So... First of all thanks again for your quick review and for your useful links !
I must say that we'll never pretend to create a full realistic universe for two major reasons: I (we) don't have the knowledge to do all the stuff really precisely and second, we wanted to stay in a fantasy world (Note that if we wanted pure science we wouldn't have create new mineral material such as new elements for the periodic table)
But, I'm still thinking about realism and you pointed out some problems of consistency. The best exemple is that we used a simplified solar system to have the astronomical simulation easier to calculate. Look at the orbits we made, they're almost all perfect circles... This isn't even possible in real but it was a question of "feasibility".
To say it quick, we decided few things and we tried to bring the most coherent elements to sustain these choices the way we could.
The real question would be this one, do you think it's even possible to create an acceptable univers with those predefined elements ?
• A colonizable planet with three moons (and one would be as black as possible to hide the stars behind it)
• A second sun really far away that could be seen as a distant star which moves really slowly
• A planet with a strong orbital excentricity to have it doing a major eclipse regularly (for exemple every 20 years) upon all the lightened hemisphere of another planet
etc...
PS: the starbursts on the climate map would be the regions where the seas are potentialy rough. And for the sun, I must admit I didn't really check it out. I will have this redefined as soon as possible...
For better realism, you should probably check the mineral materials and the plants (I got two friends in Biochemistry and Pharmacology)
Thanks again
PPS:I won't, nothing like this will ever be perfect science... And it would represent to much time flushed away.Don't throw it all away!
But I'm still confident about some corrections.
Reply With Quote