ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations

I've added a spreadsheet to the website for Unknown Stars, which are stars that EDSM doesn't have a recorded type/class for. There aren't many, only 117, but it might be an interesting expedition project at some point to go and scan these.

EDIT: Example star: https://www.edsm.net/en/system/bodies/id/15749253/name/Pyraleau+EF-W+b20-2
Presumably that is a rather more restrictive list along the lines of "systems where EDSM has some info for the star but not the star class"? (no idea how that happens!)

There must be hundreds of thousands (millions?) of systems without any star / body info at all. Basically all those submitted a long time ago plus all those where people just jonked through the system.
 
Presumably that is a rather more restrictive list along the lines of "systems where EDSM has some info for the star but not the star class"? (no idea how that happens!)
Probably because they were scanned without a DSS, and if memory serves, there were times when the logs had issues with storing stuff on non-English locales - where the decimal point isn't . , for example. Even if it wasn't the game, it might have been whichever client it was that transferred the information to EDDN. In any case, seems to be largely fixed by now, but you never know when some weird edge case will pop up.

There must be hundreds of thousands (millions?) of systems without any star / body info at all. Basically all those submitted a long time ago plus all those where people just jonked through the system.
When I was looking at star data in systems that contained ELWs or AWs, I was surprised how often it happened that people scanned the body in question, but not even the arrival star. Thankfully, that's automatically solved now.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I added an option in the video/map creator to put your travel history over a basic galaxy map too. Right now it's designed to draw the lines in white, no matter what you've selected for the video coloring, but it will honor any selections you've made for skipping commanders.

Example:

 
It was a little tricky to get this part working, since everything assumed that the video creator would actually make videos, but I have added the option to make only the overlay maps without a video, optionally.
I just wanted to pass on huge thanks to you for acting on my request for the maps functionality so quickly. It really has been very helpful – thanks to your maps I've been able to find and navigate towards a ripe field of undiscovered neutron stars:
Hopefully I can get back and sell the data before anyone else claims them!

As a next small request, I wonder if you might be able to add the Black Holes and/or Supernova Remnants maps as options? This is entirely selfish, as having found my first undiscovered neutrons – thanks to your incredibly helpful maps – my next quest is to bag a black hole...
 
As a next small request, I wonder if you might be able to add the Black Holes and/or Supernova Remnants maps as options? This is entirely selfish, as having found my first undiscovered neutrons – thanks to your incredibly helpful maps – my next quest is to bag a black hole...
.. Done and done. They're in the list now. I started with a smaller list, but it's pretty easy to add to the list. ;)
 
I added another column for the exploration ships table, abbreviated as "SLY". It's simply "Slot-Lightyears", which is the jump range multiplied by the number of unrestricted optional internals. It's a very simplistic measure of how much "equipment" you can bring over a distance, allowing you to sort the list accordingly. The Anaconda remains king of course, but what's interesting is that the Beluga comes in second. The Krait(s), Python, Type-7, and Orca also score very highly by this measure, as you'd expect.
 
I added another column for the exploration ships table, abbreviated as "SLY". It's simply "Slot-Lightyears", which is the jump range multiplied by the number of unrestricted optional internals. It's a very simplistic measure of how much "equipment" you can bring over a distance, allowing you to sort the list accordingly. The Anaconda remains king of course, but what's interesting is that the Beluga comes in second. The Krait(s), Python, Type-7, and Orca also score very highly by this measure, as you'd expect.
Something I've been toying with for a bit sorta dove-tails into this. What do you think about adding a Ton/Light-year column, showing how much each ton of weight subtracts from a ship's range? This could help people gauge adding things like shield boosters, or larger module sizes.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the days of "max the range at everything else's expense" are coming to an end. With the larger jump ranges now possible, it really is making sense to start toughening up exploration crafts these days. Tossing in better thrusters, a Low Emissions or Armored PP (instead of Overcharged), a few 0E shield boosters engineered up a bit, etc... all these things really don't cost much, but make one's ship far more robust.

Thoughts? :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting idea. I'm not sure if there's a simple linear answer though, as in 1 ton = 0.XX lightyears, since it operates on a bit of a curve. I suppose a simple estimate could be made using the known FSD size, based on either the empty hull mass, or the template's overall mass, and still get a useful comparison. I'll have to look at the equations for jump range again, since it's been a while. I know it's in several threads on the forum somewhere.
 
Interesting idea. I'm not sure if there's a simple linear answer though, as in 1 ton = 0.XX lightyears, since it operates on a bit of a curve. I suppose a simple estimate could be made using the known FSD size, based on either the empty hull mass, or the template's overall mass, and still get a useful comparison. I'll have to look at the equations for jump range again, since it's been a while. I know it's in several threads on the forum somewhere.
Actually, for this specific question it's quite simple, and doesn't require knowing anything about the FSD properties.

The jump range formula is: Dmax = mOpt/mShip * (1000*Fmax/L)^(1/P) where mOpt, Fmax, L, and P are all parameters that depend on the FSD.

But, if you know the current total ship mass (mShip) and maximum jump range (Dmax), then holding everything else equal it's just Dmax = someConstant / mShip.

Knowing that, you can say that to a close approximation, increasing mass by 1% will decrease range by 1%. If you want to know the approximate LY per ton tradeoff, you can take the derivative

d/d(mShip) someConstant / mShip = -someConstant / (mShip)^2 = - Dmax * mShip / (mShip)^2 = - Dmax / mShip

and since the units in that formula are LY and tons of ship mass, that ratio is also the LY per ton number you're looking for.

Just to check my math, I set up an Anaconda that masses almost exactly 550T with a 55.0LY range. Putting in ten tons of cargo racks, it's immediately clear that yes, the tradeoff is 0.1 LY/ton. https://s.orbis.zone/1R53
 
OK, first step will be to go back and record masses for all of the ships, since I don't have that stored in my data table currently. I'm OK with using FSD parameters since I only need one set of values per FSD size. I've been creating the templates with the assumption that all FSDs are A-rated with range increase G5 + Mass Manager. (I'm forgetting what L and P represent though).

For our purposes, it's probably good enough to run the distance formula twice, both for mShip, and mShip+1, and use the difference.
 
Last edited:
OK, I think I have the "mass sensitivity" thing worked out well enough to give a good estimate. I've updated the ship table with this column, plus I moved the jump-range to the left, since it's usually the first thing you'll want to look at.
 
OK, I think I have the "mass sensitivity" thing worked out well enough to give a good estimate. I've updated the ship table with this column, plus I moved the jump-range to the left, since it's usually the first thing you'll want to look at.
The numbers you have mirror pretty damn close to what I have experienced min-maxing my explorers. Awesome job! :D

You could probably add a note of what build template you used (I adsume it is your base explorer setup). With mention that the lighter your ship is the more that 1T of mass will affect it beyond your number.

Anyways, thanks for doing this.
 
I've added a spreadsheet of ringed stars that are not brown dwarfs. Currently it has 5,455 entries, but I know there's at least one small gap in the data. I had to back-fill the database with rings (I wasn't previously storing them for stars), but the current nightly dumps on EDSM have a gap of a few days. The full dump is about a week and a half old, which I was able to supplement with the 7-day dump, leaving out a few days. I'll have to run another back-fill later.

Even though it has only a little over five thousands entries, the list would be considerably shorter if I were to exclude T-Tauri stars, which I'm tempted to do.

https://edastro.com/mapcharts/files/ringed-stars.csv
 
Last edited:

AnthorNet

Volunteer Moderator
I've added a spreadsheet of ringed stars that are not brown dwarfs. Currently it has 5,455 entries, but I know there's at least one small gap in the data. I had to back-fill the database with rings (I wasn't previously storing them for stars), but the current nightly dumps on EDSM have a gap of a few days. The full dump is about a week and a half old, which I was able to supplement with the 7-day dump, leaving out a few days. I'll have to run another back-fill later.

Even though it has only a little over five thousands entries, the list would be considerably shorter if I were to exclude T-Tauri stars, which I'm tempted to do.

https://edastro.com/mapcharts/files/ringed-stars.csv
The new one is still being generated after 3 days :D Should be ended soon.
 
Top Bottom