added to the book, nice find
added in future please follow guidelines, should be:
But my point is it should be a general rule that an evidence should be clear - such unclear descriptions are currently not only in case of C-type but some others: eg. unclear description of at least one type of white dwarfs (DC, IIRC) and at least one type of giants (M-type, IIRC).I get your point, but its quite hard to have rules for individual records, in the case of carbon type stars I check them all. I have a thing for carbon stars since the first one was posted by zxen
So, is this a bug / random glitch in the galaxy forge or an actual formation caused by some cosmic joke in the real world (surely not)?A question to those of you who know their astronomy: zooming in on the Eagle Nebula in galaxy map shows a very strange-shaped cluster of stars - like this:
It's like someone put a ruler on the map and drew a few lines
Thanks for the explanation!A question to those of you who know their astronomy: zooming in on the Eagle Nebula in galaxy map shows a very strange-shaped cluster of stars - like this:
It's like someone put a ruler on the map and drew a few lines
And I think it is high time for this:
Thanks so much to the book keepers. Having this book maintained and looking for records has added so much more enjoyment to exploration for me. It really broke the tedium that slowly crept in!
And thanks to all the other record submitters. I have started to see some of your names in first discovered tags. And it's an especially warm and fuzzy feelings inducing sight
Really? Now this is completely mind-boggling! I may be asking for much, but could you point me to some source where this is discussed in more detail? You certainly got me itching for more information
I'd like to second this. Thank you so much bookkeepers!
big thank you to you guys for providing all these records! we wouldn't be able to do this without you!your welcome!
btw I think those stars are called the pillars of creation, read about it on the forum somewhere
Really? Now this is completely mind-boggling! I may be asking for much, but could you point me to some source where this is discussed in more detail? You certainly got me itching for more information
Perhaps you will be interested to see the 1.1.05 update to "First Discovered tag - misleading name and buggy" thread. If you like some role-playing about it see also here
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOTTEST CLASS IV GAS GIANT - HIP 64296 A 1 WITH A TEMPERATURE OF 1,417 K
HIGH METAL CONTENT PLANET WITH LOWEST METAL CONTENT - HIP 68398 2 WITH 28%
SMALLEST TERRAFORMABLE ROCKY PLANET - HIP 66450 A 4 A WITH A RADIUS OF 3047 KM
LIGHTEST TERRAFORMABLE ROCKY PLANET - HIP 66450 A 4 A WITH 0.0921 EARTH MASSES
A curiosity: a molten rocky ice planet as a terraformable water world (I wonder whether or not there are terraformable rocky ice planets that aren't water worlds)
Edit:
But my point is it should be a general rule that an evidence should be clear - such unclear descriptions are currently not only in case of C-type but some others: eg. unclear description of at least one type of white dwarfs (DC, IIRC) and at least one type of giants (M-type, IIRC).
Thanks for the information guys! I knew about the Pillars but had no clue about the star formations there...and that star tube is supercool even if it's not proven 100% to exist in that form.
By the way, I just bought an Asp Explorer, forgot to buy a surface scanner and made a discovery (pun intended): it is possible to scan a body with just sensors and get credited for a surface scan - and complete data of the body will appear in the system map once you've scanned it. Technically speaking, you don't need to buy a surface scanner in the current version of the game (1.105). Of course that felt so wrong that I had to return and buy a surface scanner
