Release Neutron Highway long range route planner

Happy Daze

Happy Daze
The distance is off here. Or I'm doing something wrong? Trying to locate a system to colonize from my current system.
The search parameters, results and Galaxy Map showing the results are below. Note the Search Results show the system is 8 Ly away, but the map shows over 21 L7.
I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong since my search resulted in no posts showing this issue. :eek:

Spansh Colonization Router Search Parameters.png

Spansh Colonization Router Results.png

Spansh Colonization Router Results Map.png
 
Last edited:

varonica

varonica
Happy Daze said:
The distance is off here. Or I'm doing something wrong? Trying to locate a system to colonize from my current system.
The search parameters, results and Galaxy Map showing the results are below. Note the Search Results show the system is 8 Ly away, but the map shows over 21 L7.
I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong since my search resulted in no posts showing this issue. :eek:

View attachment 424619
View attachment 424620
View attachment 424621
Click to expand...

Looking at that chart and system locations, the distance column and body count column is swapped around, it's showing number of bodies as distance, and distance as number of bodies. For instance it shows Syneufe BG-N C23-17 as 0ly away when clearly it is not 0ly. No systems should be 0ly away in that star map. A bug that needs reporting!
 

Happy Daze

Happy Daze
No, actually Synuefe AR-A b47-1 has 21 planets, so the Planet column is correct, and Syneufe BG-N C23-17 is the starting point, which is why it says 0 Ly.
 
Last edited:

Eahlstan

E
Happy Daze said:
The distance is off here. Or I'm doing something wrong? Trying to locate a system to colonize from my current system.
The search parameters, results and Galaxy Map showing the results are below. Note the Search Results show the system is 8 Ly away, but the map shows over 21 L7.
I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong since my search resulted in no posts showing this issue. :eek:

View attachment 424619
View attachment 424620
View attachment 424621
Click to expand...
To me it looks like you're in Synuefe ZK-N c23-17, not in Synuefe BG-N c23-17. You can actually see the latter being close to the system you plotted to in your screenshot.
 

Spansh

S
Happy Daze said:
The distance is off here. Or I'm doing something wrong? Trying to locate a system to colonize from my current system.
The search parameters, results and Galaxy Map showing the results are below. Note the Search Results show the system is 8 Ly away, but the map shows over 21 L7.
I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong since my search resulted in no posts showing this issue. :eek:

View attachment 424619
View attachment 424620
View attachment 424621
Click to expand...
Other people have responded here, but by far the best thing to do when asking people to look into a problem with the search, is to share the URL so we can look at it ourselves.
 

DjVortex

DjVortex
I made a trip to Beagle Point using a Cobra Mk V, and today decided to fly straight to Stuemeae FG-Y d7561 (the system where Explorer's Anchorage is) in one session.

The Spansh galaxy plotter gave me a route with 290 jumps. At the point when I had 233 jumps left I decided to re-plot from that system, and it gave me a new route that had only 212 jumps. In other words, re-plotting the route from that point saved 21 jumps. That's a good 20 minutes of travel time saved, give or take.

It seems that it doesn't always find the best possible routes, even by its own algorithm, and sometimes re-plotting the route (perhaps somewhere along the way) can give a significantly improved route.
 

athulin

A
DjVortex said:
It seems that it doesn't always find the best possible routes, even by its own algorithm, and sometimes re-plotting the route (perhaps somewhere along the way) can give a significantly improved route.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any claim to 'find the best possible routes' = shortest path. Note the presence of the calculation time setting and the note that "more time should produce shorter routes". Shortest path beyond some small path length takes time, and mostly you get 'a relatively decent path'. The in-game route plotter shows the same (or at least very similar) behaviour -- its limitations are there for a reason.
 
Last edited:

Spansh

S
DjVortex said:
I don't see such a setting in the galaxy plotter page...
Click to expand...
It's available for logged in users up to 2 minutes and patrons up to 4 minutes. Patrons also get tokens each month for a new router I released recently which uses an exhaustive algorithm to generate routes which are as good as they can be (with current galactic knowledge). These can take potentially an hour to generate (depending on how long the route is) and are fairly intensive process wise, which is why I've had to limit them.

They're mainly intended for people looking for world records but if you have tokens you may as well use them.
 

Neilski

Neilski
Am having some weirdness with the Exact Plotter. This may be a side-effect of me doing things it isn't meant to cope with, or it may be a subtle bug.
With the route at https://spansh.co.uk/exact-plotter/results/380E6F20-196F-11F0-9883-CB77A616E968, I'm getting broken fuel-usage info.

The MaxFuelPerJump setting for this drive has been edited to 0.6. (NB: it seems to make no difference if I do the edit in EDSY - which also updates MaxJumpRange, or manually within the text file without updating MaxJumpRange myself, so I'm inferring that the plotter ignores MaxJumpRange.)

The correct fuel consumption for this ship for that (single-hop) route is 0.56 t. When the MaxFuelPerJump is set to 3.2 t (the nominal value for the engineered FSD) I get the correct fuel consumption in the route results. When I set it to something smaller, the plotter tells me that the fuel consumption also reduces - e.g. when I choose 0.6 t for MaxFuelPerJump, the plotter says the jump will take 0.35 t.

I attempted to reproduce this with a nearly-stock Sidewinder, with just an upgraded FSD, but the symptoms didn't recur with the same route. Perhaps there's something else going on? (Or maybe one simply can't adjust MaxFuelPerJump.)
Edit: I was able to reproduce the issue when I added an FSD booster to the Sidewinder: https://spansh.co.uk/exact-plotter/results/3B876000-1972-11F0-9235-C022AB039D3F
 
Last edited:

Spansh

S
Eahlstan said:
I really appreciate it that you linked your search(es) and told us what you were looking for.
Keep up the good work 👍
Click to expand...
It looks like he searched for landmarks (since that field is included in the display). I'm fairly certain the landmark stuff was added in Odyssey, which was released in May 2021, which would explain why his results only go back to 2021.

Also, it's concievable (albeit ulikely) that someone has updated all those older systems by visiting them recently (possibly Atlas Rend themselves if they are using the search to find things to scan)) and as such the old search is returning the older systems with new update times.
 
Last edited:

Spansh

S
Neilski said:
Am having some weirdness with the Exact Plotter. This may be a side-effect of me doing things it isn't meant to cope with, or it may be a subtle bug.
With the route at https://spansh.co.uk/exact-plotter/results/380E6F20-196F-11F0-9883-CB77A616E968, I'm getting broken fuel-usage info.

The MaxFuelPerJump setting for this drive has been edited to 0.6. (NB: it seems to make no difference if I do the edit in EDSY - which also updates MaxJumpRange, or manually within the text file without updating MaxJumpRange myself, so I'm inferring that the plotter ignores MaxJumpRange.)

The correct fuel consumption for this ship for that (single-hop) route is 0.56 t. When the MaxFuelPerJump is set to 3.2 t (the nominal value for the engineered FSD) I get the correct fuel consumption in the route results. When I set it to something smaller, the plotter tells me that the fuel consumption also reduces - e.g. when I choose 0.6 t for MaxFuelPerJump, the plotter says the jump will take 0.35 t.

I attempted to reproduce this with a nearly-stock Sidewinder, with just an upgraded FSD, but the symptoms didn't recur with the same route. Perhaps there's something else going on? (Or maybe one simply can't adjust MaxFuelPerJump.)
Edit: I was able to reproduce the issue when I added an FSD booster to the Sidewinder: https://spansh.co.uk/exact-plotter/results/3B876000-1972-11F0-9235-C022AB039D3F
Click to expand...
I responded to you on Discord with some questions and suggestions. I suspect this'll require some back and forth to get to the bottom of as such would rather have it in a more realtime environment rather than posting replies and suggestions between us here.
 

Neilski

Neilski
Spansh said:
I responded to you on Discord with some questions and suggestions. I suspect this'll require some back and forth to get to the bottom of as such would rather have it in a more realtime environment rather than posting replies and suggestions between us here.
Click to expand...
Ah, wow. I seriously dislike Discord but I do use it now and then "when I really need to", so I will check it out ;)
(One of the many reasons for despising it is nicely illustrated by the fact that it hasn't alerted me via email to any messages...)
[edit: have replied in Discord and also confirmed that everything I can switch on within the "notifications" section is switched on, so I have no idea why it didn't email me; perhaps it's because Discord is garbage :D]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom