Procedural Generation vs Known Stars

[spacedyemeerkat]

I am sure this has been discussed ad-infinitum, but it's a little hard to track down through the search function.

Does the procedural generation of stars and systems begin within the known sky or 'outside' the known sky? Example: Eranin and Asellus Prime are fictional while, IIRC, the stars in Bootes aren't. (I guess technically Eranin and AP aren't procedurally generated but they are fictional.)

Just curious

 

[Viajero]

Several post by Michael Brookes on this topic. Recommend you search his posts and then dig in.

As per his comments it would seem FD has made a very specific effort to model the 100,000-150,000 star systems closest around sol as per current available data in some of the most well known Astronomical catalogues around, so to ensure the view from the solar system matches our current view of the night sky.

You can actually see that is already in game. The first Single Player mission actually happens in the Solar System:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px6bkQRLXGM

Then FD has put in all the "lore" related systems, those that have always been there in the Elite universe (Lave etc).

The rest, for the most part, although with especific exceptions, will be a mix of Astronomical catalogue data and PG. Given that the current catalogues cover at most a few million celestial objects (and not all of them are stars) it is safe to assume that the vast majority of those 400 billion will be PG.

Devs, please correct me if I am wrong!

 

[Splendour]

The two mesh together. If it were not the case there would be some areas in a bubble around Sol with a few very bright stars and a whole lot of emptyness....

 

[Toscaner]

there are some interviews to be found on youtube with David Braben where he also describes their approach

as mentioned, there are several catalogues of known stars, which cover around 100k objects, those will be integrated
and for the PG generated ones, they use some basic mechanics how star systems are possible, and let the PG do variations based on that mechanics, so also the artificial systems are somewhat physically correct

 

[hunvagy]

http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/

I just wish it had a search function as good as our starmap in E: D

 

[spacedyemeerkat]

Thanks for the replies, folks, greatly appreciated.

 

[peteuplink]

Does anyone know what that big asteroid field is that's near the Earth? From it's position it looks like the moon has been wiped out by something :S

 

[Iain M Norman]

There's about 140,000 hand placed stars. The vast vast majority of these will have procedurally generated planets I expect.

I'd also expect key lore related systems will have specific planets copied over from FFE/Frontier.

Some stars might be in the correct place, and have the correct type but have a funky new name beyond an existing boring catalog name as they are now populated.

Why not ask Michael tomorrow on twitch. I'm just making educated guesses.

I reckon there are 141,389 hand placed stars all the way from * tet02 Orionis C to z-2 Carinae.

But that's just a guess...

*wink*

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I'd like to see a lot more of the catalogue named stars get names. I'm sure if people start living in systems they'd give their star a name.

Can't tell my LPs from my LHS and having Ross 1015 on the opposite side of the bubble from Ross 1051 is just messing with us.

 

[Defacto]

I'd like to see a lot more of the catalogue named stars get names. I'm sure if people start living in systems they'd give their star a name.

Can't tell my LPs from my LHS and having Ross 1015 on the opposite side of the bubble from Ross 1051 is just messing with us.

I agree. I mean, just look at how we name every little crater on the back side of the moon, etc.