I ask quite seriously because I have not searched very hard for a real star map/catalogue. That Frontier have mapped the galaxy in 3D is beyond awesome to me. But how much that is not real has been added?
Do Zaonce and Lave actually exist as systems?
- Thread starter Berty Dastard
- Start date
In real life?
No. They've been fudged in because they're such an iconic part of the first game, not to have them there would just feel wrong.
The rest of the galaxy should be fairly accurate though.
No. They've been fudged in because they're such an iconic part of the first game, not to have them there would just feel wrong.
The rest of the galaxy should be fairly accurate though.
last time i checked we only knew about 50% of the galaxy as that is what we can see, the rest is obscured by the galactic center and other gas/dust clouds.
i know there is WIP on infrared telescopes that will be able to see thru that, but im not sure how much progress has been made.
Actually we don't know everything about the basic structure of the Galaxy, and have mapped the locations of a tiny tiny fraction of its stars. We only discovered quite recently that we live in a barred spiral rather than a true 'grand design' spiral, and the exact configuration of the arms is still not well known.
I believe FD have incorporated the published location of all stars with positions listed in the available catalogues. The others which make up the bulk of the Galaxy are distributed procedurally based on a density map.
I believe FD have incorporated the published location of all stars with positions listed in the available catalogues. The others which make up the bulk of the Galaxy are distributed procedurally based on a density map.
Thanks guys. The game is educating me. But following up via IAU is just downright confusing. There seem to be lots of naming conventions for systems, some historic. But what are those in the game based on?
There is a catalog of names for stars that used a descriptive placement by submission and count, but the actual naming by number was via the IAU.. thing is the IAU has really made so many mad with many companies and even many in the industry they might have shot themselves in the foot with their policy. If they don't adapt they will lose any respect they barely have.
Scientific names for stars and planets are generally pretty dumb.
A good example is planets.. Logic would say you'd call them for example Sol 1, Sol 2, Sol 3 as in the game, Star Trek and many Sci Fi things.
But in reality, we are calling them by the order discovered!
So you might have the inner planets in this order: Sol 3, Sol 1, Sol 2.
Who ever came up with that idea is an idiot
Planets should simply get reordered number wise but also have a non numbered name to keep, simply go through the dictionary or something.
A good example is planets.. Logic would say you'd call them for example Sol 1, Sol 2, Sol 3 as in the game, Star Trek and many Sci Fi things.
But in reality, we are calling them by the order discovered!
So you might have the inner planets in this order: Sol 3, Sol 1, Sol 2.
Who ever came up with that idea is an idiot
Planets should simply get reordered number wise but also have a non numbered name to keep, simply go through the dictionary or something.
Scientific names for stars and planets are generally pretty dumb.
A good example is planets.. Logic would say you'd call them for example Sol 1, Sol 2, Sol 3 as in the game, Star Trek and many Sci Fi things.
But in reality, we are calling them by the order discovered!
So you might have the inner planets in this order: Sol 3, Sol 1, Sol 2.
Who ever came up with that idea is an idiot
Planets should simply get reordered number wise but also have a non numbered name to keep, simply go through the dictionary or something.
Well, in effect it does make sense... if you DON'T know how many planets you can't define starting point 1 could become 6 as 5 inner planets are found later but that should change the maps on each disovery.. and unless everyone updated maps together every new find would be numbered different.
You could renumber them but also give the a second descriptor from the Greek alphabet for instance.
First:
Sol 1 alpha,
Sol 1 beta, sol 2 alpha
Sol 1 beta, sol 2 alpha, sol 3 gamma
So in articles you could reference the Greek letters for order of discovery. Each article will refer to sol alpha. But we still know by its number witch planet from the sun it is.
Or is this to easy?
Well, basically you are naming everything twice. Also you get more than 24 bodies in a systems and things get REALLY screwy
This. We don't know what it looks like, we don't know the distribution of stars, we don't know what all the stuff is that we know is there but that we can't see, the things we do know we're usually not sure exactly how far away they are...
The important upshot of all this is that there is no "real" map of the galaxy to compare ED's proc-gen to. Our map of the galaxy is very much at the "here be dragons" stage!
Who ever came up with that idea is an idiot
Planets should simply get reordered number wise but also have a non numbered name to keep, simply go through the dictionary or something.
At the rate we're discovering extrasolar planets, we'd run out of potential names pretty quickly.
Lave may be a real place but I know there are completely fictional stars in the game, one is close to Sol...
Wait! Duamte was one jump from Sol in my 10 ly Cobra, now it's moved! OK are they still fiddling with the galaxy map? They must be because Duamte in the sky from earth was in a place no bright star really is, and that's why I figured some had to be sprinkled in artificially.
Wait! Duamte was one jump from Sol in my 10 ly Cobra, now it's moved! OK are they still fiddling with the galaxy map? They must be because Duamte in the sky from earth was in a place no bright star really is, and that's why I figured some had to be sprinkled in artificially.
Last edited: