That makes sense. I might change it to grab my attention if they are landable only though.
On a different note, I wonder if there's a way to capture trojans or close co-orbital. I don't think it's easy or trivial since we can't capture data from the "brothers" only the parent. Any thoughts?
On a different note, I wonder if there's a way to capture trojans or close co-orbital. I don't think it's easy or trivial since we can't capture data from the "brothers" only the parent. Any thoughts?
Co-orbital, yes. That could be added as a built-in check, or I could finally get around to exposing some kind of aggregate system data for custom criteria so people could add it themselves. For trojan or close distances specifically, no, it's not possible to distinguish them from any other co-orbital as there's no positional data in the journal. We have no way to know at what point in its orbit a planet is at any given moment.
I added a bunch of things that were shared here and added the one's in the spoiler. These are simple warnings for WW, ELW, AW and terraformable Rocky and HMC bodies. Nothing fancy, just useful to me. These are the things I would take a note manually, so I just added it to the custom criteria, that way I have an itinerary after I scan the system. I also sort by body name, making Observatory a very neat "to-do list"! Special thanks to CMDR Baxder. It was looking at some of your snippets that I sorted these out. Credit is yours.
I have a question. One of the criteria used (I believe it's a default in the example XML file) is offset orbit. I know I can remove it but I'm wondering what's the point of that one? I understand what it is, but how are you using it? After finding it, what is it that you do or look for?
Co-orbital, yes. That could be added as a built-in check, or I could finally get around to exposing some kind of aggregate system data for custom criteria so people could add it themselves. For trojan or close distances specifically, no, it's not possible to distinguish them from any other co-orbital as there's no positional data in the journal. We have no way to know at what point in its orbit a planet is at any given moment.
I believe all trojan worlds, or rather each planet of a trojan pair, will have the same Arrival Distance. Not sure what's meant by Co-orbital, but a check for two bodies in the same system with the same AD could work for trojans.
They don't have the same distances, but you are definitely on to something. I checked the 2 moons I featured in my video (2a and 2b) and their arrival distances are 1ls away from each other according to EDSM. Weirdly I missed the other 4 moons of body 1. I'll see if I can find my journal entries for those and report back here.
There's no way to compare one body's arrival distance to another in Observatory, so don't spend too much time on it. (Not complaining, Vithigar!) There's a forum thread on Trojans here.
I believe all trojan worlds, or rather each planet of a trojan pair, will have the same Arrival Distance. Not sure what's meant by Co-orbital, but a check for two bodies in the same system with the same AD could work for trojans.
Arrival Distance is a hilariously roundabout way to look for data that's already covered more precisely by semi-major axis (and eccentricity and inclination if you want to be extra sure).
They don't have the same distances, but you are definitely on to something. I checked the 2 moons I featured in my video (2a and 2b) and their arrival distances are 1ls away from each other according to EDSM. Weirdly I missed the other 4 moons of body 1. I'll see if I can find my journal entries for those and report back here.
Having reviewed the Trojan thread a bit, their criteria is "their orbital stats (orbital period/inclination/eccentricity and semi major axis) should match. To validate, fly next to one of the two planets and check the distance to the other one. If the distance between the two and to the star is the same, they form an equilateral triangle and thus it's a trojan."
Having reviewed the Trojan thread a bit, their criteria is "their orbital stats (orbital period/inclination/eccentricity and semi major axis) should match. To validate, fly next to one of the two planets and check the distance to the other one. If the distance between the two and to the star is the same, they form an equilateral triangle and thus it's a trojan."
Heh, so I have an amusing "issue". I was wondering if it would be possible to force the TTS to spell out the letters for body designations, since it tries to pronounce most of them. A really common example would be something like "Body AB 1", in which it pronounces the "AB" like the "ob" in the word "obstacle". My brain keeps registering this as "of" when I have music playing, so I keep hearing it as "Body of one".
Hilariously though, last night I had one break like this... "Body DE 1 a" got pronounced like "Body Duh 1 a".
I'm thinking it just needs some spaces inserted between the letters before passing to TTS, or something like that.
Heh, so I have an amusing "issue". I was wondering if it would be possible to force the TTS to spell out the letters for body designations, since it tries to pronounce most of them. A really common example would be something like "Body AB 1", in which it pronounces the "AB" like the "ob" in the word "obstacle". My brain keeps registering this as "of" when I have music playing, so I keep hearing it as "Body of one".
Hilariously though, last night I had one break like this... "Body DE 1 a" got pronounced like "Body Duh 1 a".
I'm thinking it just needs some spaces inserted between the letters before passing to TTS, or something like that.
Hah, funnily enough there used to be some "spell this out" logic in the TTS back when it was reading out the full system name before someone point out that was redundant. I'll have to add something that checks for the multi-star barycenter parent character groups and does the same.
As for how to make that happen, there's actually a speech synth markup language that can be used to specify how you want things to be read. The SSML for reading out events used to look like this when it spelled out procedural system letters:
@Vithigar This is an excellent tool. Well done, and thanks for sharing. I've already spent hours trawling through my past discoveries, finding new gems.
I have a little QoL request that doesn't quite fit the objective of the tool... but it fits the way I use it, so here goes... When we scan a body that is Uninteresting, it is tagged as such and it disappears when another body is scanned. Sometimes there are bodies that I want to visit, mostly for aesthetical reasons. It would be really cool (to me I guess) to click it on Observatory to tag it. Instead of Uninteresting the description would be Tagged or Manually Tagged and it would not disappear when another body is scanned.
The other way around could also work. Click a body with some description to make it Uninteresting.
![[VR] Merkir](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}