Ho-ho-ho! New ruins - new bases!
Guardians Discussions
- Thread starter Ozric
- Start date
Speak for yourself...I intend to fill a T-9 with Imperial Slaves, Slaves, and Occupied Escape Pods to jettison at the feet of our new Insectoid Masters....
I'll get my coat...
Looks like the new site is near the first one found.
Pause the vid where you see the new site, set the video to the highest res possible, then look really hard at the triangular star formation above the SRV... The three brightest stars shown are the same used to find the first site! I'd know those infamous balls of plasma anywhere...
Happy Hunting!
Pause the vid where you see the new site, set the video to the highest res possible, then look really hard at the triangular star formation above the SRV... The three brightest stars shown are the same used to find the first site! I'd know those infamous balls of plasma anywhere...
Happy Hunting!
If true, that's a great discovery.
Also, just on the Plasma Charger, if you look closely at the video, the weapon "Charges".
It seems like this might be a Hold+Release weapon, with the longer you hold = more power. Is this the ability to solo a basilisk?
wondering now if this weapon could be able to destroy the thargz fuel chain
It is a ship behind that SRV in that trailer. Some small details can be seen 00:30 on a huge screen adjusted brightness. I am 95% sure it is a big ship crashed (reason- Horizons trailer).
As I recall there are at least 2 big ships underground (bug or place markers?) in the game somewhere, I dont recall where.
Also, looks like "tracks between obelisks" will work as a pressure pads (different heights in the trailer), possibly lifting new objects form the ground (those textures and shapes looks new).
As I recall there are at least 2 big ships underground (bug or place markers?) in the game somewhere, I dont recall where.
Also, looks like "tracks between obelisks" will work as a pressure pads (different heights in the trailer), possibly lifting new objects form the ground (those textures and shapes looks new).
Last edited:
Hmmm...
Either...
A) The ruins will go all Transformer on us and resemble something that looks like Optimus Prime's face (most likely option)
or...
B) There are "Techno-Type" Guardian ruins in the game seperate to that of the "Ancient Ruins" and no one has stumbled upon them because they don't show on scanners...
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
I guess I'll wait till 3.0 - most likely the one in the trailer is just the same site at the first known synuefe ruin
edit; I have just recieved a telepathic communication from Captain Hindsight...
Could this ruin/techno look be the "unique" configuration that Melville's crew were on about?
Last edited:
That's my line!That one will be RAXXLA!
Oops, wrong thread, sorry...
The irony of now wanting to find a beige planet...
Hmmm...
Either...
A) The ruins will go all Transformer on us and resemble something that looks like Optimus Prime's face (most likely option)
or...
B) There are "Techno-Type" Guardian ruins in the game seperate to that of the "Ancient Ruins" and no one has stumbled upon them because they don't show on scanners...
Hmmmmmmmmm...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
I guess I'll wait till 3.0 - most likely the one in the trailer is just the same site at the first known synuefe ruin
edit; I have just recieved a telepathic communication from Captain Hindsight...
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...ndsight.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101112014058
Could this ruin/techno look be the "unique" configuration that Melville's crew were on about?
LOL! I love that reference!
Study of Bark Mound Acoustic Features
Introduction
Back Mounds [1] are among a series of organic formations found on airless celestial bodies that have been discovered in the last decade, the others being so-called Brain Trees [2] and Barnacles [3]. There are a number of mysteries associated with Bark Mounds, and in this study we will focus on their acoustic characteristics.
The scope of this study is limited to analyzing the repetitive nature of the acoustic features in Bark Mound sites. This study takes the same approach that was used to analyze the repetition frequency of acoustic features in Brain Tree sites [4] and Barnacles [5]. The technical details behind the Fourier analysis can be found in the aforementioned Brain Tree paper and will be referenced here in its entirety.
Data Acquisition
In this initial study, we analyzed audio from a single Bark Mound site located on T Tauri A 2 A. One hour of audio was recorded at the site. It should be noted that ship was set down in the outskirts of the Bark Mound site and within range of the acoustic emissions. Audio data was recorded at 44.1 kHz in order to capture features that have frequencies greater than 10 kHz and for a direct comparison to the Brain Tree results.
Analysis Results
A spectrogram of the audio from the Bark Mound site is shown below. The first thing to note here is that the power distribution of audio frequencies is heavily biased toward the lower frequencies (i.e. less than 3 kHz). The corresponding spectrogram for Brain Trees [4], when plotted with the same dynamic range of 40 dB, has features that are clearly visible at high frequencies.
If we increase the dynamic range to 60 dB, we see a spectral pattern quite similar to that of Brain Trees, namely acoustic features that are grouped in a similar fashion at low and high acoustic frequency. This might suggest a link between Brain Trees and Bark Mounds. It might not be such a far-fetched idea given that Barnacles have a high-frequency spectrogram that looks much different that either of these other organics.
In order to get a better quantitative characterization of the repetitive nature of Bark Mound acoustic features, we carry out Fourier analysis similar to that previously done for Brain Trees [4]. The figure below shows a repetition frequency spectrum for Bark Mounds, which appears to be cleaner and more orderly than that of Brain Trees and Barnacles. The principal Bark Mound acoustic feature is a series of “chirps” that appear to occur with a repetition frequency of around 0.18 Hz, which is quite constant across the entire hour of collected data.
The repetition frequency spectrum is a valuable tool for establishing a quantitative understanding of acoustic features. However, features that are loud and that have a specific repetitive frequency can overwhelm the signal from other interesting but less noticeable features. While conducting a more casual visual inspection of the Bark Mound spectrogram using Audacity, we stumbled upon a peculiar acoustic pattern that has a striking resemblance to some of the patterns seen in Guardian obelisk audio [6], namely one of the Codons (formerly known as “Sparse Spaces”) comprised of a pair of horizontal lines. A side-by-side comparison of portions of the Guardian obelisk and Bark Mound spectrograms is shown below. The comparison is by no means exact, but it is a curious resemblance that might point to a possible link between Bark Mounds and Guardian Ruins [7]. It should be noted that the Bark Mound line pairs have a repetition frequency of roughly 0.02-0.04 Hz.
Summary and Outlook
Fourier analysis has been carried out on the acoustic emissions of a Bark Mound site. The following noteworthy observations have been made:
1) The high-acoustic frequency components of Bark Mound audio is significantly weaker than that of Brain Trees.
2) However, when viewed in a higher dynamic range, Bark Mound acoustic features are grouped in a similar fashion at low and high acoustic frequency. This might suggest a link between Brain Trees and Bark Mounds. (is one the mature version of the other?)
3) The repetition frequency spectrum of Bark Mounds is cleaner and more orderly than that of Brain Trees and Barnacles. Bark Mound “Chirps” are repeated with a frequency of 0.18 Hz.
4) Similarities in some of the acoustic features found in Bark Mounds and Guardian obelisks suggests a possible link between the two.
More experiments will have to be carried out, but the evidence suggests that Bark Mounds, Brain Trees, and Guardian Ruins might be part of the same family of surface sites. We will keep monitoring Bark Mounds as the galactic community continues to develop an interest in Guardian technology that can be leveraged to repel the current Thargoid threat.
References
[1] CMDR Scott, “Mic Turner Base”,https://canonn.science/codex/mic-turner-base/
[2] CMDR Starbeaver, “Guardians Trees (Brain Trees)”, https://canonn.science/codex/guardians-trees-brain-trees/
[3] Canonn Research, “Barnacles”, https://canonn.science/codex/large-barnacles
[4] CMDR Maligno, “Brain Tree Phenomenology Part 2: Analysis of Acoustic Features”, https://canonn.science/codex/brain-tree-phenomenology-part-2-analysis-of-acoustic-features/
[5] CMDR Maligno, “Study of Barnacle Acoustic Features”, https://goo.gl/tN7Adn
[6] CMDR Maligno, “Analysis of Guardian Obelisk Audio Data Packets”, https://goo.gl/jqcX7v
[7] Mykl Atrum, “The Guardians”, https://canonn.science/codex/the-guardians/
Introduction
Back Mounds [1] are among a series of organic formations found on airless celestial bodies that have been discovered in the last decade, the others being so-called Brain Trees [2] and Barnacles [3]. There are a number of mysteries associated with Bark Mounds, and in this study we will focus on their acoustic characteristics.
The scope of this study is limited to analyzing the repetitive nature of the acoustic features in Bark Mound sites. This study takes the same approach that was used to analyze the repetition frequency of acoustic features in Brain Tree sites [4] and Barnacles [5]. The technical details behind the Fourier analysis can be found in the aforementioned Brain Tree paper and will be referenced here in its entirety.
Data Acquisition
In this initial study, we analyzed audio from a single Bark Mound site located on T Tauri A 2 A. One hour of audio was recorded at the site. It should be noted that ship was set down in the outskirts of the Bark Mound site and within range of the acoustic emissions. Audio data was recorded at 44.1 kHz in order to capture features that have frequencies greater than 10 kHz and for a direct comparison to the Brain Tree results.
Analysis Results
A spectrogram of the audio from the Bark Mound site is shown below. The first thing to note here is that the power distribution of audio frequencies is heavily biased toward the lower frequencies (i.e. less than 3 kHz). The corresponding spectrogram for Brain Trees [4], when plotted with the same dynamic range of 40 dB, has features that are clearly visible at high frequencies.
If we increase the dynamic range to 60 dB, we see a spectral pattern quite similar to that of Brain Trees, namely acoustic features that are grouped in a similar fashion at low and high acoustic frequency. This might suggest a link between Brain Trees and Bark Mounds. It might not be such a far-fetched idea given that Barnacles have a high-frequency spectrogram that looks much different that either of these other organics.
In order to get a better quantitative characterization of the repetitive nature of Bark Mound acoustic features, we carry out Fourier analysis similar to that previously done for Brain Trees [4]. The figure below shows a repetition frequency spectrum for Bark Mounds, which appears to be cleaner and more orderly than that of Brain Trees and Barnacles. The principal Bark Mound acoustic feature is a series of “chirps” that appear to occur with a repetition frequency of around 0.18 Hz, which is quite constant across the entire hour of collected data.
The repetition frequency spectrum is a valuable tool for establishing a quantitative understanding of acoustic features. However, features that are loud and that have a specific repetitive frequency can overwhelm the signal from other interesting but less noticeable features. While conducting a more casual visual inspection of the Bark Mound spectrogram using Audacity, we stumbled upon a peculiar acoustic pattern that has a striking resemblance to some of the patterns seen in Guardian obelisk audio [6], namely one of the Codons (formerly known as “Sparse Spaces”) comprised of a pair of horizontal lines. A side-by-side comparison of portions of the Guardian obelisk and Bark Mound spectrograms is shown below. The comparison is by no means exact, but it is a curious resemblance that might point to a possible link between Bark Mounds and Guardian Ruins [7]. It should be noted that the Bark Mound line pairs have a repetition frequency of roughly 0.02-0.04 Hz.
Summary and Outlook
Fourier analysis has been carried out on the acoustic emissions of a Bark Mound site. The following noteworthy observations have been made:
1) The high-acoustic frequency components of Bark Mound audio is significantly weaker than that of Brain Trees.
2) However, when viewed in a higher dynamic range, Bark Mound acoustic features are grouped in a similar fashion at low and high acoustic frequency. This might suggest a link between Brain Trees and Bark Mounds. (is one the mature version of the other?)
3) The repetition frequency spectrum of Bark Mounds is cleaner and more orderly than that of Brain Trees and Barnacles. Bark Mound “Chirps” are repeated with a frequency of 0.18 Hz.
4) Similarities in some of the acoustic features found in Bark Mounds and Guardian obelisks suggests a possible link between the two.
More experiments will have to be carried out, but the evidence suggests that Bark Mounds, Brain Trees, and Guardian Ruins might be part of the same family of surface sites. We will keep monitoring Bark Mounds as the galactic community continues to develop an interest in Guardian technology that can be leveraged to repel the current Thargoid threat.
References
[1] CMDR Scott, “Mic Turner Base”,https://canonn.science/codex/mic-turner-base/
[2] CMDR Starbeaver, “Guardians Trees (Brain Trees)”, https://canonn.science/codex/guardians-trees-brain-trees/
[3] Canonn Research, “Barnacles”, https://canonn.science/codex/large-barnacles
[4] CMDR Maligno, “Brain Tree Phenomenology Part 2: Analysis of Acoustic Features”, https://canonn.science/codex/brain-tree-phenomenology-part-2-analysis-of-acoustic-features/
[5] CMDR Maligno, “Study of Barnacle Acoustic Features”, https://goo.gl/tN7Adn
[6] CMDR Maligno, “Analysis of Guardian Obelisk Audio Data Packets”, https://goo.gl/jqcX7v
[7] Mykl Atrum, “The Guardians”, https://canonn.science/codex/the-guardians/
While I have a great deal of respect for the levels of science some folks go into for the sake of exploration and discovery it seems very daunting for somebody who doesn't have a tech/science background.
It just puts me off as I look at the stuff you guys do and I just think: nah that's a bit beyond me.
It does make interesting reading though so good work and keep going!
It just puts me off as I look at the stuff you guys do and I just think: nah that's a bit beyond me.
It does make interesting reading though so good work and keep going!
It's worth remembering that the work Maligno and others of that calibre do are the pointy end of the stick. Most of the rest of us just sort of bumble around and say things like "what if that sticky bit was sort of, you know, green? Would that mean it's Thargoid? ... or maybe, no, it's probably Black Flight.... likely to be from Raxxla, right?" - and that's OK too! Join us here in mediocrity!
I was at my first Guardian site the other day and I took a Thargoid Probe and a Sensor with me, dropping them upon the sections around the still active obelisks to see if they had any adverse reaction, but nothing happened. Loving all this mystery though, can't wait to find more out in Beyond!
Exactly that. I have huge respect to what Maligno is doing and I am not capable of, but I do not feel any worse doing my stuff which is flying around and finding places where sticky bits are
I just finished Eorl Auwsy, there are no more Ruins inside the nebula apart from 3 systems already found (subject to human error of course, sometimes I have a glass of good wine while scanning). Pretty sure there is more outside, but for now I have enough. To check all of that we will be looking at maybe 10 thousands systems, so even I am not crazy enough
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words, everyone.
My background is in physics so a lot of these sciency things are straightforward for me to do. The underlying theme behind most of the sciency stuff I do in ED is estiblishing a good observational baseline. I was first motivated to do rigorous phenomenology when rumors popped up about Thargoid sites "growing". The evidence that was presented at the time was rather sloppy and it ended up fooling a lot of people. If we have a good baseline then it is much easier to spot changes and correlations.
Getting back to the topic at hand, if memory serves me right, Barnacles were the first type of organic to ever be discovered, followed by Bark Mounds, and followed by Brain Trees. I think the Bark Mound audio served as the prototype for the Brain Tree audio (or the other way around). I also think the fdevs used certain vestigial elements of the Bark Mound audio as the basis for the Guardian obelisk audio.
Now, physically speaking, the layout of Brain Tree and Bark Mound sites is very much derived from the volcanic sites that preceded them (geysers, fumaroles, lava spouts). The material nodes of organic sites follow the same rules and patterns as those of inorganic sites, i.e. one class of material nodes yields very common materials, another yields very rare materials, etc. The Phloem Excretions that are found in both Bark Mound and Brain Tree sites are functionally identical to Needle Crystals (both types of material nodes yield very rare materials, and there are generally 4-5 nodes per site).
The loose relationship between Bark Mounds and Brain Trees could just be result of fdevs recycling assets. In the case of Brain Trees and Guardian Ruins, however, I think the relationship runs deeper because Brain Trees are known to occur within a certain distance (~75Ly) of Guardian Ruins (the exception to this rule is the Col 173 area, were Brain Trees are motivated to grow as far out as ~700 Ly or so).
My background is in physics so a lot of these sciency things are straightforward for me to do. The underlying theme behind most of the sciency stuff I do in ED is estiblishing a good observational baseline. I was first motivated to do rigorous phenomenology when rumors popped up about Thargoid sites "growing". The evidence that was presented at the time was rather sloppy and it ended up fooling a lot of people. If we have a good baseline then it is much easier to spot changes and correlations.
Getting back to the topic at hand, if memory serves me right, Barnacles were the first type of organic to ever be discovered, followed by Bark Mounds, and followed by Brain Trees. I think the Bark Mound audio served as the prototype for the Brain Tree audio (or the other way around). I also think the fdevs used certain vestigial elements of the Bark Mound audio as the basis for the Guardian obelisk audio.
Now, physically speaking, the layout of Brain Tree and Bark Mound sites is very much derived from the volcanic sites that preceded them (geysers, fumaroles, lava spouts). The material nodes of organic sites follow the same rules and patterns as those of inorganic sites, i.e. one class of material nodes yields very common materials, another yields very rare materials, etc. The Phloem Excretions that are found in both Bark Mound and Brain Tree sites are functionally identical to Needle Crystals (both types of material nodes yield very rare materials, and there are generally 4-5 nodes per site).
The loose relationship between Bark Mounds and Brain Trees could just be result of fdevs recycling assets. In the case of Brain Trees and Guardian Ruins, however, I think the relationship runs deeper because Brain Trees are known to occur within a certain distance (~75Ly) of Guardian Ruins (the exception to this rule is the Col 173 area, were Brain Trees are motivated to grow as far out as ~700 Ly or so).