Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Infobox/Body"

Revision as of 17:57, 14 July 2013

Awesome

Good job, I was just thinking about how we needed to add one of these. -- N3X15 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to expand on this wiki as much as my limited wiki editing skills will allow :) --Craigmt1 (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Soon I`ll make it multilanguage. Is my way of making many languages support in one template normal? example. Or there is some easier way? --Varden (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure :/. If you look at the English and Spanish pages for planets on Wikipedia, they use different templates.[1] [2] --Craigmt1 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm to lazy for watching every change in English version and change Russian one. In multilanguage version of template you just change number, and in all languages number would be same. --Varden (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I did a little searching, this is the best I could find. It looks like some sort of extension for translation. Perhaps you could ask one of the admins to implement it? http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Translate --Craigmt1 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
      • If it is just a translator - bad idea. I don`t want to translate every change, I want it to work automatically. P.S. Didn't read linked page, just looked and closed =) --Varden (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dual precision

I am not sure if this would be possible, but I was wondering if the template could be updated so that you can enter the exact value, say 1545612.5625m (yes I mashed numbers for that) and the template automagically can work out to display that value as 1.546Mm but when you hover over it, you get the full exact value, perhaps click on it to toggle to it. This cater for both people wanting to have high precision values and show (by default) more human readable values. I am not sure how possible this really is though, especially the 'click to toggle' as it might require a little snippet of JavaScript, which I don't think is that easy to slip into wikis like this. Thecoshman (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

that would be awesome if that could be done. It might be easier for the scripting if it didnt say 1.546Mm but if it said 1.546x10^6 m (or just e6). That way it is mathematically the same, just a different representation of the same unit. But I, by far, dont know enough about programming to be certain about it.--Azivegu (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If we could use a little bit of JavaScript it would be really easy. It would simply require that the data is entered in the base unit, so m rather then Km. I think the templates can do something similar statically, so you enter the precise value and the template will convert it to 'x10^' format. Thecoshman (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mean Anomaly --> Longitude of Ascending Node and Argument of Periapsis

Where are the Longitude Of Pericenter and the Longitude Ascending Node? These are very important. Has anyone even noticed that they're missing? Also, we should get ready for adding axial tilt, as it may happen.--Mocha2007 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mean anomaly" should be "Mean Anomaly at Epoch." Also, absolutely necessary for specifying the orientation of the orbits in space are Longitude of Ascending Node and Argument of Periapsis. For interested users, these can be found in the Notes section of the Category:Celestials page on this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrozzer (talk • contribs)

I looked at the notes to update the values, but it turns out that many of the MAEs already in the wiki are different than the ones that are shown in the spreadsheet. What to do about those? Masasin (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (CDT)

Okay I added when for what time the mean anomaly is given and the argument of periapsis and ascending node. Unfortunately all boxes have to be updated. Is this what you suggested? — xZise [talk] 16:07, 27 May 2013 (CDT)

Apoapsis/periapsis

Programmatically, the game reports apoapsis and periapsis as measured from the center of one body to the center of another. This is how they're calculated in astronomy, too. But in-game, the apoapsis/periapsis numbers that are displayed onscreen have the parent body's radius subtracted from them (presumably because your distance from the surface is a more useful number than your distance from the center).

We should pick one or another for the planetbox and stick with it. I don't really have a preference, but I notice this has confused editors (and perhaps readers), so I figured I'd start a discussion on which numbers to display. =) — Elembis (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Difference between “real” atm and KSP atm pressure

Hi, according to the English Wikipedia about the unit atm it measures 101.325 kPa. Exactly 2 Pa lower than the value used here. I added an automatic conversion so you only have to add one pressure (either in atm or in kPa) and it will calculate the other value. Now I used the “incorrect” value of 101.327, but I'm not sure where the error comes from. At the moment I can't check if KSP shows there pressure in atm or kPa to check which value is “canon”. --XZise (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (CST)

Atmospheric Height data is consistently wrong

I'm new to wiki editing and such so I don't really know how to go about this but the Atmospheric Height data for all the planets other than Kerbin is wrong, sometimes by very large margins. It appears that that value is calculated based on a model derived from Kerbin's atmosphere which doesn't fit the other bodies with atmospheres. For Eve the wiki states an atmospheric height of ~108km but if you actually fly to Eve in game its atmosphere doesn't start until ~98km. Laythe (54km from wiki, 55km from game), Jool (165km wiki vs. 138km game), and Duna (36.5km wiki vs. 41.5km game) also have similar inconsistencies. Is there any way to go about fixing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varses (talk • contribs)

Okay this is strange. The atmospheric pressure at a specific altitude is calculated with following formula:

${\displaystyle p=p_{0}\cdot e^{-altitude/H}}$

Now for Kerbin at the “atmospheric height” the pressure is 10⁻⁶ atm = 1 atm × e^{-69077.553 m / 5000 m}. Now at about 138 km Jool's pressure is instead 15×10⁻⁶ atm. So my assumption was – as it doesn't make sense that 15×10⁻⁶ atm generate drag on Kerbin but not on Jool – that the formula to determine the atmospheric height altitude_atmosphere = -ln(10⁻⁶) × H (use this formula in the formula above you get that p_{atmospheric height} = p₀ × 10⁻⁶ completely ignores the pressure at “sea level”. I reverted the formula so it is consistent with the game behaviour. Or did I miss something? —XZise (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2013 (CST)

For more information about this problem: See my forum thread —XZise (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2013 (CDT)

Body type being translated

I noticed that the type of celestial body (Star, Planet, Moon) will get translated, but the link will then point to the translation of the type, not to the translated subpage (Stern, Planet, Mond instead of Star/de, Planet/de, Moon/de). I am not experienced at editing complex templates and don't want to mess things up, so could someone else maybe fix this? --Dgelessus (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (CDT)

It should be working now. — xZise [talk] 18:32, 20 May 2013 (CDT)

Rename to “Template:Infobox planet”

→ Please participate in the discussion on Template talk:Partbox which also affects this template. Don't answer here. — xZise [talk] 19:10, 8 June 2013 (CDT)

Miscalculated orbital periods

So I was just checking some figures on Kerbin, when I found an error in the orbital period.
So this is the answer according to the wiki: 9 203 545 seconds
But when i calculate it with: T=2π√(a³/(G(M1+M2)))
T = time (in seconds)
a = semi-major axis (in meters): 13 599 840 256m
G = gravitational parameter (in m³kg^-1s^-2)
M1 = mass Kerbol (in kg): 1.7565670×10²⁸ kg
M2 = mass Kerbin (in kg): 5.2915793×10²² kg

besides G, all figures I used came from this wiki.
The answer is: 9 203 640.996s ≈ 9 203 641s
Not a big difference, but it is quit alarming that what should be a simple mathematical calculation has an error of 1½ minutes. Anybody know where this comes from? I would look myself, but I am for some reason having trouble accessing the page needed for it. No idea why and I am going to look into that as well.

According the spreadsheet the orbital period is 9 203 545 seconds. Now this template uses {{OrbitPeriod}} which used only the parent's mass. I added also the orbiting mass, but this only reduces the time measured. The template uses {{G}} to use G in the calculations which may cause the difference:using KSP's G and [using real world G (With Kerbin's mass: KSP's G and real world G). Now I don't know what the correct sideral period is. Maybe there is again a physics glitch with doesn't take this into account. — xZise [talk] 11:46, 27 June 2013 (CDT)