that out of the way, back to the f/g confused super giants.
None of you really have to go anywhere and visit potential f/g confused stars yourself.
I am doing it and bringing the evidence, so y'all don't have to
What should happen though is that a decision is made. If I am right, and G-Type super giants have a description of F-Type super giants by error.
That would on the one hand mean. Some stars are eligible under the G-Type category. Which are now not. Which is the smaller of the issues.
The bigger one would be. Some F-Star records based on F-star super giant descriptions might actually be G-Type ones. And exisiting records would have to be checked
against the galaxy map type description.
And future F/G super giant submissions would need to include a galaxy map screenshot.
I think I am pretty done with running all over collecting evidence. Found 2 more yesterday. Another F/G confused super giant. And a F/F unconfused super giant. The last
one is important for "color" reasons.
So let me present my findings that are spread out over many posts all here in one place:
Here's the list of f/g confused super giants. For all six supergiants, the galaxy map says g-type. the system map says f-type super giant:
if I might make your retina pay special attention to the color of each and every one of those stars in the system map. The well known by most of us G-type yellow-orangy color.
And here's the f/f unconfused super giant. where galaxy map and system map both say type F:
again, put your retinas focus on system map coloring of the super giant. The well known white-yellowish scheme we all recognize as F-type.
I can only come to one conclusion. description of g-type super giants is wrong in the system map and says f-type super giant instead. Result of that is some f-type records might be wrong....
I want to get back to civilised space for 1.2 and turn in my 1700 systems explored and hope it will be sufficient for pioneer. And hop in a vulture and fdl and give them a spin around combat zones.
I kinda like equilibrium among my ranks and going from dangerous to deadly would feel balanced with the pioneer from ranger ;-)
Anyway. I might pick up some more f/g, f/f super giants if I happen to be close by. But my zipping all over the place to collect them days are definitely over. ;-)
I'll volunteer for checking all the F-Type star records to see if they are F-Type Star Super giants in the description. Should take me 30 mins max with some google site searches...
But will wait for word from the Keepers first.
I like the super giants as separate category. Mainly because some supergiants are smaller than the biggest standard stars... always found that odd
Nice to see you have been illuminated - would you be now more receptive to the previously mentioned idea that we shouldn't base so strongly on descriptions?
be different now?
It's over 1200 LY north of Sol, and less than 1 LY from our ancestral home on the other axes! In fact, it's the furthest 'north' by far of any star within 1 LY. I was first there, as evidenced by these pics. Kinda proud of myself, as the jump to get there was a long one, and it's in a pretty isolated pocket of space, one that's only reachable from a certain number of points via suitably-equipped Asps and Anacondas, so at the very least, I just wanted to tell somebody, lol 
From 1.2 patch notes:
"Add a special text string for stars which are less than 1 million years old, rather than displaying '0 million years'"
We might need to revise our 0 YEARS MANY
Another thing:
"Avoid mapping rocky ice worlds as water worlds"
...we may need to re-check all current water world records whether they are still water worlds or have become rocky ice worlds instead? Or what do you guys think this line means?
Hi ender long time on see, no I haven't joined the illuminati yet ...sorry bad joke
I'm curious - Is it possible to have a category for 'furthest reachable star directly north of Sol'? Because I found it - Our 'true' North Star - Wregoe TV-L C24-0
Anyways, here are the pics:
And this is the view from 'up there'
Enjoy!
Very nice looking forward to all those new youngest recordsFrom 1.2 patch notes:
"Add a special text string for stars which are less than 1 million years old, rather than displaying '0 million years'"
We might need to revise our 0 YEARS MANY
Another thing:
"Avoid mapping rocky ice worlds as water worlds"
...we may need to re-check all current water world records whether they are still water worlds or have become rocky ice worlds instead? Or what do you guys think this line means?
