Universal Cartographics Galactic Record Breakers

[Apocryphic]

Quite possible there is something I am missing even about C-types and White Dwarfs. I love being convinced otherwise...

Perhaps it's because I just set several records, but the carbon stars are already broken out. I would avoid breaking out additional classes, though. The record book is already large, and would be huge if more subtypes are broken out.

The white dwarf classes are all effectively identical. Yesterday, I logged the seven common classes (DA, DB, DC, DAB, DAV, DBV, DCV) in a short time with no noticeable difference between them. I have never seen the other subtypes beyond the bubble around Sol. Wolf-Rayets also have several subtypes, with W, WN, WC, WNC, WO. All of these are distinguishable by description.

Down that path is madness, and likely ends with breaking everything down further by luminosity class.

 

[TrapArecev]

<snip> some records are "cooler" than others <snip>.

The next three are a little "cooler" than the first three. I especially enjoyed finding both the largest and smallest Class III Gas Giants, the most common class, not a 100 Ly separated from one another.


HEAVIEST GAS GIANT WITH AMMONIA-BASED LIFE
SYNUEFE MP-H A78-3 1 WITH 857.0194 EARTH MASSES
CMDR TRAP ARECEV

Spoiler

LARGEST CLASS III GAS GIANT
SYNUEFE BL-W C18-4 6 WITH A RADIUS OF 77,776 KM
CMDR TRAP ARECEV

Spoiler

SMALLEST CLASS III GAS GIANT
HIP 33232 A 1 WITH A RADIUS OF 14,203 KM
CMDR TRAP ARECEV

Spoiler

 

[R3tCrick3t]

the next three are a little "cooler" than the first three. I especially enjoyed finding both the largest and smallest class iii gas giants, the most common class, not a 100 ly separated from one another.


Heaviest gas giant with ammonia-based life
synuefe mp-h a78-3 1 with 857.0194 earth masses
cmdr trap arecev

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/a3dw7f1.png

largest class iii gas giant
synuefe bl-w c18-4 6 with a radius of 77,776 km
cmdr trap arecev

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/iw6qpmi.png

smallest class iii gas giant
hip 33232 a 1 with a radius of 14,203 km
cmdr trap arecev

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/kvtqvvh.png

records have been added

 

[tired_man]

B-TYPE STAR WITH THE MOST BODIES
TEQIE TO-Q E5-6143 WITH 70 BODIES

CMDR tired_man
ASP "Curious Hedgehog"

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Ender]

I still disagree with the C-types. Afaik there are 3 C-type stars in the record books. And there are the same three types in the descriptions. You have a clear one to one match. So additional info in the form of a galaxy map screenshot are not required. I don't really see the issue with the White Dwarfs either. Seeing we only have one White Dwarf Category. I guess I stumbled onto this record book to late to be aware of what the issue with the M-type, IIRC description is. Or it was part of a few posts I didn't read since partaking in this effort.

In both cases, unless I miss something (quite possible, my Asp has had limited exposure to the radiation patterns of both any C-type Stars, as well as White Dwarfs), the description in the system map uniquely identifies which category in the books the record applies to. So no reason imo to make everybody make and submit even more screenshots.

The case of the F/G confused super giants is different as the system map description does not uniquely identify which category in the record book the record applies to. If one takes into consideration the color of the star. System map would be sufficient too. As all galaxy map G-types have the orange-yellow scheme. But tbh. I don't trust colors on computers and the internet too much ;-)


Anyway. Quite possible there is something I am missing even about C-types and White Dwarfs. I love being convinced otherwise...

Hi ender long time on see, no I haven't joined the illuminati yet ...sorry bad joke
I don't think so, I still don't see a bug in the description for carbon stars please enlighten us if you know of one. we don't currently differentiate between white dwarfs but when we do any unclear entries will need clear evidence and the m giant bug (I think your referring to the bug in the description which doesn't state the star class) the few records that were posted did included galmap I think. we are currently working on the next stage of this project which involves us going over everything so hopefully we will see any mistakes in the current records

Sadly, I don't have so much time for ED these days as I'd like to but yes, I'll try to illuminate you, again (possible lack of success is entirely on me, of course)

1. Mentioned C-types issue (actually carbon stars issue), white dwarfs and M-type giants were just poor examples because I couldn't remember better ones - they are poor because they can confuse only inexperienced explorers (I am not sure if it's poor in case of white dwarfs). However:
- it's beside the point how many C-types we have in the book currently because a new type can be discovered (in-game) any moment and it will be in the book, then
- you can't even be sure we know all carbon star types so how you could be sure their descriptions are clear (I still say they are unclear for an inexperienced explorer)
- it's entirely possible that more types have already been seen but their descriptions are so misleading (as in case of class II gas giants in the past) and their discoverers have been so focused on those descriptions that they have not spotted anything new
- my point is a general one, see below

2. Your find with F/G supergiants is excellent to prove my point (and I thank you for that):
- if we haven't realized for so long that they are mismatched then it's entirely possible there are more similar cases (not only F/G supergiants) and we have just missed them focusing on descriptions too much
- if we attached just one additional (easy to take) picture from the Galaxy Map to our evidence of star records then what you have just found we would have spotted long ago and it wouldn't have been needed to comb through records to find wrong ones
- if the issue was spotted long ago then perhaps it would already have been corrected by FDevs

Why do you trust descriptions so much when it is proven again and again that they are confusing sometimes?

 

[Apocryphic]

On the topic of carbon stars and misleading descriptions, I noticed that the MS class description actually describes an SC class star. Has anyone seen an SC star or an MS with an appropriate description?

 

[NeonKnight]

Do we have records for most number of inhabitable planets around a single star?

 

[NeonKnight]

As an aside, two jumps from my last find (6 planets),. looks like I found a system with 8 planets only, and so far ALL of them look inhabitable.


AAAAAaaaaaaaand No....After the Earthlike planet rest are methane worlds

 

[Pilot Mark]

Hi, found a couple to add - first is an update to an existing record, the second is new:

CLOSEST BLACK HOLE TO SAGITTARIUS A
PHUA AUB BA-A G373 AT 429.22 LY
CMDR PILOT MARK

Spoiler

Spoiler

CLOSEST NEUTRON STAR TO SAGITTARIUS A
STUEMEAE KG-Y D5937 AT 391.79 LY
CMDR PILOT MARK

Spoiler

Spoiler

Have fun out there guys, happy exploring.

(edit: sorry, couldn't figure out how to get rid of the attachments, or delete my post to try again)

 

[R3tCrick3t]

As an aside, two jumps from my last find (6 planets),. looks like I found a system with 8 planets only, and so far ALL of them look inhabitable.


AAAAAaaaaaaaand No....After the Earthlike planet rest are methane worlds

I think you are thinking about terraformable planest and yes we have a catagorie for that several actually

 

[Jack Luminous]

Broke my old "record" of 2 F-type stars in a system:

SYSTEM WITH THE MOST F-TYPE STARS
BYOI THAE QA-E D12-5 WITH 3 F-TYPE STARS - JACK LUMINOUS

Spoiler

Also,

LARGEST CLASS II GIANT
BYOI THAE TN-F B54-1 2 WITH A RADIUS OF 77,749KM

Spoiler

 

[R3tCrick3t]

All new records havce been added

 

[Jack Luminous]

Ooops, sorry R3tCrick3t - just edited my post (added the class II giant find)

 

[Mogador]

My record for the lightest O-type star isnt added, did i do something wrong with the formatting of my post?

 

[NeonKnight]

I think you are thinking about terraformable planest and yes we have a catagorie for that several actually

Well, here is one of the Systems I found last night:

Spoiler

Not sure if it qualifies or not. I'll tell you where once I hand the Data Scan in

And that is the entirety of the system.

 

[Mogador]

Beautiful system NeonKnight!

 

[Cmdr Trav ElEr]

Sadly, I don't have so much time for ED these days as I'd like to but yes, I'll try to illuminate you, again (possible lack of success is entirely on me, of course)

1. Mentioned C-types issue (actually carbon stars issue), white dwarfs and M-type giants were just poor examples because I couldn't remember better ones - they are poor because they can confuse only inexperienced explorers (I am not sure if it's poor in case of white dwarfs). However:
- it's beside the point how many C-types we have in the book currently because a new type can be discovered (in-game) any moment and it will be in the book, then
- you can't even be sure we know all carbon star types so how you could be sure their descriptions are clear (I still say they are unclear for an inexperienced explorer)
- it's entirely possible that more types have already been seen but their descriptions are so misleading (as in case of class II gas giants in the past) and their discoverers have been so focused on those descriptions that they have not spotted anything new
- my point is a general one, see below

2. Your find with F/G supergiants is excellent to prove my point (and I thank you for that):
- if we haven't realized for so long that they are mismatched then it's entirely possible there are more similar cases (not only F/G supergiants) and we have just missed them focusing on descriptions too much
- if we attached just one additional (easy to take) picture from the Galaxy Map to our evidence of star records then what you have just found we would have spotted long ago and it wouldn't have been needed to comb through records to find wrong ones
- if the issue was spotted long ago then perhaps it would already have been corrected by FDevs

Why do you trust descriptions so much when it is proven again and again that they are confusing sometimes?

I doubt that by now we haven't discovered by now all Carbon star types there currently are. If new ones show up, it would be because FD did introduce them newly. If they do, it would either be by adding new stars alltogether, in which case we don't have a problem with existing records. Or by changing existing stars. in which case, them screenshots already submitted won't magically update themselves and have to be redone anyway.

As for white dwarfs. They are so rare, and so many types. makes little sense to split them up.

As for newbies. Might be confusing. But everything is and ppl here are very helpful. As for missing records. Most ppl have no clue this book exist. a lot who do don't care. and some who might consider it to much work. adding a req to screenshot and submit even more info will just make it worse.

f/g corrections. took me 30 mins to check them all. will take 10 mins to sendPMs to ask for galaxy screenshot. and and a bit to correct the book. all minor efforts imo.

you cant prepare for all eventualities. and if you do. you make everything to cumbersome.

to paraphrase braetak: let's jump off those bridges when we come to them?

 

[Patau82]

My record for the lightest O-type star isnt added, did i do something wrong with the formatting of my post?

no, sorry just haven't had a chance to update yet been a bit busy normally we update very regularly working on it now

 

[Mogador]

Oh sorry if i sounded a bit entitled so to say, that wasnt my meaning It was just that 3 records after mine was added, so i thought that i had messed something up No stress!

 

[Patau82]

added all latest records! I think...

SMALLEST WOLF-RAYET STAR
NUEKAU AA-A H42 D at 3.1238 Solar Radius
Discovered by CMDR Apocryphic

YOUNGEST WOLF-RAYET STAR
NUEKAU AA-A H42 A, C, and D tie the record at 0 Million Years
Discovered by CMDR Apocryphic

WOLF-RAYET STAR WITH THE DEEPEST NESTING
NUEKAU AA-A H42 D at 2nd Tier
Discovered by CMDR Apocryphic

Do I understand tiering correctly, with A and B at 0th Tier, C at 1st Tier, and D at 2nd Tier? I'm uncertain if the stacked barycentric orbits count as a single tier, or if this refers to nested orbits under the star?

-- Edit, more about tiering.

After further consideration, I thought the tier would actually determined by the name, so <System> D is first tier like A, B, and C, while A 1 is tier 2, A 1 A is tier 3, and so on.

However, then I found a reference to your early post, which made me think this is actually a 3rd tier star, with the A-B orbit at tier 1, the AB-C orbit at tier 2, and the ABC-D orbit at tier 3. However, another post showing orbits to the right is the same as above, but is unclear on nested barycentric orbits. After this, I kept reading and came to the conclusion that these orbits don't count, and I should rely on the naming convention for tier determinations.

Spoiler

View attachment 19863
View attachment 19862
View attachment 19861

unfortunately youngest is tied so doesn't count. anyone noticed any difference with these 0 million year old stars since 1.2? if any of the current holders could check that would be great (there should be new text or hopefully an age in thousand years)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Oh sorry if i sounded a bit entitled so to say, that wasnt my meaning It was just that 3 records after mine was added, so i thought that i had messed something up No stress!

no problem, its all R3tCrick3t fault lol