I provided 72 pictures in this post so 45 is certainly not that much to me - there shouldn't be exemptions to the rules because you will soon end up with people accusing each other of cheating when they just make an error.
Universal Cartographics Galactic Record Breakers
- Thread starter Patau82
- Start date
- Status
I'm happy to provide them in the interest of clarity and consistency with the rules.
It's fair enough, no ambiguity then.
Edit - Sorry about the small size. I did a batch re-size and it defaulted to 800x600, should be good enough though.
Last edited:
Added latest records!
and here's a few pics from the spirograph nebula:
Nice!! liking that a lot
Nice!! liking that a lot
I loved it in there well worth the visit,the green sky is amazing!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
also I believe I found an easy way of identifying the tier of a body using navigation tab:
I think this works?
I loved it in there well worth the visit,the green sky is amazing!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
also I believe I found an easy way of identifying the tier of a body using navigation tab:
I think this works?
In the system we were talking about yesterday all the stars showed up on the leftmost part of the nav-tab.. none were indented so it ties up with what you were saying.
Last edited:
here's your pic:CLOSEST SYSTEMS TO EACH OTHER
OJV2009 J181841.72-134721.70 AND OJV2009 J81841.89-134721.47 AT 1,359,346LS CMDR STREN
PROOF , i cannot post a link
Due to a facebook promotion by frontier we expect the book to be fairly busy today, if you cant get in, please try again later
this is also the reason we where busy at certain times yesterday
this is also the reason we where busy at certain times yesterday
Last edited:
Added latest records!
and here's a few pics from the spirograph nebula:
To anyone who didn't visit the Spirograph Nebula yet : GO THERE! This place is pure awesomeness with chocolate nuggets and rainbow unicorns. Seriously, it's not far from colonized space and really worth the trip.
love it, its a beauty
Thank you for telling us.
Patau, is there a chance for you to introduce types of white dwarfs during the weekend (in 1.1 white dwarfs can easily be found)? Or perhaps you've deemed them unworthy for some reason? We already have 5 types of carbon stars and white dwarfs are much more common so why not them?
Have you thought about my suggestion as to reorganize the book in order to have subtypes as subtypes, not types, eg. if water world is a type then terraformable water world should be its subtype, not another type (if I understand correctly the way you currently classify them the water world type should be, anyway, called unterraformable water world to avoid confusion). In this way we could also have subtypes of stars, eg. 0 - hypergiants, I - supergiants, II - bright giants, III - giants, IV - subgiants, V - dwarfs (main-sequence), VI - subdwarfs and finally subtypes of types of white dwarfs that I'm not yet certain what are like in-game (they could be omitted in the beginning). Without them, when the most obvious bugs are removed from the game, in every type we have now there won't be records (at least concerning physical parameters of bodies) from main-sequence stars (also not any subgiants and probably not even giants) - do we really want it? Additionally, having them the bugs would be more visible to FDevs. What do you all think?
Have you thought about my suggestion as to reorganize the book in order to have subtypes as subtypes, not types, eg. if water world is a type then terraformable water world should be its subtype, not another type (if I understand correctly the way you currently classify them the water world type should be, anyway, called unterraformable water world to avoid confusion). In this way we could also have subtypes of stars, eg. 0 - hypergiants, I - supergiants, II - bright giants, III - giants, IV - subgiants, V - dwarfs (main-sequence), VI - subdwarfs and finally subtypes of types of white dwarfs that I'm not yet certain what are like in-game (they could be omitted in the beginning). Without them, when the most obvious bugs are removed from the game, in every type we have now there won't be records (at least concerning physical parameters of bodies) from main-sequence stars (also not any subgiants and probably not even giants) - do we really want it? Additionally, having them the bugs would be more visible to FDevs. What do you all think?
I loved it in there well worth the visit,the green sky is amazing!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
also I believe I found an easy way of identifying the tier of a body using navigation tab:
I think this works?
Maybe a slight flaw with that since everything in the system below would be 1st tier according to the navigation tab.
Or do you classify bodies orbiting a barycentre as 1st tier?
Either way it'll all end in tiers
.... sorry couldn't help myself.OLDEST C-N-Type STAR
FOETT UT-Z D13-563 A- at 13618 MY
LIGHTEST BLACK HOLE
EUMOLS QX-U E2-154 A - at 2.5195 SM
ADDED TO THE BOOK
- Status