Last edited:
Alien archeology and other mysteries: Thread 9 - The Canonn
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
- Status
Arguendo
Volunteer Moderator
It seems like there are a lot of naming conventions in use at the moment, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what to use.
Personally I prefer Alpha-1, Alpha-2, Beta-1, Beta-2, etc, which is based on which data they contain. We already know that Alpha-1 would be correct, as it gives us data from 1 and up. Circumstantial evidence also points to Alpha-2, Beta-1, and Beta-2 being correct.
The Elmo and Hex I understand is to quickly describe which ruin shape it is, but I think it's...well...not very scientific sounding
The last one is GS1, GS2, etc I believe. This is good for naming them in the order they were discovered, but not much else.
I guess we'll have to wait a bit and either see if one sticks in the community, or Galnet mentions a naming convention to use.
- - - Updated - - -
I like this, as it includes all the information needed!
I am scared to think what any naming convention will look like if we find hundreds, or thousands of these things though
I do not claim this method allows finding all sites. I merely state that it is the quickest and easiest way of finding new sites for now.
Also we might want to try finding another commander having a migraine. Or a birthday party. Or both.
Statistics show he might have a good chance of finding the next site.
Last edited:
We did not find a third layout yet. We found variants of the 2 already known layouts. That's different.
Edit : to answer the question "How long do we have to wait?" I would answer : we are waiting for you ...
Ohh
Apologizes i may got confused with the alpha beta thinghy
Last edited:
Interesting that all the artefacts are in one convenient place...
All good. Looking forward to making shapes!
My personal preference is to use the basic site shape for naming - it's less confusing. So Hex, Bubbles and whatever is found next.
As for the obelisk variations found, that could be done in order of discovery, until a better naming method is found.
That covers the type of site classification - we can go a further step for the site locations - but I think we need further finds and more information on site cluster densities. Something based on distance (and direction?) from site 1 may be a good place to start.
Just an opinion from someone who works with lots of complex data on a daily basis
I know some frown upon requests like this, believing people should gather their own data not ask others, but I'm not available in-game right now to trek all the way over just for some quick measurements.
If someone is at the 7th site (beta/hex type on 8c), could they please quickly check planetary bearings for the main structures for me from a fixed point (any point will do, I'll work out anything else I need, although traditionally centre of largest mound or the point where the main stalk has it's branch near ruins centre have been used).
I'd like bearings for the smaller circle mound, larger circle mound and stalk please (edit: and what part of the ruins points at 0°)
It's probably leading to nothing, but I want to work something out on paper whilst I wait for my youngest at her ballet lesson
o7
If someone is at the 7th site (beta/hex type on 8c), could they please quickly check planetary bearings for the main structures for me from a fixed point (any point will do, I'll work out anything else I need, although traditionally centre of largest mound or the point where the main stalk has it's branch near ruins centre have been used).
I'd like bearings for the smaller circle mound, larger circle mound and stalk please (edit: and what part of the ruins points at 0°)
It's probably leading to nothing, but I want to work something out on paper whilst I wait for my youngest at her ballet lesson
o7
Last edited:
I intend (time allowing) to compile all the system data (stars, dwarfs, gas giants, planets and moons) for all know ruins sites. Once done, I should be able to demonstrate a correllation which supports the method you have used.
dynamicbob
Banned
confirming a confirmation bias is a good thing, best of luck look forward to youre report
Beat me to it. The report is still useful though.
dynamicbob
Banned
it was probably just an easy design decision by frontier which is ok given all the other circumstances
- - - Updated - - -
we be in agreement my fellow jedi - well back to eyeballing the 3 new sites in yesterdays galnet
ver ywell done indeed Cdr +1 ![up]
- - - Updated - - -
yet knowing the detection radius would prevent to small glidejumps and therefore optimize the search ! Its valid scientific data as found INGAME!
Looking forward to seeing it - keep an open mind though so we can prove or disprove the validity of this method using your data.
Last edited:
the Dwarf part of your theory falls apart immediately, actually. One of the systems that were spoon fed to us yesterday does not have a single dwarf!
We are so glad that our team's (AKA The Great Photoshopers) findings have assisted you personally to "finally" continue your hunt...
Ps: a bit of sarcasm but ....no offense
There is a god, a method to the madness.
Well there is a lot of detail in this post if you want to read.
Congrats to Zorbaq! I'm exploring the surrounding 150Ly looking for Melville, not seeing that many multi-star systems, which is a good thing. Hoping that once I'm done I can see where the candidate systems get more numerous (and of course hoping to find Melville and the Pequod
)- Status