Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 9 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
- Status
So before i venture out there, are these sites actually exactly the same? As in all the same obelisks lit, all the same data, all the same artifacts, same number of artifacts, same relic towers in the same places, everything?
Last edited:
The Horsehead Nebula is our destination as soon as the permit requirements are lifted, although we are convinced there will be a few aliens in the way.
We have always been convinced this is the source (or the exit) of the alien life forces.... either that or Raxxla is in there somewhere! ;-)
Last edited:
Yes to all, well Except data Im on way to test that now
Well that sucks, i might just ditch it then.
Yes to all, well Except data Im on way to test that now
Drove up, scanned by my notes, got same results. Didn't bother with entire site, i know futility when I see it
Two: No Volcanism
Also, it begs the question about Synuefe ZL-J d10-119 - no planets (that aren't gas giants) have any moons. There are some binaries, but no Planet+Moon relationship (that is landable).
Last edited:
Now that is interesting, gonna check that out[up]
So I guess the crux of the 100M mission is figuring out how to turn on more obelisks - which site it is doesn't matter.
So, the new site is the same as the old site, with the same data. Since this tells us it's not a map to additional sites, I'm going to put my theory forward again:
The 15 obelisks active in solo are "step 1" from which we can get 13 items of decoded data. We need to move to "step 2" which is additional activated additional obelisks and therefore more decoded data. Let's figure out how to do that knowing the following:
1. Solo has been confirmed as working. PG/open are "showing more than they should". This implies to me that the the currently unknown activation process to get from step 1 to step 2 is being done due to the number of commanders doing individual uncoordinated things and is why we're seeing different patterns of obelisks active in PG/open.
2. You can only scan an obelisk once. In solo they stay inactive, in PG/open they say you've already got the data. I don't believe FD would require us to relog as part of the game, so this implies that in order to move from step 1 to step 2, you get everything you need from a single scan.
3. The only thing you get from a scan every time is alpha-epsilon data. Do we need to use this somehow to proceed? The decoded data is what Ram is after, but this is only given once, so can't be part of the activation process. Michael Brookes says we can get missed scan data "elsewhere". Does he mean other obelisks as we progress rather than a different site?
I think we need to spend more resources on figuring out how to activate additional obelisks. What, if anything, can the alpha-epsilon data be used to determine? How do they relate to the artefacts?
If I'm obviously on the wrong track, then please explain to me why!
The 15 obelisks active in solo are "step 1" from which we can get 13 items of decoded data. We need to move to "step 2" which is additional activated additional obelisks and therefore more decoded data. Let's figure out how to do that knowing the following:
1. Solo has been confirmed as working. PG/open are "showing more than they should". This implies to me that the the currently unknown activation process to get from step 1 to step 2 is being done due to the number of commanders doing individual uncoordinated things and is why we're seeing different patterns of obelisks active in PG/open.
2. You can only scan an obelisk once. In solo they stay inactive, in PG/open they say you've already got the data. I don't believe FD would require us to relog as part of the game, so this implies that in order to move from step 1 to step 2, you get everything you need from a single scan.
3. The only thing you get from a scan every time is alpha-epsilon data. Do we need to use this somehow to proceed? The decoded data is what Ram is after, but this is only given once, so can't be part of the activation process. Michael Brookes says we can get missed scan data "elsewhere". Does he mean other obelisks as we progress rather than a different site?
I think we need to spend more resources on figuring out how to activate additional obelisks. What, if anything, can the alpha-epsilon data be used to determine? How do they relate to the artefacts?
If I'm obviously on the wrong track, then please explain to me why!
Last edited:
My belief is that site two is bugged and it shouldn't be identical in every way possible down to the rocks at the site.
but its Sunday so ....
Hmmm.... Knowing what I know of fdave, I think it's exactly as they intended.
I just had an epiphany about WHY the guardians chose to place these installations on planets that have a moon.
Since we're dealing with a long range communication network, it might require a direct line of sight to another "receiver". In space things move a lot, so you may not always have that perfect line of sight to the receiver. How to remedy this problem? Bounce the signal off of something, in this case, a nearby orbititing planet.
We have the theory that we will find ruins on planets with moons, I believe this is support for that theory.
Since we're dealing with a long range communication network, it might require a direct line of sight to another "receiver". In space things move a lot, so you may not always have that perfect line of sight to the receiver. How to remedy this problem? Bounce the signal off of something, in this case, a nearby orbititing planet.
We have the theory that we will find ruins on planets with moons, I believe this is support for that theory.
You realise that posting random theories with no physical effort, and no actual work in-game to provide evidence to support your theory, is possibly more detrimental than posting nothing at all, right?
Sending players out to random coordinates because you don't have enough belief in your methods to do it yourself is pretty lazy in my mind.
Your diagrams look very pretty, convincing almost, but they aren't based on anything other than (flawed) hypothesis and randomly generated numbers that happen to fit your ideal.
Calling people out because they might not have solved the whole problem is petty at best, narcissistic and deluded at worst.
2nd or third planet is landable and has a landable moon
Synuefe ZL-J d10-119 has no landable planets with any moons, though. There are binaries, so this could be it. Perhaps Planet+Moon or Binaries?
I hope its something like this
- Status