[Distant Worlds] Prospecting Central

[Drownerfood]

Hey, I'm finding Tungsten in outcrops on an HMC world, is that uncommon?

Edit- OK, re-reading the first post and driving around some more I'm thinking it's not too special.

Wait, so EVERY world has a chance to have valuable materials? Have to check out every planet? yikes

 

[AlistairHope]

Hello,

I've done some analysis using monster data. I don't think to have find something new, but I prefer to put results here, because I'm not sure to have used the same method than previous analysis done.

So I took data from logs, and work on the basis of the 3-2-1 rule.
Because of this rule we know that at least very rare, rare and common are fixed by planet.
So I kept only data for planet for which the 3-2-1 rule was fully described (where we exactly know 1 very rare, 2 rare and 3 common for this planet).
So I obtain 489 planets with the precise 3-2-1 combinaison for each.
Note that Rocky Ice Worlds are not well represented, so data for them should be taken we precautions.

After that I used the periodic table to class elements between metal and nonmetals elements:
- Non Metals : C, P, S, As, Se, Te
- Metals : Fe, Ni, Zn, Ge, V, Cr, Mn, Zr, Cd, Sn, Hg, Nb, Mo, W, Sb, Po, Y, Tc, Ru

All rare elements are metals, so nothing to say...
But for very-rare (one non metal : Te) and commons (two non metals : As, Se) I draw graphs of Metal/Non Metal materials frequencies, by type of planet.
I tried also mass, gravity, %metal/rock/ice, but all of this is very correlated to planet type.

Frequency by planet type for Very-rare materials, (NM= non metal very rare -> Te, M= metal very rare) :



Frequency by planet type for Common (M= 1 metal and 2 non metal ; MM= 2 metal and 1 non metal ; MMM= 3 metal):

Note that 3 non metal is not possible, because their is only 2 non metal common materials

So we can see that the selection for the very-rare, and especially for the common materials for each planet is clearly affected by planet type.


I also do a graph concerning Jumponium, using the same data set, giving for each type, presence of Po/Y plus the number of others jumponiums materials from 0 to 4 :



HMC seems to be a good optimal to find Po+4 or Y+4.

Hope it helps.
Best regards.
CMDR Alistair Hope.

 

[AlistairHope]

Hi again,

I've done some graph more. Again, it is not new, but I post it in case it helps.
This time all detailled data are used (all except BINARY and AGREGATED).

I aggregated total number of fragments found by material, world type and source type.

Before aggregation, each fragment number is weighted by planet, source type and rarity, to avoid effect of very different samplings between planets/source types.
After weightning, sum of all materials contributions for one rarity (ex: rare), one source type (ex: mesosiderite) and one planet (ex: Achenar 3) is equal to 1.

So there are graphs for each rarity, each graph plotting source type vs planet type :
Note : metals are marked with an *









What I see in these graphs (that's only my interpretation, perhaps you will see something else...):
1) The pattern seems to be globaly stable for one planet type. So the materials distribution in one specific rarity seems to be mainly defined by planet type.
2) However, in details, Mesosiderite, MM and Outcrop2 seems to have little more metals inside one planet type pattern (slightly greater values compared to non metal, without changing orders in abundance).
3) The pattern do vary significantly more among different planet types (order do change in this case, especially in Metal Rich worlds where non metal are very much rarer).
So it is probable that the type of source affect mainly the probabilities of different rarities (as previously said in top post of this thread), and at margin frequency of metals, while planet type define general frequencies of material for a given rarity (including metal / non-metal).


Hope it helps.
Best regards.
CMDR Alistair Hope.

 

[Nexolek]

Spoiler

Hello,

I've done some analysis using monster data. I don't think to have find something new, but I prefer to put results here, because I'm not sure to have used the same method than previous analysis done.

So I took data from logs, and work on the basis of the 3-2-1 rule.
Because of this rule we know that at least very rare, rare and common are fixed by planet.
So I kept only data for planet for which the 3-2-1 rule was fully described (where we exactly know 1 very rare, 2 rare and 3 common for this planet).
So I obtain 489 planets with the precise 3-2-1 combinaison for each.
Note that Rocky Ice Worlds are not well represented, so data for them should be taken we precautions.

After that I used the periodic table to class elements between metal and nonmetals elements:
- Non Metals : C, P, S, As, Se, Te
- Metals : Fe, Ni, Zn, Ge, V, Cr, Mn, Zr, Cd, Sn, Hg, Nb, Mo, W, Sb, Po, Y, Tc, Ru

All rare elements are metals, so nothing to say...
But for very-rare (one non metal : Te) and commons (two non metals : As, Se) I draw graphs of Metal/Non Metal materials frequencies, by type of planet.
I tried also mass, gravity, %metal/rock/ice, but all of this is very correlated to planet type.

Frequency by planet type for Very-rare materials, (NM= non metal very rare -> Te, M= metal very rare) :
View attachment 103674


Frequency by planet type for Common (M= 1 metal and 2 non metal ; MM= 2 metal and 1 non metal ; MMM= 3 metal):
View attachment 103673
Note that 3 non metal is not possible, because their is only 2 non metal common materials

So we can see that the selection for the very-rare, and especially for the common materials for each planet is clearly affected by planet type.


I also do a graph concerning Jumponium, using the same data set, giving for each type, presence of Po/Y plus the number of others jumponiums materials from 0 to 4 :

View attachment 103675

HMC seems to be a good optimal to find Po+4 or Y+4.

Hope it helps.
Best regards.
CMDR Alistair Hope.

Spoiler

Hi again,

I've done some graph more. Again, it is not new, but I post it in case it helps.
This time all detailled data are used (all except BINARY and AGREGATED).

I aggregated total number of fragments found by material, world type and source type.

Before aggregation, each fragment number is weighted by planet, source type and rarity, to avoid effect of very different samplings between planets/source types.
After weightning, sum of all materials contributions for one rarity (ex: rare), one source type (ex: mesosiderite) and one planet (ex: Achenar 3) is equal to 1.

So there are graphs for each rarity, each graph plotting source type vs planet type :
Note : metals are marked with an *

View attachment 103698

View attachment 103696

View attachment 103697

View attachment 103699

What I see in these graphs (that's only my interpretation, perhaps you will see something else...):
1) The pattern seems to be globaly stable for one planet type. So the materials distribution in one specific rarity seems to be mainly defined by planet type.
2) However, in details, Mesosiderite, MM and Outcrop2 seems to have little more metals inside one planet type pattern (slightly greater values compared to non metal, without changing orders in abundance).
3) The pattern do vary significantly more among different planet types (order do change in this case, especially in Metal Rich worlds where non metal are very much rarer).
So it is probable that the type of source affect mainly the probabilities of different rarities (as previously said in top post of this thread), and at margin frequency of metals, while planet type define general frequencies of material for a given rarity (including metal / non-metal).


Hope it helps.
Best regards.
CMDR Alistair Hope.

I love it! The more people looking at the data the better. Looking at the same things in a different way can be eye opening

---

Also wanted to mention that there will be a decent sized update to the OP soon™. We've had to split the monster in half and are going to add a Stars sheet and move the Star data from Systems to it. Going to have to rewrite the guide to The Monster and change a bunch of things so waiting until that happens first.

The analysis we've been working on is linked in The Monster itself in the Help sheet, but just in case here it is. The Delta Theories, Confidence Plots and Material Families sheets are fairly new and quite interesting. So much good stuff happening! Huge thanks to everyone!

 

[AlistairHope]

Hi commanders,

In previous post (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=228645&p=3579381&viewfull=1#post3579381) I proposed to enrich data collection system to adress the question of different sources types occurences, and explained that the current method can't answer to that because of not random (or unknown) sampling strategy.

However, my previous proposition (very detailled data collection) would really consume more time than the current one. So I tried something else, quicker, and I think compatible with quick Rock Rats prospecting method.

The principe is simple: to know the occurences of different sources, it is not necessary to find them, it is only necessary to spot them on the radar.
So let me describe the method, which apply during any prospection of any type (rock rats, scientific) :
1) Take a sheet of paper, whih two columns, one for source type, and one empty (for counts)
2) In the first column, do one line for each source type : Outcrop1, Outcrop2, Bronzite Chondrite, Mesosiderite, Metallic Meteorite
3) Check the first signal you see in the radar, and with sounds and visual signature, identify source type, and do a check in the right line (second column...)
4) Here: either you decide to go to the source and extract materials, either, turn 180° and search for a distinct source
Note:180° is to be sure to have a different one, even if it is of the same type. In many case, smaller angles are enough. You can also disconnect and reconect to obtain new spawns.
5) Repeat the process...

If you apply a classical prospecting, searching for 3-2-1 rule, you should have at the end of the session a lot of checks in your sheet, allowing to do stats (more than 30-50 ckecks)
This could be done in team, summing results at the end.

To do stats, we need the same informations as usual, system name, planet name and type...
I propose just to add following information (relatively easy to gather): Nearest asteroid source type
- If the planet has a ring : type(s) of rings (rocky, icy, metal rich, metallic)
- If the planet is directly orbiting around a star: nearest belt type and distance
- If the planet is orbiting a ringed planet (gas giant for example): rings type and distance

If people managing the Monster Sheet do agree, I propose them to add colums for source type occurences and for nearest ring/best in world sheet (for this one, perhaps it is already in, I'm not very sure of exact correspondance).

What do you think about it ?

There is my try data:
System STUEMEAE KM-W C1-46861, planet 1 (HMC), orbiting around a K star (18.89 Ls), with beetween it and the star, a rocky belt.
Outcrop1 : 16 (45.7%)
Outcrop2 : 7 (20%)
Bronzite Chondrite : 9 (25.7%)
Mesosiderite : 3 (8.6%)
Metallic Meteorite : 0 (0%)

It is two early to make conclusions, but a high number of BC, and low number of M and MM could be coherent whith rocky belt, and no metallic belt.
With little time (as it is easily compatible with 3-2-1 rule search), we could quickly verify how sources distributions are generated.

My hypothesis:
- More O1 in Metal Rich world, O1/O2 relatively equivalent in HMC, More O1 in rocky, no O1/O2 in Icy (already known)
- BC linked to rocky belts/rings
- Meso / MM linked to Metallic / Metal rich belts/rings

Best regards.
Alistair Hope.

 

[CDR Michael Darkmoor]

If you can get everyone to follow that process.... more power to ya. As it stands... I reckon people are going to do what they do as most do not like change... and change in a process really needs to make a bit of sense for everyone to buy into it..
-
Since most prospectors already have developed their own style of logging and transferring data to the monster. I wouldn't expect much to come of your suggestions on "how" to do it.
-
There are much better ways then pencil and paper to log things... Trying to reinvent the wheel only wastes your time... as most have already moved on to Mag Lev
-
I would also suggest that you clarify your hypothesis. Simplify! It seems that everything you are trying to find out is already available in the monster with the exception of material per node count. The charts are decent, but the data they display seem to already be reflected in the Planet Type vs Materials charts.

 

[AlistairHope]

Hi,

Sorry, It seems I've not been clear.

The procedure I gave was only to be clear about what information to store: every signals type, even if you don't go to extract it (and especially no log only chosen ones). It take just some seconds more, on a 30-60 min session (if alone to find the 3-2-1 rule).
Of course, the use of pencil and paper is not mandatory: we are space explorers, so it seems difficult to manage pencil and paper in a cockpit ! . I just take this example to show how simple it was to just log this information. If you can do it with to columns and just some checks, you can easily do it with any modern tool of your choice.

I agree with you: people don't do things their are not convinced they are useful.
So the important point is to clarify why I propose this. I will try again.

Actually, the Monster has already answered to most of important questions :
- We know the 3-2-1 rule
- We know which planet types are richer in which materials, especially for jumponium.
- We know that MM (secondary Meso and O2) are significantly better to find rare and very-rare material, and best for metals in general.

But one thing is not documented, while has a great impact on prospecting time: How to easily find planets with high proportions of MM, Meso or O2 !
It seems to vary a lot between planets, and I think it is predictable at least partially (probably more than elements occurrences).
And it is one thing that the monster can't answer in its current form, because propositions of source types in it mainly depends of prospecting strategy, so no analysis about this question could be conduced.

So what I propose to prospector is not to change their way of prospecting, but just to takes some seconds more to log radar signals occurrences, with the hope to quickly obtain results on how to choose planets with high proportions of MM, meso and O2, before prospecting.
The detailed procedure I proposed has no importance in itself, it would just be valuable to log signals occurrence.

As the Monster will change in form anyway (as announced), adding some optional columns to existing sheets is not a big deal.

I hope to have been enough clear on my proposal this time.
I don't wan't to oblige anyone to do anything he doesn't really wan't to do: it is a game, so just have fun, and if what I propose makes sense for you just try and see.
But for people wanting to try, having some place in the monster to put information would be good.
Else, I will just propose my own sheet in complement... and fill it myself is nobody else is motivated !

Fly safe commanders !
Alistair Hope.

 

[GregMalcolm]

Another resource for the list: Materializer:

https://github.com/gregmalcolm/ed-materializer

This is an online database for material prospecting. It's the prospecting backend being used for EDDiscovery's prospecting. I'm also planning on building a web app on top of it sometime. It's available for other consumers, but right now you'll need to PM to get a login.

Theres not a whole lot to see by I'm pulling the data out of the Monster Spreadsheet on an hourly basis and distributing it into tables for:
* Worlds - (Similar to Worlds tab of monster)
* Stars - (Like worlds, but for stars. Some of the star names are wrong, because I'm having to guess the primary name. It works for generated names at least)
* World Surveys - A bunch of true or false datapoints for quickly surveying which materials a world has. It's for jumpium hunters.
* Basecamps/Site Surveys - For scientists/rock rats who want to pick locations on planets and collect detailed data.

The whole thing is a restful json api. It's not pretty to read because it's designed for use with applications. Logged in users can change the data, otherwise its read only. Sample url, listing all the data known about world #100 (Lepchazi 7A):

http://ed-materializer-env.elasticbeanstalk.com/api/v2/worlds/100

It's a constant work in progress. I'm keeping it documented as I go along here:

https://github.com/gregmalcolm/ed-materializer/wiki/Schema

 

[Gorrister]

Hi guys.
I'm searching for a planet that contains arsenic right below the NGC 7822 nebula. My ship is bursting with polonium an stuff. But I can't find arsenic.
Can you give me a hint?

 

[red2712]

Hi folks can anybody tell me if finding a Earth Like World with a asteroid belt is rare.

 

[Eisen]

Hi folks can anybody tell me if finding a Earth Like World with a asteroid belt is rare.

Yes. These are very very rare finds. Congrats!

 

[drkaii]

This thread is so good it makes me want to cry. So much respect for you guys, thanks for associating yourself with DW, and good luck!

 

[Medi2121]

There be Niobium and Vanadium at Pheia Briae IO-A C1-88 first planet (1.2g) not far from the WP 17

 

[Drownerfood]

Hey, I entered all the data for systems I've personally prospected. As I added more logs the entries stopped turning green, is that important? Also, one system seems to have popped up in a strange spot on the DW material locations jumponium rich worlds list too. Can anyone give it a look over and see if I'm doing something wrong?

 

[Nexolek]

Hey, I entered all the data for systems I've personally prospected. As I added more logs the entries stopped turning green, is that important? Also, one system seems to have popped up in a strange spot on the DW material locations jumponium rich worlds list too. Can anyone give it a look over and see if I'm doing something wrong?

All fixed! That was the sheets growing larger than some of the ranges in formulae etc. Thanks for letting me know!

 

[Hawkertech]

What can we do with findings for planets not in the DWE, I have system 150ly for Maia that has 3 HMC worlds one of which has Polonium and Niobium. Still need to prospect the other 2.

 

[Nexolek]

What can we do with findings for planets not in the DWE, I have system 150ly for Maia that has 3 HMC worlds one of which has Polonium and Niobium. Still need to prospect the other 2.

If you'd like to contribute to The Monster and help out science the only difference is that you wouldn't need to select a waypoint. All data is good data

While a lot of content of the OP is related to DW, The Monster itself was built for everyone!

 

[Drownerfood]

You can enter them into the Monster sheet, if you feel up to it's crazyness, or tell someone else about them and they can enter the data or prospect them. Nexolek will need to give you permission to edit the Monster. I've been entering planets around the bubble lately, but most everyone else is off on DW.

 

[Hawkertech]

Thanks, I just copied Baroness Galaxy's work sheet so I can record stuff, it will take a while to explore all 3 planets alone so I am using the work sheet

 

[Drownerfood]

Have fun! Should take too long, a planet takes me about an hour usually. If you have only the very rare element left to look for concentrate on finding metallic meteorites, they're what I usually get the very rares from.