ED Astrometrics: Maps and Visualizations

Orvidius

Orvidius
Orvidius said:
Eventually I might add searching for POIs too, but that will take some trickery with merging the data sets in the search. So... later. :D
Click to expand...

OK, added POI name searches to it as well (as a first pass, I may improve it someday). I didn't plan on doing it so soon, but thought of a quick fix. The caveat is that it wants precise capitalization, so these may require clicking on the autocomplete suggestions to find them correctly. Maybe sometime later I'll force it all into caps or something.

EDIT: Caps enforcement added.
 
Last edited:

Orvidius

Orvidius
Oooh, we're getting really close to breaking past some interesting number thresholds. 100 million stars and 300 million planets.

From the website statistics:
Database counts: 90,307,614 systems; 99,936,683 stars; 297,182,573 planets;

No wonder my office is a lot warmer than it used to be. Everything takes longer to run, so the servers are more busy.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
FYI- With regards to Update 14 splitting out LIVE and LEGACY modes, here's my strategy at the moment:

EDDN has been updated to include game version information, as long as the clients (EDMC, EDD, etc) send that information correctly. Not everyone will download updates to these all at once, of course.

During the downtime today, I split the fleet carrier database tables into separate copies, with the same pre-existing data. I'm updating the LIVE copy only when there is version information that indicates ED version 4.0 or later is being played. If the version information is missing, or indicates an earlier version (3.8.x, etc), then my code assumes the data is for the LEGACY version. For now, lots of updates will be going to LEGACY that really are meant for LIVE, but I think it's more important to keep legacy data out of live, rather than keeping live out of legacy. So until more people update their copies of EDMC and EDD, etc, we'll unfortunately be missing some data that should be updating the fleet carrier data in the LIVE copy of my database tables.

For cartographic/scan data, I don't think the StellarForge has changed in any meaningful way (and have doubts that it even can change all that much), so I'm allowing updates regardless of the game version.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
This isn't well populated yet, because I only just started tracking system allegiance this week, however...

New map of Thargoid-owned systems:
activity.html

https://edastro.com/mapcharts/activity.html#thargoids

thargoids-regions.png


This of course can only update with people actually traveling to those systems. It's mainly the FSDJump events on EDDN that I'm getting this data from. So if you want to help collect data, just jumping through should be good enough if you're using something like EDMC or EDD to send data to EDDN. For this data I'm only accepting EDDN events that are verifiable as coming from ED 4.x, so it needs a current version of those programs that include game version in the event data.
 
Last edited:

Orvidius

Orvidius
Some updates! I've been making some adjustments and fixes over the last few weeks. Most notably:

  • By request, I've added "region highlight" galaxy maps to the Travel History tool. You can select it as an option for map overlays, but it actually generates the map in two different scales. It shows the galaxy image as the background, but the region lines will be highlighted for the regions you've visited.

  • Fixed some issues with the journal uploader on the website.
    • Was unable to scan journals in Google Chrome. It pretended to work, but would upload zero actual journal entries.
    • Several event types that it was supposed to accept were in fact being ignored.
    • Body scans would sometimes upload correctly, but then get inserted into the database with incorrect body type strings. Which would then show up in the Galactic Records as additional types with very small numbers of bodies involved.

  • Fixed some long-standing issues in the Galactic Records. Most of these were fairly minor, but bugs nonetheless:
    • There was a de-facto "floor" for how small the numbers could be, cutting off somewhere around 0.0001. Below this, numbers were being discarded because of a switch to scientific notation internally causing a comparison to fail. So unfortunately some record lows were incorrect, if the number values were truly small.
    • While most ring/belt records were correct, it was was mixing up the names pretty badly. Sometimes associating rings and belts with the wrong parent bodies and then getting the ring/belt names wrong too. The record values were OK but associated with the wrong names.
    • The counts of how many additional bodies share the same value for a low/high record were getting massively under-reported in some cases. The record itself was fine, but the "bodies sharing this value" count was not reliable.
Some of these were stupid mistakes and others took some time to track down, sometimes having multiple contributing factors. The only one of real concern from a data-integrity standpoint is that "floor" effect, but it only affected records where the values were significantly close to zero.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
Also just added: The Galactic Records now include some system level details. It's including the "honk" body count (where we have that data, since that hasn't always been available), as well as the number of scanned/reported planets, stars, and total bodies per system. These are also broken out by main star type for some interesting statistics.
 

varonica

varonica
Speaking of galactic records, the records for the two largest radius landables appear to be incorrect, for instance;

1680159353535.png


72,253klms is extremely inflated from the reported radius on EDSM, the same with second in the top ten list, the third entry appears to be correct, not sure where the error comes in since there seems no way to interpret the data to come up with this number.
 

Orvidius

Orvidius
varonica said:
Speaking of galactic records, the records for the two largest radius landables appear to be incorrect, for instance;

View attachment 350766

72,253klms is extremely inflated from the reported radius on EDSM, the same with second in the top ten list, the third entry appears to be correct, not sure where the error comes in since there seems no way to interpret the data to come up with this number.
Click to expand...

Cool, I'll take a look. We do still find some bad data this way. I can force a sync from EDSM for this, most likely.

EDIT: OK, these two are fixed for the next update. These were due to some bad duplicate entries from EDSM's earlier days.
 
Last edited:

Zieman

Zieman
varonica said:
It seems the Miriam-Webster dictionary disagrees;

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of KLM

kilometer… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

Apparently both are correct so I will continue to use mine.
Click to expand...
Merriam-Webster is wrong. The SI unit is meter, kilometer means thousand meters, it's km for short (both singular & plural). No need to add confusing extra fluff letters in between (and/or after).

But whatever, you keep using your way and I keep facepalming / laughing - thanks for the laughs. :)
 
Last edited:

Orvidius

Orvidius
Last week I fixed an issue with the video creator tool. Apparently a few months ago, the ImageMagick libraries started having a memory leak, and it was crashing on people's projects if they were making longer videos. Since the package still has this problem, I had to instead compile from source, as the latest release version appears to be OK. That took me a while to track down, but it seems to have solved the problem.

Anyway, if you're one of those people who has been trying a longer video project, and has been having it fail, you can probably safely re-submit it now.
 
Last edited:

Tron_72

Tron_72
Orvidius said:
Last week I fixed an issue with the video creator tool. Apparently a few months ago, the ImageMagick libraries started having a memory leak, and it was crashing on people's projects if they were making longer videos. Since the package still has this problem, I had to instead compile from source, as the latest release version appears to be OK. That took me a while to track down, but it seems to have solved the problem.

Anyway, if you're one of those people who has been trying a longer video project, and has been having it fail, you can probably safely re-submit it now.
Click to expand...
o7 Cmdr,

I've been trying your video generator several times for some days now and it's not working for me at all.

I uploaded single logfiles from Ody, blocks of several original logfiles and also some filtered, exported journal files from EDDiscovery.

Last feedback from a single journal file was:
Video ID# 01682697663-3592084

Status: FAILED
Uh oh! Something went wrong. You'll need to try again or contact the system administrator.
Note: It's possible that the server simply reached the limit for how large your video project can be. You can try making the video shorter by either uploading fewer logs, or setting the video speed to be higher, such as setting the "jumps per frame" setting to be a higher number.

Queued: 2023-04-28 16:01:03

Would be great if I could visualize my shortly finished circumnavigation with your fabulous tool.

Thx & regards
 

LeBonk

LeBonk
Tron_72 said:
o7 Cmdr,

I've been trying your video generator several times for some days now and it's not working for me at all.

I uploaded single logfiles from Ody, blocks of several original logfiles and also some filtered, exported journal files from EDDiscovery.

Last feedback from a single journal file was:
Video ID# 01682697663-3592084

Status: FAILED
Uh oh! Something went wrong. You'll need to try again or contact the system administrator.
Note: It's possible that the server simply reached the limit for how large your video project can be. You can try making the video shorter by either uploading fewer logs, or setting the video speed to be higher, such as setting the "jumps per frame" setting to be a higher number.

Queued: 2023-04-28 16:01:03

Would be great if I could visualize my shortly finished circumnavigation with your fabulous tool.

Thx & regards
Click to expand...
I experienced this as well on 2023-04-30.

I also wanted to report that the forum thread link in the footer of the site (the one that says "For any bug reports or feature suggestions, please visit our forum thread.") still uses the old forum URL scheme (the /showthread.php/[thread#]-[title] one, as opposed to the current /threads/[title].[thread#] one). The other forum links (such as the ones in the navbar just above the footer) use the current URL scheme, so I'm guessing it's just this one that got left out.

Finally, I wanted to ask how exactly the "weighted 3D vector of turn rates" is calculated for the ship template list. I tried doing a Pythagorean theorem sort of thing and just dividing the roll value by three but got a different result, and the only online "3d vector" calculators I can find have to do with rotation matrices which I don't understand. I'm trying to adapt the methodology of the ship template table's "Score" value to decide on a new exploration ship for myself (because that's kinda just how my brain works :p), and I've done most of the legwork of designing the outfitting rules and throwing all the stats in a spreadsheet, but I can't quite figure out this $supercruiseSteering variable.

Thank you for all your excellent work! o7
 

Codger

Codger
Hey there.

I am trying to use the travel map video maker, but it seems to be broken. Even if I just upload 10 files or so, it just says "failed" with no explanation of why. It used to work for me, I remember using it.

I'm not sure what to try :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom