Greetings Ye Fellow Cartographers !

[Guldaroth]

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:

Don't throw it all away!

I won't, nothing like this will ever be perfect science... And it would represent to much time flushed away.
But I'm still confident about some corrections.

[jwbjerk]

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.

Ah, you should have said it's a fantasy world from the start... If it's a fantasy world, and you are inventing elements and so forth, i wouldn't be worried about many of the things i commented on-- but consistency is still important, and figuring out the implications of the new laws you've made for your universe.

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".

In that case i wouldn't worry about it. You can redefine the laws of orbital mechanics and solar-fusion without messing anything else up. In fact, sometimes with fantasy it's better to diverge from reality in a bold, obvious way, so readers aren't wondering if it was a mistake, or a purposeful divergence from our known reality. For instance just go ahead and proclaim that all orbits are perfectly circular-- except for your eccentric planet which is an exception due to some significant magical or cosmological reason. As you say, it makes the math easier.

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)

Sure if your are inventing elements, no problem. Or you could devise some magical cataclysm that turned it black (assuming you have magic)

• A second sun really far away that could be seen as a distant star which moves really slowly

I think astronomers consider this scenario unlikely-- not the second star thing, that's really common-- but that a habitable planet could be in such a solar system. I think part of the reason is based on theories of star/planet formation, most of which would have also considered some of the interesting extrasolar planets we've been discovering impossible or unlikely too.

• 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

In a real solar system the rotational speed (for all practical purposes) is based solely on the mass of the star and the distance of the planet. I don't know how easily your desired eclipse could be achieved (you would have to play with the numbers), but in the case of your scenario, i wouldn't necessarily worry about it.