Discussion What is the most efficient way to crowdsource the 3D system coordinates

I can't be sure that those coordinates won't change between now and whenever I get around to coding it up. Whereas an external star catalogue is a stable reference.

The Bootes Cluster is relatively close to Sol, just a few tens of lightyears away. It looks like the map presently gives constant precision distances (0.001 ly), which allows using more distant reference stars, which will remain useful for longer once exploration gets underway.

Sol happens to be the capital of the Federation. Achernar and Alioth are the capitals of the Empire and Independent Alliance respectively. Both these latter stars appear in the list of 58 bright stars presently approved for celestial navigation on Earth. Another such star, Antares, is remarkably close to the Beta 1 bubble. Looking on the far side of the bubble from Antares, I came across Etamin - aka Gamma Draconis :D - which is also on said list.

Many of the navigation stars are quite close to Sol, merely appearing bright because they are so close; this makes them less useful for 3D mapping. However, there are quite a few which are intrinsically very bright and are visible from much further away. Polaris is one of these; Canopus and Betelgeuse also fit the description.

So that's a tentative list of eight reference stars. I haven't done any careful analysis of how geometrically suitable they are yet. I could go through all 58 navigation stars if I wanted to.

A complication is that FD have probably used different absolute positions for these well-known stars than appear in any given 21st-century star catalogue, not least due to proper motion, which is significant over a 1000-year interval. Sol itself is moving in a different direction than most of its neighbours. For that reason, I'll need to calibrate the positions of the reference stars themselves. I should be able to do that using the stars reachable by, say, a Viper.
 
I can't be sure that those coordinates won't change between now and whenever I get around to coding it up. Whereas an external star catalogue is a stable reference.
I'm 99% sure they won't, but I don't think it matters anyway if your aim is just to test your code. If your code works for the 55 stars we have now then the code is right and you can worry about better reference stars later.

I guess I'm not seeing what benefit using an external catalog gives you over using the beta 1 set. Obviously you can take whatever route you like since you're doing the work, I just think it would be easier to use the beta 1 stars (plus Sol at 0,0,0) until that set seems to be inadequate (and I bet it is adequate for beta 2).

Edit: one issue I'll think you might have with an external catalog is that they don't have very accurate distance information as it's based on parallax.
 
Last edited:
^
What he said. Distances to these stars in real life (particularly the further out ones) are not that accurate.
 
Right, the point is that for testing my code, I need known data. As of right now, I can't even find the dump of ED star coordinates that I assume everyone else is using. I *can* find plenty of star catalogues online, and some of them even have distances (inaccurate, yes, but good enough for testing code).

And I still need to write the code.

I can refine the actual ED positions of the reference stars once the code is tested and Beta 2 is running. It doesn't even matter whether my coordinate system is identical to ED's - although I'll probably define Sol as [0,0,0], my choice of axes may well be different. It only matters whether the distances come out the same.
 
Right, the point is that for testing my code, I need known data. As of right now, I can't even find the dump of ED star coordinates that I assume everyone else is using. I *can* find plenty of star catalogues online, and some of them even have distances (inaccurate, yes, but good enough for testing code).

And I still need to write the code.

I can refine the actual ED positions of the reference stars once the code is tested and Beta 2 is running. It doesn't even matter whether my coordinate system is identical to ED's - although I'll probably define Sol as [0,0,0], my choice of axes may well be different. It only matters whether the distances come out the same.

Here are the coordinates from ED: http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34824.

As for external catalogs, I've used the Hipparcos data before. You can get it here: http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?I/311. It provides RA, dec, and parallax rather than X, Y, Z so you'd have to convert the data first.

Another amusing possibility is to use the Frontier/FFE galaxy. The procedural generation code has been reverse engineered so you could use that to generate a data set if you wanted to. A few years ago I wanted to build a night sky viewer for FFE, and that got me looking at the Hipparcos data. Unfortunately the FFE galaxy is unnaturally flat so it didn't look good. It's probably too much work to use but if you're interested there is an in-depth look at the procedural generation code here: http://jongware.com/galaxy1.html.
 

wolverine2710

Tutorial & Guide Writer
Almost forgot.

Before SB2 hits today can perhaps someone create a pciture of the current bubble and if possible write down what currently the outer edges of the bubble are.

Reason: when we are going to calculate the new coordinate systems we will use the current bubble with the accurate coordinates as reference points. The ones reachable from the new systems. When we go out further we can't reach the old bubble any longer and the new reference points become the newly calculated ones etc. These can be slightly inaccurate. Using those as a reference introduces potentially more inaccuracy. If we know what the current border are we can try to use those coordinates as long as possible. Perhaps I'm making a mistake here, if so please correct me.

Not behind ED PC so can't do it myself. Thanks commanders.
 
Let's do all things in game and push the ideas that should be developed in game to not break immersion. Creating tool ingame will include every player and not just give "tools" to certain individual who know of it's existence. Or those which are shared by a closed group of players.

I really think that if there are good ideas frontier will always take them in and if they would not support it, they have their reasons and with some probing they will tell you why.
 
Based on the linked data, which I just dumped into a spreadsheet, the min/max X/Y/Z coordinates are held by the following systems:

Ross 1015
h Draconis
Meliae
WISE 1647+5632
Magec
LFT 880
 
Let's do all things in game and push the ideas that should be developed in game to not break immersion. Creating tool ingame will include every player and not just give "tools" to certain individual who know of it's existence. Or those which are shared by a closed group of players.

I really think that if there are good ideas frontier will always take them in and if they would not support it, they have their reasons and with some probing they will tell you why.

There are always going to be things you can't do efficiently in game, hence this project.
As an example

Bulletin board tells me there is a long haul missing to deliver fish to xanthium. I'm sitting at polaris. Do I want that mission? How many jumps is it? I could go out of the BB and to the galaxy map and have a look.

Alternatively I could use a printed map next to me that shows me this sector, to get a rough idea (Oh - its about 3 jumps away, or 4 if I avoid the anarchy system). Or perhaps its not on my map, so must be a long distance away, so its not consistent with my current goals in this system, so I'll pass.

Glancing at the map at my side is always going to win.
 
My perspective on the whole "is it worth it" debate is: third-party tools are one way to tell FD what players want that isn't already in-game.

Don't forget: the main reason why the "scraper" tools are offline now is because they were examining the memory of the game directly in a very hacky way. If an official API comes along, tools will be able to work without doing that.
 
What we ALSO really need is a math god who can translate the crowdsourced distances into 3D coordinates for a system. I know that before wtbw was there other commanders were trying to create coordinates as well. Perhaps they can/will help. At almost 49 my math skills are suboptimal....

It's really not that hard, the only problem I see us that the values will degrade the further the stars are out from those systems that we already have.
 
But we do know that planner is long requested feature and mentioned in DDF. I really doubt it won't come.

And it still won't run on my additional screen / tablet, I won't be able to print it out, or just send the link to a friend or even just link my route on IRC and that in a format optimized for the type of media that I'm using.
 
I don't talk about *someone* wanting those data. I am talking about viewing such data as harmless versus them actually destroying rather large parts of ED core gameplay. FD should put all effort that it is hard enough so massive data collection automatically can't be done.
I'm not sure when ed core game play became about studying maps and stopped being about flying a spaceship trying to survive.
 

wolverine2710

Tutorial & Guide Writer
It seems I've made a mistake when I created this thread. This time I forgot something essential.
I've added it to the OP and I'm posting it beneath.


Please do NOT turn this into another pro vs contra third party (trading) tools thread. Those discussions for me are the equivalent of the trenches war of WWI. Nobody makes progress. If you want to discuss it, the perfect place is "Direct question for Michael Brookes". .
I hope and trust you respect my wishes.
 
Last edited:

wolverine2710

Tutorial & Guide Writer
FWIW, I'm also using this as an opportunity to learn Python.

I normally code in C...

I haven't thanked you for the coding work you want to do for ED community. I really DO very much appreciate all you are willing to do. .

Trying out a new progamming language is always a good thing :smilie:

This evening when SB2 is live I'm gonna buy an ASP explorer and fully kitt it out with every sensor they have added to the game. Or if the L6 has a longer range I'm gonna kitt that one out. When I sell my L-9 I have 20M. That really should be enough to do it. If it turns out all the sensors out there do not give us usable system coordinates I will start a new "Volunteers needed: crowd sourcing effort to retrieve the SB2 system coordinates" thread. Hopefully enough commanders are willing to help. If the crowd sourcing action taken with SB1 on the BPC thread is an indication I think all will be fine. Probably trying to set up some sort of online spreadsheet where the new systems can be added and where commanders can indicate which system they are going to map - - as in claiming/locking a system. Personally I probably just go out there, don't do any advanced sensoring but just jump from one system to another and trying to get the distances needed for the crowd sourcing effort.
 
Last edited:

wolverine2710

Tutorial & Guide Writer
A couple of people have already answered but I'll give you a geometric explanation as it might be easier to visualise. And explain the "don't lie all in a plane" bit.

Say you know one point in 3D space and the distance to another point with unknown coordinates. The unknown point could lie anywhere on a sphere centered on the known point with radius equal to distance between the points. There is known way to know where on the sphere the unknown point is located.

Now say you know two points and the two distances to a third point with unknown coordinates. The three points define a triangle but we don't know the orientation. Since two of the points are fixed the triangle is free to rotate around the line defined by those two points. Thus the third point lies on a circle (whose centre lies on the line) but we can't tell where on that circle.

Now three known points: with the unknown point we can define a tetrahedron (like a 4 sided dice but not necessarily regular). Since three of the points are fixed there are only two possible orientations, but again we can't tell the correct orientation. Think of the triangle defined by the three known points: the triangle lies in a plane and the unknown point will either be above the plane or below the plane (it could also be on the plane in which case we can locate it exactly with just the three known points). Now add one more known point. The distance from the unknown point to this fourth known point will tell us whether the unknown point is above or below the plane. But there is one case where it won't work: if the fourth known point also lies on the same plane as the other three then again we can't tell which of the two orientations is correct as the distance to both possible locations for the unknown point will be equal.

This my brain can understand. Thanks for the clear explanation. Also thanks to the others who have been so kind to explain it to me. Thanks all.
 
Back
Top Bottom