Which catalog designation to use?

[CMDR Ethan Harris]

A lot of real-observed stars in the game have multiple real-world designations because they were (naturally) observed by multiple surveys, and a single name for Galaxy Map, bodies, station factions, etc., must be chosen. I've seen certain patterns, like, when a star has a recognized name, that name (or a variant, e.g., "Achenar") is used instead of the catalog designation (in this case, HR 472, HIP 7588, HD 10144, and more). (I was also just made aware by the folks on Quakenet's #elite-dangerous that these real-world systems have some of their catalog designations visible in System Map.)

But for stars that have multiple catalog designations and no name, how is the designation used in-game decided?

Is it algorithmic (e.g., "shortest designation wins"), or accidental ("we started with Luyten, then added anything missing that was in Hipparcos, then Draper, then...")? Either way, any details on that selection process or algorithm?

Also, the names created whole-cloth by Stellar Forge for plausible generated bodies it's created to "fill the gaps": has anything publicly been written about their naming methods?

I'm asking for an astronomer friend who's taken an interest in the game through me (vicariously; she's so not a gamer that she'd never play herself). She asked about this when in one of my play videos she noticed a star she was actually familiar with going by the "wrong" name (she knows it by the designation Simbad uses, but the game uses a different catalog's).

 

[Jackie Silver]

As far as HIP and HD designations go, if the star is within 1000ly of Sol it tends to have a HIP designation, and if outside that distance, HD.

HR and names usually take precedence over HIP and HD, but not always. It's somewhat haphazard.

If you like I've got a lot of info on this (culled from edsm data for the most part); my map (link in Sig) is quite good at showing the distribution of catalogue stars using the name filter.

HIP

HD

Also, the names created whole-cloth by Stellar Forge for plausible generated bodies it's created to "fill the gaps": has anything publicly been written about their naming methods?

Yes - the procgen names are in two parts - the sector name bit (like WREGOE or PRU AESCS) is built using a set of word elements which are combined together to make two possible names based on the sector's position in a grid that covers the galaxy, and then a hash is used to determine which name is used. CMDR Alot is the expert there.
The system name bit (like AA-A D0 or EG-Y F13 or whatever) is also grid based. The fourth letter (we usually call it the mass code) is a rough guide to how massive the system is (with H being the heaviest and A the lightest); depending on how massive it is, a sector is split up into different cubes (1 for H, 8 for G, 64 for F and so on) and the names start at AA-A in the west-south-down corner. Obvs. it's a bit more involved but that's the basic gist of it.

 

[CMDR Ethan Harris]

How about nearer and in the bubble? Are the Arietis Sector... stars in Aries? (I know there's a checkbox for "show constellation names", but I've never gotten it to do anything for me....)

 

[Sapyx]

No. Stars with those non-procedurally-generated sector names (eg. Aries Sector, Col 70 Sector, Eta Carina Sector) are all still procedurally-generated stars. They've just been re-labelled with a different sector name. Those black and red circles on Jakckie SIlver's map above? Those are these sectors. They are spherical, and usually centred on an object, like a bright star or a nebula. The Regor Sector, for example, is centred on Gamma Velorum (also known as "Regor").