Survey of EDSM White Dwarf "D" Stars

I'm just wondering if anyone else has noticed that, apart from close to the bubble, all the White Dwarf "D" stars in EDSM are not just "D" stars but are actually "DA" or "DB" or "D-something"?

Is anyone else visiting "D" stars specifically? Is there anywhere that can show just "D" stars on a map or a list? According to EDSM there are 989 in the database, but its search function is limited to a 5,000Ly radius.

I'm not at the point where I need such things, EDSM is still telling me there are 51 within 5,000Ly of where I am, but I imagine they will be needed eventually.

Edit: I've looked at ED Astrometrics, but the white dwarf map shows all white dwarfs, not just the "D" types.
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong but I think all the D stars are "real" stars. The ones generated by stellar forge won't ever be D; they'll be DA, DB, etc.

I've actually been hunting rare dwarfs for a while; I had the galactic record for the heaviest DCV star and I've found multiple DBZ stars.

Basically I don't think there are any undiscovered D stars in the game.
 
my take on that would be to look at the core region.

when i was visiting all real galaxy hypergiants, i learned that there actually a very few proc gen ones. but there are.
 
My guess is that most of those 989 class D white dwarfs are wrong. In general 'special' stars without exact classifications (C - not CN, CJ, MS or S, WR - not WR-N, WR-C, WR-NC, WR-O) are from real astronomical catalogues and were just copied into the game.
All those class D white dwarfs - except 10 - are only present on EDSM and they all have procedurally generated names. I'm just about 40 jumps away from one of those system and will fly there tomorrow to check it.
EDDB and Spansh both have 10 class D white dwarfs, and they are all real life systems.

 
My guess is that most of those 989 class D white dwarfs are wrong. In general 'special' stars without exact classifications (C - not CN, CJ, MS or S, WR - not WR-N, WR-C, WR-NC, WR-O) are from real astronomical catalogues and were just copied into the game.
All those class D white dwarfs - except 10 - are only present on EDSM and they all have procedurally generated names. I'm just about 40 jumps away from one of those system and will fly there tomorrow to check it.
EDDB and Spansh both have 10 class D white dwarfs, and they are all real life systems.

Sounds like a big chunk of bad data in EDSM that needs fixing by visiting the questionable systems - paging @Lance 'Spacecat' D.
 
I noticed that on EDSM too. There was a D type WD I was going to travel to but when I bookmarked it realised it was a DA type.
 
Basically, if you're trying to get a first-discovered of one of every star type, DBZ is the dwarf that's going to give you some trouble. D and DQ are not really out there to discover.
 
I've now been to 10 of those systems. As suspected none of them were pure 'D' white dwarfs (and all were first visited by Allitnil).

EDSM updated all of them, so it would be possible to get completely rid of those wrong entries.

 
Sounds like a big chunk of bad data in EDSM that needs fixing by visiting the questionable systems - paging @Lance 'Spacecat' D.
Yes, that's what I thought, and what I've been doing. I've visited probably 20-30 so far and none of them were plain "D"s.

I was looking for the Spansh search functionality (I thought Spansh was just for finding "Neutron highways" - I didn't know it had a general search function), but Spansh doesn't appear to have a comprehensive database as it's only turning up 10 "D" stars.

When the EDSM search function starts getting thin on the ground I might get in touch with Anthor. It probably wouldn't be too hard to generate a listing of however many "D"s are left by then.
 
Last edited:
Spansh' database is as complete as possible. But he runs some checks to filter out things that are most likely false - just like those white dwarfs.

€: Just had a chat with Spansh, he said:
there are around 14million (probably less now) bodies I did not import from EDSM because they did not have corresponding id64's (they were too old)
 
Last edited:
I think there really are only 10 D stars in the game. They're all real stars and were imported from real-life star charts. Same with DQ.
 
Last edited:
Spansh' database is as complete as possible. But he runs some checks to filter out things that are most likely false - just like those white dwarfs.
My site is missing around 14 million bodies (probably less now) that did not have the id64 (the in game identifier for bodies and systems) as they were likely collected before the journal had the body id in it.

As those bodies get rescanned and we get more modern data for them they'll appear on my site.

I do have a list of the ones which I didn't import if anyone fancies organising the masses for a scanning party :)
 
The good news is that it looks like EDSM eventually backfilled the id64s somehow. Over time, my copy got populated with them, especially with later re-syncs. My copy is virtually at 100% with id64 now (only 6 systems without it, and all the bodies have it):

Code:
MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from systems where (id64 is null or id64=0) and deletionState=0;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        6 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.001 sec)

MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from planets where (systemId64 is null or systemId64=0) and deletionState=0; 
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        0 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.000 sec)

MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from stars where (systemId64 is null or systemId64=0) and deletionState=0;        
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        0 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.000 sec)
 
The good news is that it looks like EDSM eventually backfilled the id64s somehow. Over time, my copy got populated with them, especially with later re-syncs. My copy is virtually at 100% with id64 now (only 6 systems without it, and all the bodies have it):

Code:
MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from systems where (id64 is null or id64=0) and deletionState=0;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        6 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.001 sec)

MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from planets where (systemId64 is null or systemId64=0) and deletionState=0;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        0 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.000 sec)

MariaDB [elite]> select count(*) from stars where (systemId64 is null or systemId64=0) and deletionState=0;       
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|        0 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.000 sec)
As an example (going through the list I had) quite a few have been filled in, but can you check for Synuefe RV-K d9-63 5 that's one (I picked at random from my missing body ids file which was generated a long time ago). https://downloads.spansh.co.uk/null_body_ids.jsonl.gz is the file I generated.
 
As an example (going through the list I had) quite a few have been filled in, but can you check for Synuefe RV-K d9-63 5 that's one (I picked at random from my missing body ids file which was generated a long time ago). https://downloads.spansh.co.uk/null_body_ids.jsonl.gz is the file I generated.
Yep, looks like the id64 for its system is 2175191173459:

Code:
MariaDB [elite]> select * from planets where name='Synuefe RV-K d9-63 5' \G     
*************************** 1. row ***************************
                           id: 5830315
                       edsmID: 5830315
                   systemId64: 2175191173459
                     systemId: 22750
                         name: Synuefe RV-K d9-63 5
                      subType: Class III gas giant
                   isLandable: 0
                   updateTime: 2017-07-03 18:45:07
                      updated: 2020-05-25 18:49:54
                       offset: NULL
            distanceToArrival: 8509
                    orbitType: 3
rotationalPeriodTidallyLocked: 0
             rotationalPeriod: 0.187295
                    axialTilt: 0.254392
                      gravity: 14.2296
           surfaceTemperature: 426
                  earthMasses: 1846.34
                       radius: 72651.4
           orbitalInclination: -0.814515
               argOfPeriapsis: 320.53
                semiMajorAxis: 0.00202959
          orbitalEccentricity: 0.000904
                orbitalPeriod: 675.759
            terraformingState: Not terraformable
                volcanismType: No volcanism
               atmosphereType: No atmosphere
              surfacePressure: NULL
                       bodyId: NULL
                      parents: NULL
                   parentStar: 5664761
                 parentPlanet: 0
                commanderName: NULL
                discoveryDate: NULL
                deletionState: 0
                     adj_date: NULL
                     planetID: 3231674
1 row in set (0.001 sec)
 
Ah, yeah that's a different story. Tons of those are missing. I'm not sure I'm even properly saving those. I'll need to check now.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yeah that's a different story. Tons of those are missing. I'm not sure I'm even properly saving those. I'll need to check now.
Hm. Still doesn't look like the same to me.
Of course you get a ton of stars with bodyID 0, because every main star in a system has this bodyID - though there really should be no planets with this ID.

We're talking about the id64, you can spot it in the second row of my screenshots.

€: I might be wrong about the 'every main star' thing, it's possible that there are systems with two stars orbiting a bary center with ID 0, I didn't check that.
€2: Checked it with Phroi Blou EG-Y g113, star A has the bodyID 3 and orbits three bary centers with the bodyIDs 0, 1 and 2. So now I'll say 'Of course you get a ton of stars with bodyID 0, because every main star in a system, that doesn't orbit a bary center, has this bodyID.'.
€3: Now that you've edited your posting and deleted your DB queries nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about :p
 
Last edited:
€3: Now that you've edited your posting and deleted your DB queries nobody knows what the hell I'm talking about :p
Yeah, I queried the wrong column. I'm not tracking the id64 for the bodies, and I have scripts remedying that now. Thankfully I have enough historical data that I should be able to fill in what would have been there.

EDIT: You weren't suppose to see that, I was editing it almost immediately after I realized my mistake. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom