many more regards to all of us every day, which is why this concept is an extremely important lesson to always bear in mind: I might be unable to see something although I am not aware of it, and I can not imagine how.

However true at some points, it's bullsht overall. You could of course use some lenses or mirrors to scatter the light if it does really blind you, but that's not the point. If you want to be hyper-correct, then you should say that no single physical object has a defined "colour" and talking about colours is a nonsense in fact because what you call "green" consists of an infite (continuum) number of wavelengths. But it leads to nowhere, you know?
We call an apple "red" even if it has some green/yellow/brown spots. But red dominates, thus we make a simplification. Same with all other objects, including the Moon. Which is white.

Earth, where clouded, actually looks white from space and many clouds here are darker than the brighter regions of the Moon, and, yes, the very dark, deep ocean looks bright blue from space, the dark green forests bright green from high above, do we see a pattern here? Sunlight is very, very bright and it brightens perceived colors.

Clouds are white. If a cumulonimbus (oh, latin again... sorry if you got problems with it) seems to be dark gray, it's because it is so thick that most of the sunlight is absorbed/scattered in the upper parts and very little comes through. Lack of light - darnkess. That's why you need to turn on the lights in your home in the middle of the day when you have a cumulonimbus (damned latin) above your head.
The very dark, deep ocean doesn't look at all from the space. What you see in space is the light reflected from the upper layers of the water. No sunlight goes to the abyss, 99.9999999999...% is absorbed or reflected. Someone who claims to have studied physics should know that.
The green forest stays green.
The Moon stays white.

If you are used to discerning no more than 200 colors and naming even less then, yes, white dominates the Moon. 'Dominates' implies majority/ overweighing, not exclusiveness.

I never claimed that the Moon is pure white (whatever it means). But it's not yellow or whatever you called it earlier.

 

[Nabucodonosor]

Felec, stepping up your confrontation game will get you nowhere here, I am not talking to you in the language you think.
I am painting a Monet and you explain to me, reality is not made of colored blotches. You are correct, of course, but you do not get the picture.
I apologize for assuming you less academically decorated than you are. But if this bothered you, why respond in kind? And why would that bother me with several degrees when I also highlighted the fact earlier that one of my key realizations in university was, degrees mean jack squat in real understaning of nature, it just proves that you either are able to replicate your teacher's steam engine and can communicate with your peers in an agreed-upon way -- or have enough money to buy it.

The third paragraph was the most important one underlining the central problem you have with my writing, you read it as the well trained physicist you are and, again, you get your physics right. You remain, however, blind, and know not how, to what I am trying to convey. I am not talking to the initiate trying to best him.
I am talking to the uninitiated and try to broaden their minds, to see a larger world, to not take everything out of academia as truth by the spoon. When I talk of our yellow sun, it is as much poetic as the number in Kelvin is not, I have moved beyond calculating our future to painting it beautifully because I understood that imagination ultimately is the canvas on which the actual future is built. That is why Hollywood is such a closely and jealously guarded apple, by the way.

I am more of an artist today despite my scientific background and while you might think them opposites, they are not. It is quite possible that we fight similar battles on very different fronts. This is why I underlined so heavily the lesson of assumed blindness or ignorance and why being nice is such a good idea: You might give in to the illusion that you argue the right point whaen in reality the direction you strike your blows in, is 95% off. And when you have been nice throughout your argument, it is much easier to make up in the end. Another lesson in life.

 

[an inhabitant of carcosa]

Oh, get a room you two.

 

[Dudettas]

Please keep this on topic.

 

[DeletedUser9982]

The only thing that matters to me when talking about new ages, are the GBs..
And by the way, let me just tell you, i dont care about new ages, FoE was intended to reach ONLY The Future.. Even Devs at the time said "The Future will be the last age"
I play for a few heres already, and i can say this, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THE FUTURE ERA
The game was just ruined after that..

Once again.. The GBs, its all that matters!
So please.. Make sure to deliver PROPER GBs Bonus this time!

One more thing.. Covid19 might infect everyone before the new age arrives
Just a guess

 

[Rakshas]

The only thing that matters to me when talking about new ages, are the GBs..
And by the way, let me just tell you, i dont care about new ages, FoE was intended to reach ONLY The Future.. Even Devs at the time said "The Future will be the last age"
I play for a few heres already, and i can say this, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THE FUTURE ERA
The game was just ruined after that..

Once again.. The GBs, its all that matters!
So please.. Make sure to deliver PROPER GBs Bonus this time!

One more thing.. Covid19 might infect everyone before the new age arrives
Just a guess

Oh what a surprise, a doomsayer mentions a covid19 doomsday after doomsaying about FoE. How about we wait and see what the new age is like, person who thinks FoE was ruined after the Future despite never going beyond the Future.

 

[Tanmay11]

The only thing that matters to me when talking about new ages, are the GBs..
And by the way, let me just tell you, i dont care about new ages, FoE was intended to reach ONLY The Future.. Even Devs at the time said "The Future will be the last age"
I play for a few heres already, and i can say this, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THE FUTURE ERA
The game was just ruined after that..

I always felt the Ages after The Future should be parallel, like allowing us to choose the kind of future we want our cities to be in. so after Future we could choose to be in either OF or SAM etc.
we've got like 3 years of research already in? Gbs like arc and event buildings speed it up but still how many eras can they keep adding?

I Don't think the Game's ruined though.

 

[Nabucodonosor]

I always felt the Ages after The Future should be parallel, like allowing us to choose the kind of future we want our cities to be in. so after Future we could choose to be in either OF or SAM etc. [...]

This would be a pretty different game though, wouldn't it be?
I mean, I have been a proponent of graphical Age freedom forever, is that what you want, or an actual split after, say, Tomorrow and the choice whether to advance to Future #1 characterized by advanced civilization in ecological harmony, or the Arctic Future characterized by industrial growth and exploitation, or the postapocalyptic steampunk-matrix Oceanic Future, ot the VF and so on, and implement all technological innovations of a general tech tree in a way specific to the chosen future model? Maybe even have entirely separate tech trees?

 

[DeletedUser10265]

I am painting a Monet...

OK, you win. Kids use the yellow crayon to paint the Sun, so the Sun must be yellow!
Join your colleagues and keep painting your Monet with crayons.

Oh, and I know it was a metaphor. "Crayons" are a metaphor as well.

 

[DeletedUser9947]

As this is now released on the live servers should it be moved to the archive?

???

This is about Space Age Venus, not SAAAB.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

The game was just ruined after that..

Once again.. The GBs, its all that matters!

actually, some people say that the Arc ruined the game. and.... it was released in Future Era

 

[Dessire]

I'm really interested about "where will be located our colony in this era?"


It's not the same have a colony in mars or on an asteroid and have one in Venus where the temperature is obviously very high; also, the technological level we have in SAAM is not enough (as I know) to terraform Venus as "we did" in Mars.
With that being said. from where we are going to gather the new resources?


Is more realistic have a colony under the earth/ground (near the earth's core, as much as possible) to develope there new technology to withstand high temperatures instrad of do it in the venus itself.

Also, can't wait if in a future we will be able to gather energy directly from a star by using a dyson sphere or from a black hole! or from supernovas!

(I'm still waiting for a cyberpunk future and a sky future with buildings floating above clouds or in the sky, with clouds under the buildings and 1x1/2x2 roads simulating clear sky ).

 

[SeekerDave]

In SAV I find it very likely that we will loose the main city on earth because , as the announcement for SAAB said , Based on known terrestrial reserves, key elements for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50 to 60 years . I take that as SAV will be 60 years later and there will be no earth . I think this age could be a very differnt age with no earth

 

[an inhabitant of carcosa]

In SAV I find it very likely that we will loose the main city on earth because , as the announcement for SAAB said , Based on known terrestrial reserves, key elements for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50 to 60 years . I take that as SAV will be 60 years later and there will be no earth . I think this age could be a very differnt age with no earth

And all your buildings in your main city, including those that some people bought for thousands of Dollars disappear in a cloud of logic?
Yes. Your scenario is very likely to happen.

 

[Gindi4711]

I guess venus will follow the same logic as Mars and SAAB, but there really should be some new elements in it because building the 3rd colony exactly the same would be really lame.

 

[Dessire]

In SAV I find it very likely that we will loose the main city on earth because , as the announcement for SAAB said , Based on known terrestrial reserves, key elements for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50 to 60 years . I take that as SAV will be 60 years later and there will be no earth . I think this age could be a very differnt age with no earth

I would love that! would be the first time since the creation of this game where we can finally see something different arround our cities!

And all your buildings in your main city, including those that some people bought for thousands of Dollars disappear in a cloud of logic?
Yes. Your scenario is very likely to happen.

that is not necessary. devs/designers only must change the design of the surrounding terrain around our cities. nothing more than that. So, if you visit the city of a player who is in this new era, instead of see water, graps, trees, etc. you'll see venus environment (terraformed or not).

and would be more than ok if both, artic harbor and the oceanic submarine disappear because we have the space carrier. we don't really need them.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

i am just hoping we get more of a true "exploration" feature instead of two "patches" of "provinces" like we had on mars and also in the belt. being able to truly explore a map would be more fun imho.

also: our earth city needs to have extra space added; venus age will fill up the remaining space probably and i'm sure it's not the last age inno had in mind

 

[shad2389]

Spoiler: What comes after Asterid Belt?

Space Age Venus

image does not work anymore