The fact that even the debri and damage is the same at each site is disappointing, the site itself could easily be the exact same ruin, just in a slightly different state of disrepair, and that would be a good enough clue. If they made them EXACTLY the same to indicate something as a game hint, that's kind of ridiculous. Really breaks immersion to think that two sites on different planets in different systems are identical just to give game players a clue to something.
Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 9 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
- Status
The fact that even the debri and damage is the same at each site is disappointing, the site itself could easily be the exact same ruin, just in a slightly different state of disrepair, and that would be a good enough clue. If they made them EXACTLY the same to indicate something as a game hint, that's kind of ridiculous. Really breaks immersion to think that two sites on different planets in different systems are identical just to give game players a clue to something.
Side note here, and be forewarned it is late...
As we know now (from the ruins) our Ancient Guardian friends were of the tree-hugging hippie environmentalist variety. We also know that they were masters of Genetic Engineering. Following this train of thought, would it not make sense that both the Fungii AND the Barnacles are Ancient Extraction/Manufacturing tech from ages ago?? If we were to step back and look at both objectively with our newfound knowledge of the Guardians it makes sense. The fungii are a non-destructive method for extracting elements from the planet - but just simple elements. The barnacles take this step further and provide the meta-alloys that are useful in combatting the destructive effects of the UA and UP.
Just a quick thought I wanted to share before I head off to sleeep.
Hope this helps,
As we know now (from the ruins) our Ancient Guardian friends were of the tree-hugging hippie environmentalist variety. We also know that they were masters of Genetic Engineering. Following this train of thought, would it not make sense that both the Fungii AND the Barnacles are Ancient Extraction/Manufacturing tech from ages ago?? If we were to step back and look at both objectively with our newfound knowledge of the Guardians it makes sense. The fungii are a non-destructive method for extracting elements from the planet - but just simple elements. The barnacles take this step further and provide the meta-alloys that are useful in combatting the destructive effects of the UA and UP.
Just a quick thought I wanted to share before I head off to sleeep.
Hope this helps,
Now that we have two sets of longitude and latitude, it may be possible to see if there is a correlation between the arg of periapsis, the tilt of the bodies in question, and the plane through which the orbiting body moves (the moon in each scenario).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
If I'm reading that right, it may be possible to calculate the longitude of each site given the values we have in the system map. I was hoping there would be the ability to calculate the exact latitude and longitude above the surface where apogee or perigee would occur -- if so, we could see if the equation matches the known coordinates of both sites when the bodies' values are input. Unfortunately, the moons in both locations do not have any orbital eccentricity, thus there is no apogee or perigee. But it may be some other values that can be deduced.
Location 1:
Location 2:
I'm not versed in orbital science, but this might be worth reviewing since we now have two sites with known values and there are known maths/equations to make such calculations. The fact the locations are not exact (e.g., not 32.0 degrees EXACTLY) seems to indicate this wasn't simply a matter of choosing a "clean" position, but a "precise" position based on orbital (or other) values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements
If I'm reading that right, it may be possible to calculate the longitude of each site given the values we have in the system map. I was hoping there would be the ability to calculate the exact latitude and longitude above the surface where apogee or perigee would occur -- if so, we could see if the equation matches the known coordinates of both sites when the bodies' values are input. Unfortunately, the moons in both locations do not have any orbital eccentricity, thus there is no apogee or perigee. But it may be some other values that can be deduced.
Location 1:
| Latitude: | -31.78 |
| Longitude: | -128.97 |
| Main Body: | SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 1 B |
| Orbital Inclination: | -0.43 |
| Axial Tilt: | -94.91 |
| Arg of Periapsis: | 6.67 |
| Moon: | SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 1 B A |
| Orbital Inclination: | -6.8 |
| Axial Tilt: | 5.21 |
| Arg of Periapsis: | 131.04 |
Location 2:
| Latitude: | -29.1 |
| Longitude: | -30.5 |
| Main Body: | IC 2391 SECTOR GW-V B2-4 B 1 |
| Orbital Inclination: | 0.15 |
| Axial Tilt: | 58.28 |
| Arg of Periapsis: | 156.03 |
| Moon: | IC 2391 SECTOR GW-V B2-4 B 1 A |
| Orbital Inclination: | -77.68 |
| Axial Tilt: | 13.96 |
| Arg of Periapsis: | 45.36 |
I'm not versed in orbital science, but this might be worth reviewing since we now have two sites with known values and there are known maths/equations to make such calculations. The fact the locations are not exact (e.g., not 32.0 degrees EXACTLY) seems to indicate this wasn't simply a matter of choosing a "clean" position, but a "precise" position based on orbital (or other) values.
Last edited:
You know what? I find your theory unconvincing as well. I just haven't said anything because I've been so far behind in the thread, and because others have. And I don't think 32 vs 29 is sufficiently close given how invested in the powers of two you seem to be. Are you going to accuse me of contributing nothing too?
Last edited:
If there is no orbital eccentricity then the apogee or perigee are both identical to orbital height, right?
I think so since it's a circular orbit which makes sense since It would throw off the timing and the moon wouldn't line up with the surface would shift over time.
Correct. Interestingly, SYNUEFE XO-P C22-17 AB 3 has a moon that is very similar to the other two sites -- no orbital eccentricity. I'm currently spot checking some sites on that planet.
All of this is currently coincidence, but it appears zero degrees of eccentricity simplifies many orbital equations substantially...
Edit to add:
The orbital plane of the moon around this planet appears to be right around -7.0 to -7.5 degrees latitude across the circumference of the planet.
Last edited:
Right down to which obelisks have fallen over and the breach in the wall? No, it's disappointing. Not all that surprising given that every barnacle is identical and even alien wreck somehow crashed to produce exactly the same pattern of wreckage, but disappointing (and prior to the latest patch the obelisks were in a slightly different pattern so we know different layouts are possible). It's really unfortunate that FD haven't figured out how to add a random element to these sorts of objects, especially since they've gone to so much trouble to make every planet, system, station, outpost, and base slightly different (if sometimes still too similar). But actually I could live with an identical model. It's not realistic, but it's not that big a deal. It could even rule some theories out, if it were intentional. Unfortunately since so many of the mysteries have been bugged we can't draw any conclusions and have to wait for MB to clarify.
But regardless of the identical model, what is utterly unacceptable is that this site appears to have the same data and behaviour as the first. That's got to be yet another bug. So after the bugs with the first site, and knowing how much attention this was getting, what on Earth possessed FD to go ahead with that CG without checking the other sites were working correctly? If this is bugged then I can't find any other word to describe it but "incompetence".
Last edited:
That's a great candidate right there... working out how to get the correct distance relative to radius so we can get the correct orbital line to follow
Not sure how helpful this is but at the beta site I received Historical data 9/21 with casketx2 scanning Obelisk A8. Was determining if any new data might show up at the new beta site, so have been scanning methodologically through the obelisks. Unfortunately or fortunately, this was my first "hit".
I should probably add that this was in PG - Mobius PvE
I should probably add that this was in PG - Mobius PvE
Last edited:
I used the solo combos at the new site. I got the same data you would expect from Site 1 (or A or whatever we are calling it). That worries me. Hopefully more testing will sort things out.
Im not very good at this stuff.
Can someone confirm my thinking ?
I want to test completing obelisks in order of primary artifact groups.
Taking that there are 4 types of primary.
Casket (1)
Tablet (2)
Orb (3)
Urn (4)
I want to try each possible order of activation.
Is this correct ?
1234
1243
1342
1324
1423
1432
2134
2143
2314
2341
2431
2413
3124
3142
3214
3241
3412
3421
4123
4132
4213
4231
4312
4321
Thanks.
Can someone confirm my thinking ?
I want to test completing obelisks in order of primary artifact groups.
Taking that there are 4 types of primary.
Casket (1)
Tablet (2)
Orb (3)
Urn (4)
I want to try each possible order of activation.
Is this correct ?
1234
1243
1342
1324
1423
1432
2134
2143
2314
2341
2431
2413
3124
3142
3214
3241
3412
3421
4123
4132
4213
4231
4312
4321
Thanks.
Yup C=(4!/2!*(4−2)!)*4=24
1. Synuefe xr-h d11-102 moonset azimuth 65 degree. Or you pointed to angles between moon set-rise sites?
2. Barnards loop theory is coincidence (my opinion).
3. IC 2391 Sector GW-V b2-4 B 1 moon rise and set on green straing line? I ask because it will break the lunar coordinate theory.
Last edited:
Last edited:
How about using the pole instead the equator?
So here's what I have so far using the technique outlined here for calculating the greater circle
This great page URL="http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vectors.html"]Movable types page here[/URL] was the basis of this modified page here
This copy makes it easier to work with decimal based coordinate units and to allow for using radius (while the page linked defaults to the earths radius as used in the vector3d library as a default) as well as automatically calculating the antipode
To get the closest point to the ruin site I
1. Took the orbital angle (such as in the case of SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B's moon SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B A -6.80
2. Using this formula =MOD(450-angle,360) in excel as explained here I'm able to turn the angle into a bearing which in this case is 96.8.
3. Since we want to take a "tangent" from that bearing I subtract 90 leaving 6.8
4. I then use the "intersection of 2 great circles" using the ruin coordinates and bearing to get the point (and also it's antipode) which gives me results in -6.5968, -126.0472 6.5968, 53.9528
5. I use "point-to-point" to identify which point/coordinate to use (main or antipode) based on distance (which is alot easier than trying to take into account the moons orbit and figure out direction.. something we will have to do when applying this to an unknown site. This results in coord -6.5968, -126.0472 with a distance of 496.2km
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B
radius: 1122
lunar path: 6.6252, 56.5709 b 89.526 (derived from a few points
ruin site: -31.7877, -128.9711 b 6.8 (bearing towards and closest point of the lunar path)
intersection point: -6.5968, -126.0472
distance: 496.2km
lat diff: 25.1909
lon diff: 2.9239
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
IC 2391 SECTOR GW-V B2-4 | B 1
lunar path: 9.2428,0.0367 b 7.8958 (bearing towards and closest point of the lunar path)
ruin: -29.10, -30.51 b 77.68
intersection point: -21.2505, -4.2901
distance: 763.6km
lat diff: 38.3428
lon diff: 30.5467
I apologize for the various tooling (page here, excel there) but I don't want to put everything into a singular page until we've got everything nailed down. Right now I'm going for the process that is the quickest for getting results at the moment.
This great page URL="http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong-vectors.html"]Movable types page here[/URL] was the basis of this modified page here
This copy makes it easier to work with decimal based coordinate units and to allow for using radius (while the page linked defaults to the earths radius as used in the vector3d library as a default) as well as automatically calculating the antipode
To get the closest point to the ruin site I
1. Took the orbital angle (such as in the case of SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B's moon SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B A -6.80
2. Using this formula =MOD(450-angle,360) in excel as explained here I'm able to turn the angle into a bearing which in this case is 96.8.
3. Since we want to take a "tangent" from that bearing I subtract 90 leaving 6.8
4. I then use the "intersection of 2 great circles" using the ruin coordinates and bearing to get the point (and also it's antipode) which gives me results in -6.5968, -126.0472 6.5968, 53.9528
5. I use "point-to-point" to identify which point/coordinate to use (main or antipode) based on distance (which is alot easier than trying to take into account the moons orbit and figure out direction.. something we will have to do when applying this to an unknown site. This results in coord -6.5968, -126.0472 with a distance of 496.2km
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
SYNUEFE XR-H D11-102 | 1 B
radius: 1122
lunar path: 6.6252, 56.5709 b 89.526 (derived from a few points
ruin site: -31.7877, -128.9711 b 6.8 (bearing towards and closest point of the lunar path)
intersection point: -6.5968, -126.0472
distance: 496.2km
lat diff: 25.1909
lon diff: 2.9239
---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
IC 2391 SECTOR GW-V B2-4 | B 1
lunar path: 9.2428,0.0367 b 7.8958 (bearing towards and closest point of the lunar path)
ruin: -29.10, -30.51 b 77.68
intersection point: -21.2505, -4.2901
distance: 763.6km
lat diff: 38.3428
lon diff: 30.5467
I apologize for the various tooling (page here, excel there) but I don't want to put everything into a singular page until we've got everything nailed down. Right now I'm going for the process that is the quickest for getting results at the moment.
Last edited:
np [squeeeee] C=(4!/2!*(4−2)!)*4= (4!/2!*2!)*4=(3*4/1*2)*4=6*4=24
I think you're right about barnards loop. The first crack I took at this was to get the intersection points of the various bodies ground tracks. moon vs main star, moon vs 3rd star, moon vs parent star, main star vs parent star and so on. I reviewed the data I had and none of it shows a correction of the closest point to the ruins site. In other words the intersection point of BLoops orbit and the moon isn't anything like the point where the lunar path intersects with the ruins.
Something I would hope was the case it would mean we could take that intersection then just take a tangent course until we hit the ruins. As it stands, barring something else we may be overlooking, we need to fly the entire parallel ground track of the moon on each candidate body.
As noted by somebody else there is an odd orbital mechanics such as no eccentricity which would be required in order to have a consistent ground track where the ruins would line up. As such we can use that to narrow down planets to check.
Orbital eccentricity not a problem. Orbital Inclination is a main problem. I say this because I traveled by azimuth 81-82 degree long time and found that near (-20:-20) moonset at azimuth near 80 degree. Or I chose wrong direction (I doubt) or i dont considered impact of 1Ba Orbital Inclination.
Last edited:
- Status