Where are all the procedural red supergiants? Where are all the procedural Class C stars?

[jenos]

Maybe I'm just out of the loop on this one, but I've been searching pretty tirelessly to find these two star typed and have come up empty handed. There's no shortage of red giants, and orange giants are scattered about the core, but I've not seen a single red supergiant (e.g. M3 I) that wasn't hand placed. Same goes to class C carbon stars. I've seen class S, MS, CJ, and CN all around, but not a single class C that wasn't hand placed. Is there something I'm missing here, or is this just a really big flaw in E: D galactic proc-gen?

 

[Commander Alesia]

PLENTY of giants towards the Colonia Nebula, C stars are scattered around the neutron fields (naturally).

 

[jenos]

Red giants, sure. but red supergiants (like betelgeuse)? I've only seen blue and blue-white supergiants sprinkled about here in the core. As for class C, I've been scouring the galmap with absolutely no luck. And I'm in the neutron field, at that.

 

[CMDR AKIRA MASAKARI]

PLENTY of giants towards the Colonia Nebula, C stars are scattered around the neutron fields (naturally).

These are mostly Red Giants (Mn III), while OP is looking for Red Supergiants (Mn I). Many supergiants are hand-placed near Sol, but very rerely a procedural has been found.
Same goes for Carbon Stars, plenty of S, MS, CJ, CN, but C are very rare.

Partly is due to to procedural naming: some procedurals Red Giants classified with out of sequnce III, if you dig the scan data, have diameter, mass, luminosity and age that would suggest they are out of main sequence I, but wrongly named by the generators.

This is known froma a while, and many CMDRs reported the lack of these star types.

 

[jenos]

These are mostly Red Giants (Mn III), while OP is looking for Red Supergiants (Mn I). Many supergiants are hand-placed near Sol, but very rerely a procedural has been found.
Same goes for Carbon Stars, plenty of S, MS, CJ, CN, but C are very rare.

Partly is due to to procedural naming: some procedurals Red Giants classified with out of sequnce III, if you dig the scan data, have diameter, mass, luminosity and age that would suggest they are out of main sequence I, but wrongly named by the generators.

This is known froma a while, and many CMDRs reported the lack of these star types.

So you're saying some red supergiants will actually appear as Mn III in the galmap?

 

[thundernuns]

Come to think of it I've never seen a red procedural bigger than 40 Sol Radii, but blues I've found have nearly 500Sr

 

[Iskariot]

These are mostly Red Giants (Mn III), while OP is looking for Red Supergiants (Mn I). Many supergiants are hand-placed near Sol, but very rerely a procedural has been found.
Same goes for Carbon Stars, plenty of S, MS, CJ, CN, but C are very rare.

Partly is due to to procedural naming: some procedurals Red Giants classified with out of sequnce III, if you dig the scan data, have diameter, mass, luminosity and age that would suggest they are out of main sequence I, but wrongly named by the generators.

This is known froma a while, and many CMDRs reported the lack of these star types.

Are you sure it is reported?
Because it should be if you are right about this.
FD and especially Braben himself is very interested in a realistic universe generation.
So they would want to know.

 

[CMDR AKIRA MASAKARI]

So you're saying some red supergiants will actually appear as Mn III in the galmap?

Well, nobody has ever found something really big in the M class procedurally generated. So no, there are not Betelgeuse or Canis Majoris proc generated out there, or at least they have not been found yet, wich is completly possible.
This beeing said, it seems that from the gal map you only see M III, while few of them were found with a radius that might be interpreted as a Supergiant. There was a thread listing procedural huge stars. But this is an interpretation, and these objects are super rare too.

It also happens that few stars are labeled Main Sequnce V, then when you jump in they have Giants proportions, but the descrption is identical to a main sequence one.

So basically panning the gal map is usefull, but jumping in yourself is another thing, and many times there could be surprises.

 

[jenos]

Looks like you're probably right about there being no Mn I stars, there are a few Kn I stars about though. Theyre technically red supergiants but... I don't really see them get above 50 solar radii.

 

[CMDR AKIRA MASAKARI]

Are you sure it is reported?
Because it should be if you are right about this.
FD and especially Braben himself is very interested in a realistic universe generation.
So they would want to know.

Last year there was a thread about proc gen huge stars, and many descriptions and main sequence number attribution didn't seem to match with the data. Giants given sequnce number V and main sequence description are fair common, i found a bunch myself, probably i have some pic in the archives.

BTW I've never heard of HUGE mistakes, some White Giants are really big, and they are correctly displayed as Sequence I.

But the lack of Red Supergiants was already noted. Unfortunatly it seems they didn't design with cure the "northern" area of the galaxy, the one on the other side of Sol than Sag. In RL it's invisible to us, but it's realistical to think there are Nebulae and Hypergiants there too, but nope. They let the Starforge design it, and it's a little blank. I hoped to find some Red Supergiant on the opposite side, but with no luck. i've found a good quantity of Wolf Reyets there tough.

 

[Jackie Silver]

*nodding along with Akira* I know a handful of proc-gen K supergiants (e.g. PHOI AOD KT-Q E5-5026) but no proc-gen M supergiants, and the K stars aren't especially large (radius on the order of 40 solar radii) considering what we might expect.

The way proc-gen stars are given luminosity classes is odd. To put it mildly. I can go into more detail if needed...

 

[jenos]

*nodding along with Akira* I know a handful of proc-gen K supergiants (e.g. PHOI AOD KT-Q E5-5026) but no proc-gen M supergiants, and the K stars aren't especially large (radius on the order of 40 solar radii) considering what we might expect.

The way proc-gen stars are given luminosity classes is odd. To put it mildly. I can go into more detail if needed...

Please do

 

[Jackie Silver]

Please do

To begin with, FD use two different sets of luminosity classes - one for hand-authored real stars, and another for proc-gen stars.

With the proc-gen stars, the luminosity classes use the A -> AB -> B distinction which is normally seen in supergiant spectra for almost all the spectra. Like VA, VAB, VB. A real star would just be called V without distinction. In the case where a hand-authored primary star has proc-gen secondaries, you can see this illustrated, e.g. HIP 72235 has a G5 V primary and an M7 VA secondary.

Luminosity classes are assigned in-game based strictly on luminosity calculated from (T**4) * (R**2). For real stars, they're usually assigned (AIUI) by looking at pressure broadening effects on spectral lines.

Each spectral temperature subclass (G0, G1, G2...) has a different set of boundary values for the different possible luminosity classes. A G0 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G0 VB. A G1 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G1 VAB, and so on. Not all luminosity classes are available for each spectral temperature subclass. The overall consequence is a stepped distribution where some stars of lower luminosity can appear to have a brighter luminosity class than stars of higher luminosity...

(I haven't worked out the underlying formula that determines the shape of the steps - I have a lot of empirical data and know most of the boundaries fairly well.)

Some of the luminosity divisions are simply backwards as far as I can tell, like B9 IA stars are less luminous than B9 IAB.

And there are one or two instances where luminosities are forced: all M9 stars are M9 VI, all brown dwarfs are V.

 

[thundernuns]

To begin with, FD use two different sets of luminosity classes - one for hand-authored real stars, and another for proc-gen stars.

With the proc-gen stars, the luminosity classes use the A -> AB -> B distinction which is normally seen in supergiant spectra for almost all the spectra. Like VA, VAB, VB. A real star would just be called V without distinction. In the case where a hand-authored primary star has proc-gen secondaries, you can see this illustrated, e.g. HIP 72235 has a G5 V primary and an M7 VA secondary.

Luminosity classes are assigned in-game based strictly on luminosity calculated from (T**4) * (R**2). For real stars, they're usually assigned (AIUI) by looking at pressure broadening effects on spectral lines.

Each spectral temperature subclass (G0, G1, G2...) has a different set of boundary values for the different possible luminosity classes. A G0 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G0 VB. A G1 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G1 VAB, and so on. Not all luminosity classes are available for each spectral temperature subclass. The overall consequence is a stepped distribution where some stars of lower luminosity can appear to have a brighter luminosity class than stars of higher luminosity...

(I haven't worked out the underlying formula that determines the shape of the steps - I have a lot of empirical data and know most of the boundaries fairly well.)

Some of the luminosity divisions are simply backwards as far as I can tell, like B9 IA stars are less luminous than B9 IAB.

And there are one or two instances where luminosities are forced: all M9 stars are M9 VI, all brown dwarfs are V.

*Drops microphone*

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

To begin with, FD use two different sets of luminosity classes - one for hand-authored real stars, and another for proc-gen stars.

With the proc-gen stars, the luminosity classes use the A -> AB -> B distinction which is normally seen in supergiant spectra for almost all the spectra. Like VA, VAB, VB. A real star would just be called V without distinction. In the case where a hand-authored primary star has proc-gen secondaries, you can see this illustrated, e.g. HIP 72235 has a G5 V primary and an M7 VA secondary.

Luminosity classes are assigned in-game based strictly on luminosity calculated from (T**4) * (R**2). For real stars, they're usually assigned (AIUI) by looking at pressure broadening effects on spectral lines.

Each spectral temperature subclass (G0, G1, G2...) has a different set of boundary values for the different possible luminosity classes. A G0 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G0 VB. A G1 star of 1 solar luminosity will be called G1 VAB, and so on. Not all luminosity classes are available for each spectral temperature subclass. The overall consequence is a stepped distribution where some stars of lower luminosity can appear to have a brighter luminosity class than stars of higher luminosity...

(I haven't worked out the underlying formula that determines the shape of the steps - I have a lot of empirical data and know most of the boundaries fairly well.)

Some of the luminosity divisions are simply backwards as far as I can tell, like B9 IA stars are less luminous than B9 IAB.

And there are one or two instances where luminosities are forced: all M9 stars are M9 VI, all brown dwarfs are V.

Great post, have a rep. Now I'll have to read it again.

 

[CMDR AKIRA MASAKARI]

*Drops microphone*

If you ask details from Jackie, stay assured a lot or them will arrive!!!

Proc generatred stars and systems are created by a algorithm that has been set with varius "realistic" variables to adhere as much as possible to what we know. But an algorithm with so many variables, asked to generate 400 billion system, will dish out some oddities, and need some "forced" parameters to have some consistency.

This is why handcrafted system are more "accurate" than proc gen ones, but it would have been difficult to manually craft so many systems, and probably even less fun to explore.

So this luminosity subclasses, main sequence numbers, etc don't always match. Some objects are absent outside the handcrafted area, and there are few other oddities, like ELWs orbiting solitary Neutron Stars (where they get the heat to stay erath like and not froze down, and how exactly they became earth like in the first place, assuming they are formed after the Supernova that caused the NS?).

Regarding me, I think these oddities should not be reported, but are due to technical limitations. Hopefully these values can be corrected, fiddling with the starforge, not correcting system by system.
Personally i think elite galaxy is realistic enough to be really interesting, and maybe there are other issue in the game to adress first.

 

[jenos]

So are there even any procedural red (like type-L) carbon stars (non-class C) out there, or am I just wasting my time looking?

 

[Jackie Silver]

So are there even any procedural red (like type-L) carbon stars (non-class C) out there, or am I just wasting my time looking?

I'm not sure quite what you mean? There are procedural CJ and CN carbon stars, plus MS and S stars. Some of the procedural Wolf-Rayet stars are (unrealistically) low enough temperatures that they have a red colour similar to an L star - a good example would be CROOKAEI AA-A H38, which is supposedly WO0 I; 87.7617 solar masses, 3.4147 solar radii, 761K; I'm pretty sure that would collapse in spectacular fashion if it were real!

 

[jenos]

I've seen some WRs that a barely above freezing (submitted Buboes Star to EDSM, in fact), but I haven't seen anything massive resembling an L star, and all the CJ/CN/S/MS stars I've seen look like normal red giants. Plus, WRs tend to not have any planetary bodies in orbit (only one with bodies I've found only had 1 non-landable a few thousand Ls away)

 

[Jackie Silver]

Ah right, I gotcha. Hmm. Well there really shouldn't be any stars like that, but this being Elite...

The proc-gen giants and supergiants are far more narrowly grouped together in tracks than the hand-authored stars are - if you plot proc-gen stars on a HR or age/mass diagram they follow neat curves and lines while the real ones are all over the place. I suspect that if the game engine was given ages much longer than it uses now, it would generate small (under 30 solar radii) low-mass giants with temperatures trending towards LTY.

I'll see if I can make some charts - if nothing else they help show what is out there. If you download the star log (getting a little outdated as I'm logging stars in a separate file at the moment) from my signature it's got details for a few thousand stars, if you sort it by primary class and luminosity class that might be good?