Cygnus x-1 and black holes in general

Are you sure?
As far as I know, Cygnus X-1 == HIP 98298 == HD 226868 == Star of India. Look for the last 3 designations and the map will show you something not that ☝

Yes. Check the SIMBAD catalogue entry for this system. You'll see the 51 alternative names for the Cygnus X-1 system. "V1357 Cyg" is over on the right hand side, just three slots above "Cyg X-1". And if you click on the EDSM link and check the system's celestial bodies in EDSM, you will see that the secondary star in that system is a black hole named "Cygni X-1".

Cygnus X-1 and other "active black holes" like Sag A* should indeed have more spectacular visual effects than what we currently see in-game. But a solo stellar-mass black hole sitting in empty space should not have an accretion disc. Accretion discs are only there in cases where the black hole is, well, accreting stuff. If there's nothing out there for them to accrete, there's no disc or jet, and the black hole is truly black, quiescent and mostly invisible, undetectable by 21st century technology since it's emitting nothing but gravity and the occasional piece of Hawking radiation. So in that sense, ED's depiction of black holes in general is accurate - they simply lack a different rendering for the special case of active black holes in close-contact binary systems.

Which should not surprise, since ED lacks any kind of depiction of stars appearing or behaving differently. Normal stars don't have rotational oblation, accretion discs or tidal stretching. Why should black holes be any different?
 
Yes. Check the SIMBAD catalogue entry for this system. You'll see the 51 alternative names for the Cygnus X-1 system. "V1357 Cyg" is over on the right hand side, just three slots above "Cyg X-1". And if you click on the EDSM link and check the system's celestial bodies in EDSM, you will see that the secondary star in that system is a black hole named "Cygni X-1".

Cygnus X-1 and other "active black holes" like Sag A* should indeed have more spectacular visual effects than what we currently see in-game. But a solo stellar-mass black hole sitting in empty space should not have an accretion disc. Accretion discs are only there in cases where the black hole is, well, accreting stuff. If there's nothing out there for them to accrete, there's no disc or jet, and the black hole is truly black, quiescent and mostly invisible, undetectable by 21st century technology since it's emitting nothing but gravity and the occasional piece of Hawking radiation. So in that sense, ED's depiction of black holes in general is accurate - they simply lack a different rendering for the special case of active black holes in close-contact binary systems.

Which should not surprise, since ED lacks any kind of depiction of stars appearing or behaving differently. Normal stars don't have rotational oblation, accretion discs or tidal stretching. Why should black holes be any different?
Thats the problem i had. 50 plus alternate descriptions.
Yes i'am aware of that. No food, no disk.
 
Me too. But FD said they're already in the game, just invisible! Any day now I'm sure they'll add graphical effects, cuz they're actually there, right? Right??
:rolleyes:

Right.

 
Top Bottom