OK, check this out:
(clickable for full resolution PNG)
That is awesome! I'll be interested to see it in a couple weeks after the majority of players getting to Beagle will have arrived. =)
ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations
- Thread starter Orvidius
- Start date
That is awesome! I'll be interested to see it in a couple weeks after the majority of players getting to Beagle will have arrived. =)
After other discussions and suggestions, I've added two new spreadsheets:
Highly eccentric orbits (0.999+, almost an escape trajectory):
Terraforming counts (systems with 5+ TFCs):
Highly eccentric orbits (0.999+, almost an escape trajectory):
Terraforming counts (systems with 5+ TFCs):
I've just been pounding through updates this week. Updated the ship templates to take advantage of the new slots. Since all ships have at least 6 unrestricted optional slots now, they can all take the standard exploration kit now. That is, DSS, Shield, Scoop, FSD Booster, SRV Hangar, and AFMU.
edastro.com
Elite:Dangerous Astrometrics
edastro.com
Last edited:
I made a slight change to how the exploration history time lapse heatmap videos are calculated. Up until now it was only using the update timestamps from the star systems, which EDSM records as the first submission time for that system, but the date then gets updated again when the second visitor corroborates the coordinates (and then appears stable afterward). This is mostly good enough, except that in areas of high activity, such as around the bubble, and in the sparse stars around Beagle Point, eventually they all get discovered, and no new activity will eventually show up for those pixels in the videos. This is more noticeable in the "decay" videos, of course, where it can grow dark in places that are still heavily visited.
To combat this, I have it looking at the update timestamps and commander discovery dates on the bodies in the system as well, with weighted values. This way, a given system can contribute to the map pixels more than once, if additional bodies are scanned in the systems later.
For the time being, this has increased the "brightness" of the heat maps in these videos, so I can adjust the values later. But rather than just adding "1" for each system, I have weighted it like this.
On any given day (1 frame of video):
System's original submission date: 0.75 points
1+ bodies, update or discovery date: 0.25 points
1+ stars, update or discovery date: 0.25 points
So a first submission of a system will count between 0.75 and 1.25, depending on whether any bodies were also scanned for EDSM. Subsequent date's additional body scans (that result in new submissions to EDSM) will be 0.25 or 0.5, and thus a quarter or half the normal contribution to lighting up a pixel.
To combat this, I have it looking at the update timestamps and commander discovery dates on the bodies in the system as well, with weighted values. This way, a given system can contribute to the map pixels more than once, if additional bodies are scanned in the systems later.
For the time being, this has increased the "brightness" of the heat maps in these videos, so I can adjust the values later. But rather than just adding "1" for each system, I have weighted it like this.
On any given day (1 frame of video):
System's original submission date: 0.75 points
1+ bodies, update or discovery date: 0.25 points
1+ stars, update or discovery date: 0.25 points
So a first submission of a system will count between 0.75 and 1.25, depending on whether any bodies were also scanned for EDSM. Subsequent date's additional body scans (that result in new submissions to EDSM) will be 0.25 or 0.5, and thus a quarter or half the normal contribution to lighting up a pixel.
Last edited:
A couple of updates to the above. I adjusted the color scale to account for the new scoring, and the fact that there's a lot more discovered now. It's easier with the static maps since I can auto-scale the color map based on the range of actual values, but in the videos that would require processing it twice, once just to get the min/max output values. Instead, I took the simpler route of having a static color scale for those, so I just have to tweak it when something changes. 
Secondly, I applied a similar body-discovery rule to the static DW2 discovery map, but the difference is so subtle that it's only noticeable when doing a "blink" comparison. Oh well, it helps a little.
Also, I edited the text in the previous post for clarity in a few places. I don't have information on future scans of bodies that are already in the database, so this is limited to newly submitted bodies in already discovered systems, that gives me additional dates to work with.
Secondly, I applied a similar body-discovery rule to the static DW2 discovery map, but the difference is so subtle that it's only noticeable when doing a "blink" comparison. Oh well, it helps a little.
Also, I edited the text in the previous post for clarity in a few places. I don't have information on future scans of bodies that are already in the database, so this is limited to newly submitted bodies in already discovered systems, that gives me additional dates to work with.
like your page and its prompt updates!I've just been pounding through updates this week. Updated the ship templates to take advantage of the new slots. Since all ships have at least 6 unrestricted optional slots now, they can all take the standard exploration kit now. That is, DSS, Shield, Scoop, FSD Booster, SRV Hangar, and AFMU.
Elite:Dangerous Astrometrics
but you should consider the Python with a MT of 2 , 305 participants at DW2 cant be wrong
and only thing missing are 3D versions of your distribution maps like the neutron star map from spansh
like your page and its prompt updates!
but you should consider the Python with a MT of 2 , 305 participants at DW2 cant be wrong
and only thing missing are 3D versions of your distribution maps like the neutron star map from spansh
LOL, uhm... yeah. I don't think 3D maps are on the horizon anytime soon.
That meta-tier tag is really hard to quantify. At first I was adding things like the Python and T7 to tier-2, but then backed off from that. Maybe I should re-add them. They're actually quite capable explorers.
Not sure I know what you mean?
I did make one little change on some of the maps to say "discovered/submitted" instead of "discovered/visited" to make it a little clearer that these are discovery maps based on EDSM submissions, not just travel history. The distinction is more important in the time-based ones, which are the videos and the DW2 heat map.
Added maps of nebulae, as per the Catalogue of Galactic Nebulae thread.
Also added spreadsheet of Metal-rich Terraformables (only 20 known currently):
Also added spreadsheet of Metal-rich Terraformables (only 20 known currently):
Added a spreadsheet for the Wolf Rayet stars. Made improvements to the nebulae maps. And also added a floating nav-bar to the top of the maps page to navigate the page more easily.
edastro.com
Elite:Dangerous Astrometrics
edastro.com
Also added a spreadsheet for B-class blue super giants.
Mmmmhhhhh, might have to hurry a little more to the next port: the last days I collected a B&O super-giant each as well as 4 or 5 WRs of different kind. Granted, the challenge with these is more to find some that have not yet been "touched" by others, than it is just to filter for AA-A h systems...
Let me guess, next on your to-do list are K-giants??? (got me 8+ of these the last days)...
Edit: Oh, I also just noticed that you have a list for "Unknown" stars - I yesterday noticed in my EDD statistics that I also found one of these, sometime the last week, except that I didn't notice it at the time. What's with these, what are they?!?!
And how can I find in which system I found it?
Let me guess, next on your to-do list are K-giants??? (got me 8+ of these the last days)...
Edit: Oh, I also just noticed that you have a list for "Unknown" stars - I yesterday noticed in my EDD statistics that I also found one of these, sometime the last week, except that I didn't notice it at the time. What's with these, what are they?!?!
And how can I find in which system I found it?
Last edited:
Sure, I can add K-giants. When it's just a specific type, or group of types, I just run the same script with different parameters, so these are super easy to add. Are you saying that your finds are in EDSM but not sold yet? Hmm... Yeah, that's one danger of posting everything to EDSM in real time.
I don't know how the "unknown" stars happen, but EDSM lacks data for the types. I've been tempted to fly to some of them and see if subsequent scans might resolve them.
When it's just a specific type, or group of types, I just run the same script with different parameters, so these are super easy to add. Are you saying that your finds are in EDSM but not sold yet? Hmm... Yeah, that's one danger of posting everything to EDSM in real time. I don't know how the "unknown" stars happen, but EDSM lacks data for the types. I've been tempted to fly to some of them and see if subsequent scans might resolve them.
This wasn't really meant as request for a K-giant list - just a notion of the coincidence of you doing the list for fairly rare bodies which I happened to have "collected" a few (some firsts for me as well) recently. K-giants are not particularly rare though, at least not where I am right nowSure, I can add K-giants.
I don't know how the "unknown" stars happen, but EDSM lacks data for the types. I've been tempted to fly to some of them and see if subsequent scans might resolve them.
(scanned 12 in the last week)I have actually selected the EDSM option to keep the data private until sold or some such - not sure whether it's working as intended or maybe get's "overwrtitten" by the parallel update from EDD...
I figured out which body EDD lists as "unknown", and it's a class B supergiant that I visited two days ago. Checked it via galaxy map where it is described as B supergiant, and it is also listed the same in EDSM (though without a proper image, it seems) and consequently in your new B supergiant csv as well, but not in the "unknown" list. So it seems to be just an EDD issue.
Last edited:
I think when you have the data set to be private on EDSM, it goes public in about 30 days if you haven't sold it by then, so it still sets a little bit of a time limit. Otherwise it should be working. I haven't really tested any of this though, I usually just let my data through with the expectation that I move around so quickly that I'll probably snipe other people's finds accidentally, rather than be at any real risk of being sniped by them. That might not be true anymore though.
I see that you have indeed added K-giants - as expected there are aplenty (>16000).Sure, I can add K-giants.
I don't know how the "unknown" stars happen, but EDSM lacks data for the types. I've been tempted to fly to some of them and see if subsequent scans might resolve them.
About the "unknowns" you could make an expedition out of it, the list has just 107 entries, and they are seem to be somewhat clustered, like 9 in "Kyloall KT-H d10-xxxx" (close to Colonia)
I looked some of them up in EDSM, and for those where it has been noted, the systems had been first visited on 5th September 2017 (different sectors, different commanders). Guess there had been a hick-up in the matrix...
Found me yesterday another "EDD unknown" (fine in EDSM), and it even earned me a Codex entry, a "Reported by" that is! Would not have expected that there are still such to be found, at least not related to stars/planets.
Last edited:
I added a spreadsheet for average and total body/star/planet counts. It's actually more like several tables than one coherent spreadsheet.
The data in this one is particularly skewed by player scanning habits. For instance, the largest numbers of planets and stars are in the "zero" bins. While star systems can have zero planets, none of them actually should have zero stars, or zero total bodies. These numbers are significantly skewed toward zero because of how much gets skipped by explorers. So it's better to think of this spreadsheet as statistics on scans rather than statistics about what's actually out there.
EDIT: Delphi is a known case of having lots of duplicates in the database. Some of the other handcrafted systems are probably the same. I may rework it a bit later to only look at proc-gen systems or something.
The data in this one is particularly skewed by player scanning habits. For instance, the largest numbers of planets and stars are in the "zero" bins. While star systems can have zero planets, none of them actually should have zero stars, or zero total bodies. These numbers are significantly skewed toward zero because of how much gets skipped by explorers. So it's better to think of this spreadsheet as statistics on scans rather than statistics about what's actually out there.
EDIT: Delphi is a known case of having lots of duplicates in the database. Some of the other handcrafted systems are probably the same. I may rework it a bit later to only look at proc-gen systems or something.
Last edited: