Incorrect Stars, Systems and Locations

[Raith]

I've been on a long range trek out into the black for a few weeks now, not really a long time compared to others, but I had things to do in the bubble for a while first...

...and im pretty sure others have seen these sorts of things as well...

Anyway, while trekking out to a few location, stars I'm familiar with, nebula, supernova remnants etc I have come across a number of stars that, well, are not what I expected.

For example, CXOU J061705.3+222127 Should be a Neutron Star (Which it is) that formed about 30,000 years ago (In game says 688 Mya) probably as the result of the Supernova that made the Jellyfish Nebula.

Upon reaching that Star though its information is radically different and it has an associated system of bodies orbiting it, when this particular Neutron Star is estimated to be travelling at 800,000 km/hr away for the Nebula. And yes while that's slow compared to c. it should still be rapid enough to have divested itself of any companion planets that would have been in orbit around it.

Here is a screenshot of the system in game.

Spoiler

This isn't the only thing I have noticed, such as a number of HD sources that are in wildly different positions compared to the various astronomy charts I have seen and so on.

So, my question is... Is there a place to let FDev know about these sorts of things? Do they care? Am I talking to myself and taking this way to seriously? Or am I just flat out wrong?

 

[Sapyx]

I've noticed numerous stars that are incorrectly disassociated from the nebulae they are IRL associated with. The two most obvious are the Eta Carina nebula, 1000 LYs away from the star Eta Carinae (when IRL the only reason we can see the nebula is Eta Carinae is so bright, it's lighting it up) and LBN 623, a small purple nebula not far from Sol, which is IRL associated with the star Gamma Cassiopeiae but in-game, the two are over 60 LYs apart.

I take this to be a sign that the distance parameters for the stars and the nebulae are derived from different catalogues, using different estimates for the distances, and no-one in FD had the job of making sure that the two distances correlated for star-nebula associations.

As for your observations of the specific system: neutron star and black hole ages are considered to count from the original birth of the star, not from the transformation of the star into it's current visible form. Thus, in this case, the original pre-supernova star is considered to have formed 688 Mya. However, object ages in the game are considered to be "bugged", as all objects in a given system are always given the same age, whereas this should not be the case. Certainly for your typical planet orbiting a neutron star or black hole, it is considered highly improbable that an object orbiting a pre-supernova star will continue to stay in orbit after a supernova; it will likely be completely evaporated. Thus, anything orbiting a neutron star or black hole is "supposed" to have been formed or captured after the supernova event.

 

[Raith]

Yeah, I pondered that last bit, perhaps the system has been captured after the Supernova... still doesn't explain how that works with the speed the NS is travelling at though.

But that's not the only discrepancy I've seen though.

Guess I will just keep hunting about for things and noting down the differences.

 

[Zieman]

You could report them in the bug reporting section, FDEV may or may not act on the info (usually later, if at all).

 

[Sapyx]

I think at this point in the game, moving around the hand-placed stars and nebulae would cause more trouble than "scientific accuracy" would be worth.