I'd recently been wondering on my travels if anyone had come up with a shorthand system for noting system make-ups. So between disconnects and failed scans, I put this together.
The notation is comma-seperated and the key is:
UpperCase - Scanned
LowerCase - Unscanned
S - Star [class]
M - High Metal planet
R/I/RI - Rocky/Icy/Rocky-Ice planet
An - Asteroid belt (num)
E - Earth-like
W - Water world
G - Gas planet [class, e.g G2=Class 2] (with life where noted, e.g. GW - gas with water based life)
. - rings
B - Black hole
? - unknown
x - orbit point
() - denotes orbits
[] - denotes satellites
{} - denotes contact stars
+ - Giant
/ - new 'row' (for want of a better term)
So, first off the bat is this, a simple distant binary:
This would be noted as (SM/s) - a scanned M-Class star and an unscanned star orbiting each other.
The next example is this:
which would be logged as (SK,M,(M,M),M,M,M/x,I/SM) and all are scanned.
A third example would be:
which is SK,A3,M,a10,GW.[R,R,R,R,R,I,I],(G2.[i,i,i,i],G1.[i,i]),G1.[r,i,i,i,i],I - Here, the outer satellites are unscanned, so the bodies marked in lowercase can only be assumed to be the noted type; that 'rocky' may well be another ice on closer inspection. Also note the ringed body notation.
and finally:
({SM/SL}/((SM[R]/SL)/SL)) - The thing to note here - apart from the nested orbits - being the 'curly braces' around the primary star and its close neighbour, indicating potential peril to any commanders visiting this system.
Not included are other combinations like Water Giants W+, but you get the idea.
Can anyone see any flaws in this system? It does seem rather inelegant to me and I've probably overlooked something. Maybe someone has already come up with something better?
As for its usefulness, I suppose these could be shared along with star co-ords etc as part of the ongoing community efforts. You could even generate system maps from them. How useful this is without distances is another matter though, and any attempt to include those would bloat it out of any usefulness I think.
Anyway, as I've now typed it up, I'm throwing it out there. Would be interested in any opinions - even if they are "well that's 2 hours of your life you're never getting back".
The notation is comma-seperated and the key is:
UpperCase - Scanned
LowerCase - Unscanned
S - Star [class]
M - High Metal planet
R/I/RI - Rocky/Icy/Rocky-Ice planet
An - Asteroid belt (num)
E - Earth-like
W - Water world
G - Gas planet [class, e.g G2=Class 2] (with life where noted, e.g. GW - gas with water based life)
. - rings
B - Black hole
? - unknown
x - orbit point
() - denotes orbits
[] - denotes satellites
{} - denotes contact stars
+ - Giant
/ - new 'row' (for want of a better term)
So, first off the bat is this, a simple distant binary:

This would be noted as (SM/s) - a scanned M-Class star and an unscanned star orbiting each other.
The next example is this:

which would be logged as (SK,M,(M,M),M,M,M/x,I/SM) and all are scanned.
A third example would be:

which is SK,A3,M,a10,GW.[R,R,R,R,R,I,I],(G2.[i,i,i,i],G1.[i,i]),G1.[r,i,i,i,i],I - Here, the outer satellites are unscanned, so the bodies marked in lowercase can only be assumed to be the noted type; that 'rocky' may well be another ice on closer inspection. Also note the ringed body notation.
and finally:

({SM/SL}/((SM[R]/SL)/SL)) - The thing to note here - apart from the nested orbits - being the 'curly braces' around the primary star and its close neighbour, indicating potential peril to any commanders visiting this system.
Not included are other combinations like Water Giants W+, but you get the idea.
Can anyone see any flaws in this system? It does seem rather inelegant to me and I've probably overlooked something. Maybe someone has already come up with something better?
As for its usefulness, I suppose these could be shared along with star co-ords etc as part of the ongoing community efforts. You could even generate system maps from them. How useful this is without distances is another matter though, and any attempt to include those would bloat it out of any usefulness I think.
Anyway, as I've now typed it up, I'm throwing it out there. Would be interested in any opinions - even if they are "well that's 2 hours of your life you're never getting back".