Detailed surface scanner range reference

[Nilt]

Hi folks,

I've been making my way back from Sag A* and find I quite enjoy the exploration aspect of Elite. One thing I have wondered about, but haven't seen already compiled, is the correlation between a stellar object's mass and the range at which the detailed surface scanner kicks in. I do have on hand the Visual Guide to Exploration, as well as the HUD icon reference. Lately, however, I have noticed that of late many folks have been crunching the numbers and getting deep into the detail of the game's formulas for exploration. A truly excellent example, of course, is the Exploration Data Payment Analysis conducted by CMDR Nicodemous.

So what I am wondering is this: has anyone conducted similar research on the range at which the Detailed Surface Scanner kicks in beyond what's on the main explorer's references mentioned above? I've searched for such a thing and would have assumed it'd be in the sticky for all the main guides if it existed. If it doesn't currently exist, is anyone interested in crunching the numbers to reverse engineer the formula? I'd be happy to gather detailed data for such an effort, but I am no mathematician by any stretch of the imagination. IF it does exist and I missed it, allow me to apologize for that.

Fly safe!

 

[Jackie Silver]

I seem to remember that the range is radius (and therefore cross-section) related rather than mass related, I haven't looked at it for ages though. You can certainly scan giant stars from much further away than you can scan a similarly massed dwarf star. I'd start looking at that (if I weren't already snowed under with things to look at! )

 

[Allitnil]

It might be both mass and radius, but the latter seems to have more effect, albeit with a cut-off. You can scan a small class M star from over 1000 Ls out, but a similarly massed white dwarf from ~120 Ls whilst a more massive neutron star (or much more massive black hole) from only ~ 5 Ls out. A tiny moonlet is also from ~ 5 Ls even though it would have a much larger radius than the NS or BH.

One of the most extreme examples I'm aware of is BD+55 191 which is the main system in the NGC 281 nebula. There is a pair of class O stars which can be scanned from the entry point even though they are some 90,000 Ls away. But they are both massive (~ 97 solar masses) and large (~ 17 solar radii).

 

[Nilt]

Hm, good point that it may well be radius rather than mass, since we seem to use optical techin order to sca (otherwise we wouldn't get the proper colors after honking. It could well be both, I suppose. Either way, if I decide to start gathering data, I'd planned to take screenshots of the worlds both before and after scanning as well as documenting the range at which the scan begins. I'm a little undecided on the best methodology for doing this without looping around way too many stellar objects, though, which is why I haven't done anything about it to date.

Either way, thanks for the feedback so far.

 

[MattG]

Never seen any indication this is anything other than a direct relation to the radius of the scanned object. Not spent any great deal of time on this, but for stars (and bodies whose radius is measured in solar radii) it seems to be MAX(r * z, 5) LS where r is solar radius and z is approx 9300. For planets, it's the same formula but we need to change units - wiki says the radius of the sun is 696,300km, so for planets we use MAX( r / 696300 * z, 5) LS
So an average gas giant with 75,000km radius is scannable from ~10002LS.

As mentioned above, small bodies are always scannable from 5LS - this is a similar effect to how 'pinged' bodies are always worth at least 500 (or 600, or whatever it is now). But I've never seen ny indication that mass plays a role is scan distance. Work out the exact value for z (as well as confirming 696300km = 1 solar radius) and you should get accurate scan distances using the above. Happy to be proved wrong though.


Edit: In fact, 696300 / 9300 is extremely close to 75. Assuming 696300 is correct for 1 solar radius, willing to bet that 696300 / z = 75, making z 9284 and simplifying planet distance to MAX(r / 75, 5) LS.

 

[Nilt]

So an average gas giant with 75,000km radius is scannable from ~10002LS.

I'm guessing you have an extra zero in there, as I have not once seen a gas giant scannable 10,000 Ls out. Thanks for the info, though. It definitely makes sense the distance is based off planet radius, rather than mass.