ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations

I had forgotten to add the EDSM ID numbers to those dumps, so that's been corrected now. Right now the system coordinates are included in all of those spreadsheets, so I'm also tempted to separate those out into a dump of the systems data, which of course can still be correlated by name or ID numbers.
 
I've updated the dumps to move the coordinates out to a separate dump for systems, which helps reduce file sizes by getting rid of duplicate data, and more closely reflects what the databases have too. I also added the missing planetary dumps that I had initially skipped since they already existed in other forms, but I figure this should be complete and consistent.
 
I've updated the dumps to move the coordinates out to a separate dump for systems, which helps reduce file sizes by getting rid of duplicate data, and more closely reflects what the databases have too. I also added the missing planetary dumps that I had initially skipped since they already existed in other forms, but I figure this should be complete and consistent.
Very cool that you're willing to extract and host these body dumps. Thanks!

But I'm not sure this latest change is an improvement. It seems to me that the common use cases for these dumps would involve spatial plotting or queries - since most of the interesting galaxy-wide stats are already computed. That's easy to do if the coordinates are in the dump file. More complex and significantly slower if any such operation requires a join between two massive tables. I would claim it's worth the extra space, and if space is a limiting factor then further work on compression would be the better way to go.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure more compression is reasonably doable though, other than switching to something with better compression ratios like RAR or something. I want to keep it accessible.

But that's a good point. I can add the coordinates back in easily enough. I'm just thinking ahead since the file sizes will just continue to grow with time too. I'll add them back and just keep an eye on things.

EDIT: Started another update, it'll have the coordinates again later today. The extraction currently takes about 3.5 hours, and then later I may have to tell it that the update is ready for compression, since it's not doing it on the normal schedule, and it will probably finish at a different time than today's scheduled updates.
 
Last edited:
Small change: I moved the videos lower down on the page, just above the spreadsheets. The maps are used far more, and should be the focus.
 
Added a "metallicity" spreadsheet, where metals are elements heavier than hydrogen or helium (the astronomical use of the word "metal"). The spreadsheet lists all gas giants that have both atmospheric data and an easily detectable main star (by name). Currently it's a 125 MB zip file, and the CSV is nearly 10 million rows:


Currently there are a few negative metallicity values (such as -0.00001) where rounding errors caused the hydrogen and helium to add up slightly over 100%. On the next update, it will correct those to be zeroes.
 
All it's including is the hydrogen and helium content, and a percentage of "everything else" that is just 100% minus those two elements. It's meant to be raw data for anyone who wants to take a stab at analysis themselves.

EDIT: Specifically it's a spreadsheet of all gas giants with atmosphere data, and also an easily detectable main star in the EDSM data. It includes the system name, star name, star type, planet name, planet type, and percentages for Hydrogen, Helium, and "Metals" (everything else).
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Giant/Supergiant map, Stellar Forge has created a bunch of false positives as well as false negatives for whatever reason.

Multiple times have I run across "Red Giant" stars that are smaller than Sol. Similarly over Xmas I found a system of B-class stars which had radii over 400 times Sol, yet were classed as normal stars.

Something is funky with how things were categorized and labeled.

Still, that is a interesting map.
 
Do you want to know more?

@Orvidius: that may actually be sth. you might want to change in your maps. Count just "actual" giants / super giants as such for the maps. The problem is of course at which size a star counts as a true (super) giant. I took for my journey 23 and 420 Sol radii since I couldn't find agreed upon values.
 
Hmmm. I'll take a look into it. What I might do is make a second map. That is, keep the existing map which goes by the in-game designation only, and add a second one that is filtered by radius.

Some quick googling shows that giant stars usually start at 10 solar radii (10-100 usually) and super giants over 30 solar radii (30-500 usually, but sometimes in excess of 1,000).

EDIT: I guess the question is whether to filter by type AND radius for this, or just use radius alone. The latter is a little trickier in terms of color-coding etc since it doesn't fit into the same neat categories, unless it's colorized by radius alone, or something.
 
EDIT: I guess the question is whether to filter by type AND radius for this, or just use radius alone. The latter is a little trickier in terms of color-coding etc since it doesn't fit into the same neat categories, unless it's colorized by radius alone, or something.
It looks like there are only a little over 95k stars with a radius of 10 or higher. Filtering by radius alone is probably fine. That makes it a map of only "large" stars, by in-game size, ignoring the assigned star type.
 
Top Bottom