If you don't get anywhere with this let me know, I'm up for trying making a map. Let me know.
The Quest To Find Raxxla
- Thread starter Macros Black
- Start date
I never did any measurements
but, I can fit 3/4 of my conda inside the rear wings, as in to the opening at the bottom side of the Thargoid
and it fits with some room to spare inside the actual main room, the Pilots Chamber, the Thargoid device chamber. length-wise
Height, could probably put 2 maybe 3 condas on top of each other inside.
and that map, is the pathway that goes around the main chamber.
As mentioned before, I was able to get a conda inside to take photos...lotsa room.
the wings, I have photos of my tiny conda parked on one, you can barely see the conda...
but they are separated and not a part of the main ship body.sooo big, like 20 condas long x 5 condas high...
heh feels like cowboy measurements..
but, I can fit 3/4 of my conda inside the rear wings, as in to the opening at the bottom side of the Thargoid
and it fits with some room to spare inside the actual main room, the Pilots Chamber, the Thargoid device chamber. length-wise
Height, could probably put 2 maybe 3 condas on top of each other inside.
and that map, is the pathway that goes around the main chamber.
As mentioned before, I was able to get a conda inside to take photos...lotsa room.
the wings, I have photos of my tiny conda parked on one, you can barely see the conda...
but they are separated and not a part of the main ship body.sooo big, like 20 condas long x 5 condas high...
heh feels like cowboy measurements..
someone asked some days ago about the lights on the antenna, I know myself and many have checked it in many stations for various things long ago
I consider them Citadels. they are huge when you get up close. Like the largest skyscraper in town.. some have billions of people in them.
looks like a lot of effort to design.
anyway, not relevant imo but some stations antenna have a section near the bottom that looks exactly like the large black portions of the Raxxla logo.
never really noticed that before.
I consider them Citadels. they are huge when you get up close. Like the largest skyscraper in town.. some have billions of people in them.
looks like a lot of effort to design.
anyway, not relevant imo but some stations antenna have a section near the bottom that looks exactly like the large black portions of the Raxxla logo.
never really noticed that before.
Thanks more the merrier I say.
I’m currently distracted as I follow in the footsteps of the Morning Star’s journey; across the brow of the crystalline sphere, very likely nothing there.
Then to Delphi and some mapping, taking my jolly time.
My considerations are to better understand the actual ‘shape’ of the exterior and interior, maybe to utilise some colour gradients to better define the shape, or look for repeating structures which might identify its shape where it’s hidden.
The objective is to assess if it is truly hexagonal or octagonal in shape.
The simplest solution is the dot/circle denotes an Omphalos; the 3 prongs the map room; the inner hexagon the interior of the vessel and the larger hexagon the exterior, the six lines potentially interior tunnels or repeating external structures (memory tells me some tunnels were blocked by debris).
Doubtful as my mind presumes it to be octagonal.
Last edited:
I'm back with another Historical Comparison set - as always, the objective here is to establish a baseline across the Sol system for "what's normal and what's weird" for future Raxxla hunters who feel something in Sol may tie into the Raxxla mystery. As with Saturn and Jupiter, it's clear that time and effort has gone into visually matching surface features and large-scale geology - although as we move out from the more studied planets and moons, Fdev clearly took more creative license, and do remember that New Horizons data on Pluto and Charon wasn't yet available in the same detail as we have it today (Pluto flyby was in 2015). As always I'm trying to use pre-2015 data.
See Also, Historical comparisons: Saturn and its moons, Jupiter and its moons.
Note: As with Saturn and Jupiter, Uranus is known to have many small non-spherical moonlets which are not present in 3308.
Much like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, Oberon and Ariel seem to have lost all their ice yet retained their mass and radius. Umbriel and Titania seem relatively unchanged over the past ~1300 years.
Uranus itself, despite some alterations to atmospheric composition, appears essentially the same as it did to observers ~1300 years ago. The more stout rings may be the result of collisions between smaller moons or captured bodies, as with speculation around Jupiter's more substantial ring system.
Note: As with Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus, Neptune is known to have several smaller non-spherical moonlets which are not present in 3308, Triton makes up 95% of the mass of all Neptunian moons.
Triton is a mystery. Historically it was though to be a captured body, possibly from the kuiper belt. Comparisons have been made with Pluto in terms of composition and size. However, many other details are a mismatch with historical records. It was listed as being "geologically active" in historical records, similar to Io, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.
This comparison shows that Triton in 3308 does not have any of these features listed on Galmap or visually present, and seems to lack an atmosphere. The very fact that some agency felt it necessary to anonymously place a permit lock on Triton is curious. As recently as 3302 Triton was accessible to private citizens.
Next up: the inner planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth (& Luna), and Mars.
See Also, Historical comparisons: Saturn and its moons, Jupiter and its moons.
Comparison of Uranus and its Moons:
Note: As with Saturn and Jupiter, Uranus is known to have many small non-spherical moonlets which are not present in 3308.
Historical moons Comparison:
Historical records from the late 20th and early 21st Century are sparse. Few probes had been dispatched to the outer reaches of the system. Broadly speaking Uranus' moons are similar to those of Saturn - mostly a combination of ice and rock pock-marked by craters. Miranda is not present in 3308, presumably suffering the same fate as Mimas, both moons are relatively small and comprised of a large amount of ice.Much like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, Oberon and Ariel seem to have lost all their ice yet retained their mass and radius. Umbriel and Titania seem relatively unchanged over the past ~1300 years.
Uranus Historical Comparison:
The planet Uranus seems largely unchanged, despite suffering the same atmospheric Hydrogen depletion as Saturn and Jupiter. Over the last ~1300 years Hydrogen has dropped from the 83% estimated in the early 2000s to 73% by 3308, as expected atmospheric Helium has risen from 15% to 26.3% over the same period.Planetary Rings:
In the early 21st Century Uranus' rings were described as being "composed of extremely dark particles, which vary in size from micrometres to a fraction of a metre.". Thirteen faint rings were present at this time. By 3308, similar to Jupiter, Uranus' ring system is more substantial, although still very faint compared to Saturn.Historical Comparison of Uranus and its Moons Conclusion:
Little was known of the moons of Uranus in the early 21st Century, but compositions were estimated based on radius and mass. As with Saturn and Jupiter it seems as though ice has been stripped from two moons without altering mass, radius or orbit. The remaining moons are broadly similar to historical records.Uranus itself, despite some alterations to atmospheric composition, appears essentially the same as it did to observers ~1300 years ago. The more stout rings may be the result of collisions between smaller moons or captured bodies, as with speculation around Jupiter's more substantial ring system.
Comparison of Neptune and Triton:
Note: As with Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus, Neptune is known to have several smaller non-spherical moonlets which are not present in 3308, Triton makes up 95% of the mass of all Neptunian moons.
Historical Triton Comparison:
Triton in 3308 is permit-locked by an unknown agency, but some information is available. As recorded in data from the early 21st Century, Triton orbits in a retrograde path around Neptune. Historically Triton was known to have an atmosphere of Nitrogen and Methane, early probes detected what might have been clouds and atmospheric 'haze'. This atmosphere appears to be entirely lacking by 3308, it's unknown if this relates to the permit-lock.Neptune Historical Comparison:
The planet Neptune appears visually extremely similar to probe data from the early 21st Century. Its radius and mass are identical, despite apparently suffering the same atmospheric Hydrogen reduction as Saturn, Jupiter, and Uranus. Neptune's atmosphere still has visible banding and lighter storm spots, indicating that overall the atmosphere is largely the same after ~1300 years.Historical Comparison of Neptune and Triton Conclusion:
Neptune seems essentially unchanged from the early 2000s data, visually or compositionally, despite undergoing the same Hydrogen-reduction (presumably due to skimming for industrial use?).Triton is a mystery. Historically it was though to be a captured body, possibly from the kuiper belt. Comparisons have been made with Pluto in terms of composition and size. However, many other details are a mismatch with historical records. It was listed as being "geologically active" in historical records, similar to Io, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.
This comparison shows that Triton in 3308 does not have any of these features listed on Galmap or visually present, and seems to lack an atmosphere. The very fact that some agency felt it necessary to anonymously place a permit lock on Triton is curious. As recently as 3302 Triton was accessible to private citizens.
Comparison of Pluto and Charon:
Pluto and Charon Historical Comparison:
These two dwarf planets have both suffered the same de-icing as some of the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune. Estimates of their radius and composition were hard to make via the primitive probes used in the early 21st Century, however, so considerations must be made.Next up: the inner planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth (& Luna), and Mars.
There octagonal, saved me a trip…unless the one at Delphi isn’t?
Post in thread 'Surface Features - Barnacles/Unknown Structures/Crashed Ships etc...'
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...uctures-crashed-ships-etc.380577/post-5986913
Hold on to your seat, this one gets weird.
I flew to COL 359 Sector DA-Q D5-17 and matched up my view with your video and took screenshots. Then I overlaid two frames of your video (one with the blinking stars, and one without) and then aligned and overlaid my screenshot. I then marked the location of your blinking stars with red circles...
Your Frame 1: Suspect Stars circled with red.
Your frame 2: Stars missing in the circled areas:
My screenshot of the same starfield overlaid over yours, the red markers remain in the same place... but... ah....:
The blinking stars you noticed seem to have moved on my screen?! The red circles are where the stars blinked for you, the blue are stars that appear on my screenshot but not on yours!!
They aren't blinking, I would never have noticed any difference had we not done this.
This final image is Frame 3 (my screenshot) over your frame 2, but with opacity so you can see through mine to yours.
Because of FOV and stuff my screenshot isn't exactly the same, that's why some of the stars look motion-doubled a bit, but you can clearly see that this is the same area of space and the 'movement' of the stars is far greater and less predictable than the FOV doubled stars!
I've sat looking at these stars for many minutes and they don't appear to blink for me.
I've no idea. Maybe a third set of eyes on this is needed??
Edit: spelling and stuff.
Thank you so much for heading out to the system. The circles are a brilliant way of illustrating what's going on.
To note: there is a trinary on the background approximately 180 behind the screen shots. When that trinary is approached, the stars on your screenshot disappear and vice versa. The binary in your screenshots is somewhere on the background behind the B star, the Trinary is somewhere on the background behind the A star. (see all of my short four videos to see both the Binary and Trinary) - the Binary in your screen shots is in the first red circle on the left. Needless to say, I have been looking for a third single background star on the radius exactly between the binary and trinary to be able to triangulate from.
I created the flashing by entering normal space at equidistant between the binary and trinary. This point seems to coincide with the Barycentre of star A and star B of the system. You can see this position on the Orrery in the Galaxy map.
I suspect the difference in your view and my view is where you end up at the Barycentre. For example, I can approach the Binary with the systems star A at my back and fly straight towards star B approaching the binary (first red circle on the left) until it disappears or I can fly away from star A to point X and then head towards the same binary until it disappears. In each example, if I rotate 180 degrees, I will see the trinary (near M32 below Andromeda) and can fly towards that until it disappears.
Thank you so much for updating the Issue Tracker with FDEV.
Good science!
Dont forget to support imonix’s issue report with this new evidence, just need two more supporters & it might get some dev attention. I wonder if this is only happening in EDO, and whether it indicates an EDO bug in translating the position of stars to the skymap, being processed differently for different players? The code must be common, so is it perhaps a rounding error difference between different OS/processors/video cards? I was going to ask what the distance is to the stars in question, but I know how difficult it is to identify them & match the view out the cockpit to the galmap; that’s something where I consistently have difficulties.
You can precisely locate a barycentre using the comet hunting method by selecting its bodyid number. Though when you drop out at it you find that it moves away from you faster than your thrusters can catch.
@Macros Black : hi mate. It might be worth putting a description of the two comet hunting methods on the front page of the thread. I can pm you a text if you’d like.
No problem, happy to help.
Thanks for the updated directions. I tried my best to follow them and wasn't able to reproduce the blinking (though my stellar dead reckoning navigation is less than optimal
I also matched the disappearing star from your first video too, same steps and frames as before:
Your Frame 1, star highlighted in red circle. I marked the HUD to avoid confusion (it's less obvious it's a hud marker on still images)
Your Frame 2 showing the star vanishing.
My matched frame showing the same red marker where your star is (I also put on my lights and night vision since you have them on too):
Merged your frame 1 and my frame so you can see the star matches:
Your Frame 2 showing the star vanishing.
My matched frame showing the same red marker where your star is (I also put on my lights and night vision since you have them on too):
Merged your frame 1 and my frame so you can see the star matches:
). I'm absolutely sure I wasn't in the same exact location as you, but I tried to get somewhere close. What I wouldn't give for some sort of space GPS system
I don't know enough about the skybox distant stars technique to be able to call this a bug. I can say that you see stars that I didn't, and it seems some stars were visible for me that weren't in your videos (as per previous post). It's definitely weird!
@Jorki Rasalas trying to identify the star/direction is a great idea. I tried my best with this one since it's a single star, the closest I got was COL 359 Sector CU-H C10-3 (38.2ly). It's definitely not that star, but it's in the ballpark direction. I wasn't able to narrow it down any more.
Given the relative magnitude of the apparent star (it appears to be pretty big/bright), I couldn't see any suspect stars on Galmap in that direction that were close. Either way, if someone else goes there to confirm at least this will help narrow the direction for this check.
To anyone who wants to replicate the flashing, I probably should add that there seems to be a point in space, a consistent distance from Star A to Star B where one can drop into the normal space exactly between the background binary (seen in your post behind Star B) and the background Trinary (behind Star A) which is around 133,955 Ls with Star A selected. Note that when the binary disappears, the trinary immediately appears 180 degrees behind and vice versa. Once in this exact position in normal space (which does take a while going back and forth between the background binary and background trinary) you can adjust the ship's speed heading in one of the directions to fine tune. The blinking appears to be the result of the binary (or trinary) slowly moving away from (or towards) your ship. The speed of your ship to see this flashing seems dependent on ship angle whilst viewing the binary or trinary but is anywhere between 2 km/s or 119 km/s. In my video, I picked the trinary behind Star A and put the ship into reverse. It is also possible to see both out of the cockpit's side widows and use thrusters to stay in the middle of the two.No problem, happy to help.
Thanks for the updated directions. I tried my best to follow them and wasn't able to reproduce the blinking (though my stellar dead reckoning navigation is less than optimal
I also matched the disappearing star from your first video too, same steps and frames as before:
I also re-checked the 'blinking stars' line against planets in system, just to make sure that they weren't transiting bodies (they're notYour Frame 1, star highlighted in red circle. I marked the HUD to avoid confusion (it's less obvious it's a hud marker on still images)
View attachment 333496
Your Frame 2 showing the star vanishing.
View attachment 333497
My matched frame showing the same red marker where your star is (I also put on my lights and night vision since you have them on too):
View attachment 333498
Merged your frame 1 and my frame so you can see the star matches:
View attachment 333499
I'm absolutely sure I wasn't in the same exact location as you, but I tried to get somewhere close. What I wouldn't give for some sort of space GPS system
I don't know enough about the skybox distant stars technique to be able to call this a bug. I can say that you see stars that I didn't, and it seems some stars were visible for me that weren't in your videos (as per previous post). It's definitely weird!
@Jorki Rasalas trying to identify the star/direction is a great idea. I tried my best with this one since it's a single star, the closest I got was COL 359 Sector CU-H C10-3 (38.2ly). It's definitely not that star, but it's in the ballpark direction. I wasn't able to narrow it down any more.
Given the relative magnitude of the apparent star (it appears to be pretty big/bright), I couldn't see any suspect stars on Galmap in that direction that were close. Either way, if someone else goes there to confirm at least this will help narrow the direction for this check.
Still got around 150 jumps (from initial 254) for Jorki to get to the next candidate gravitational wave source for “comet/Raxxla” search, so second account (young clone Tyko) is going to spend some time going out to a nearer candidate (which on reconsideration may just be a better bet), before Stargoids arrive!
fwiw
the stars etc. seem to align mostly ok between EDO and EDH
but each body does seem to be on a different rotation
in horizons, park on a body
relog into EDO and it is a different location but same body and not likely parked
in horizons, park Near a body
relog into EDO and it is has moved by roughly half of its daily rotation
this seems to vary a lot from system to system. hard to measure something that should not exist. need an anchor point. in space. in a moving galaxy.
the rotation gap also seems to be continuously growing.
in Horizons everything looks normal
in EDO everything sparkles, the sand, ice, stars.
you stop moving and most of it stops sparkling.
if there are some sync loops created to keep edo and edh properly aligned, it needs fixing.
it makes little sense that there are 2 sets of bodies, so it has to be the routines used to place things in the skybox
why different between the 2 versions when you can really only be in one at a time for a given cmdr, is just confusing.
I enjoy the sky in Horizons
I dislike the sky immensely in Odyssey. it feels painted, not real, distant. it feels low grade compared to horizons. between that and the new witchspace, feels like a huge downgrade.
and why I spend most of my time in Horizons still.
where it feels like I can easily go and touch any star I see. and the sky is not subject to visual degradation if you move.
and nothing to do with raxxla other than it, we and the twinkles are all in the same place.
if twinkle twinkle little star is a clue to anything, I quit.
the stars etc. seem to align mostly ok between EDO and EDH
but each body does seem to be on a different rotation
in horizons, park on a body
relog into EDO and it is a different location but same body and not likely parked
in horizons, park Near a body
relog into EDO and it is has moved by roughly half of its daily rotation
this seems to vary a lot from system to system. hard to measure something that should not exist. need an anchor point. in space. in a moving galaxy.
the rotation gap also seems to be continuously growing.
in Horizons everything looks normal
in EDO everything sparkles, the sand, ice, stars.
you stop moving and most of it stops sparkling.
if there are some sync loops created to keep edo and edh properly aligned, it needs fixing.
it makes little sense that there are 2 sets of bodies, so it has to be the routines used to place things in the skybox
why different between the 2 versions when you can really only be in one at a time for a given cmdr, is just confusing.
I enjoy the sky in Horizons
I dislike the sky immensely in Odyssey. it feels painted, not real, distant. it feels low grade compared to horizons. between that and the new witchspace, feels like a huge downgrade.
and why I spend most of my time in Horizons still.
where it feels like I can easily go and touch any star I see. and the sky is not subject to visual degradation if you move.
and nothing to do with raxxla other than it, we and the twinkles are all in the same place.
if twinkle twinkle little star is a clue to anything, I quit.
I really strongly feel this method should not be promoted here.
Accidentally finding comet listings in INARA or EDDB, or seeing stations orbiting something invisible and investigating to find that it's an invisible comet, is one thing - but this method is widely considered to be a game exploit.
This is not how Raxxla should be found, it should not be part of the search methodology promoted here.
Its actually wildly against the rules and is a bannable offence to do what he is suggesting, Altering game files as suggested isnt allowed and abusing client side files to tease out server side 'errors' is VERY LARGELY in the realm of Datamining/Client-Manipulation. Reported for what it is hopefully others do the same...
“this method is widely considered to be a game exploit‘ - what is the evidence for this assertion? Exactly who considers this to be a game exploit, and exactly how many players have this belief? Has anyone from FD said this is an exploit, and what is the source reference for that? Louis, let’s not have vague innuendo but give us facts.
I’m pretty sure FD read this thread & we’ve had no comments, either for or against. It can be argued that the very existence of Pareco and its system design is FD pointing out that comets exist in-game. Moreover in 2015 Michael Brookes explicitly told us so: “The game has always had some stations orbiting comets” (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/what-is-this.209391/post-3223324). What would be the point of trying to keep them hidden and issuing that statement?
Furthermore, the second search method was provided by FD themselves!
I note your feelings, and if you read earlier posts in this thread on this comet hunting method you will see that I initially shared them. But it was discussed & I can’t see there is any breach of the EULA in its use. Nor have moderators deleted any of the posts (or threads) relating to hunting comets. DB told us that we don’t know what Raxxla is, but he hasn’t forbidden any methods of looking for it. This is Macros’ thread and he has decided to document this.
You are, of course, free to follow your own beliefs, opinions and gameplay preferences, but decisions as to how others seek to play and/or quest for Raxxla are not in your remit. Who are you to decide how Raxxla should be found? Louis don’t be so patronising!
Last edited:
Your telling us that "Fdev provided this method" in which you alter files accessed by the game in a attempt to extract hidden not public information from the game by exploiting the client to load manually edited values?
Im going to say your either outright lying or id suggest showing proof of this supposed provider from Fdev for this method as altering files loaded by the game without it being authorised "GUI" only changes is a breach of the EULA and as what your saying is 100% NOT GUI related and is related to extracting information from the game you wouldnt otherwise have, thus is a clear breach and is easily under the branch of datamining via exploitation of the client via modified game client files.
@Ozric Ive Quoted the offending section, please note a) Altering of ED Files, b) for NON-GUI only purposes and c) To trick the client into loading the manually edited values in the file so it provides information otherwise not provided to players....
To be clear im sure you may believe its acceptable but the fact remains its really not and anything like that should rightfully be called out when seen so bad behaviours or erroneous beliefs can be corrected...
Last edited: