So I have encountered a white dwarf or two whilst cruising around the inner orion spur but something is troubling me... White Dwarf stars don't have polar jets. Have the devs confused them with neutron stars I wonder... The T-Tauri stars could/should have polar jest bit don't appear to have any, or none that I've found have (yet)
-
Greetings Commander, want a more instant approach to your questions and need for help? Check out the Galactic Academy Discord server!
Feel free to join the Galactic Academy Discord server by clicking here!
Newcomer / Intro White Dwarf Stars
- Thread starter Gweilo UK
- Start date
In Elite Dangerous WD have jets - smaller than NS and give less of a boost. They are deadly in my opinion, far too easy to hit the exclusion zone when heading for the jet plume.
... in the real world (galaxy):
... in the real world (galaxy):
Last edited:
And with the minimal boost range it's not worth the effort in my opinion. These are practically the only star types I filter out while exploring. It's just not worth the time or effort to use them for jumping or much of anything else...
In the real world, things that have polar jets also have accretion discs - you can't have one without the other, a star can have neither, or it can have both. Thus, you can have "naked" white dwarfs and "naked" neutron stars. Or you can have them with polar jets and accretion discs.
In ED, every white dwarf and every neutron star has polar jets, while none of them have accretion discs. No other star types have jets. Such is the nature of the ed universe.
In ED, every white dwarf and every neutron star has polar jets, while none of them have accretion discs. No other star types have jets. Such is the nature of the ed universe.
I take it this doesn’t count as an accretion disc then?
No not violent enough, that is just the equivalent of Saturn's rings.
Yeah, but we can pretend, can’t we? ;-)
Yes, you can pretend... until you realise that it's only the rare few neutron stars in "planetary" orbits around black holes or whatnot that are given such "discs".
And if you do a timelapse video of those rings, you will notice that the entire ring is rotating as a single object - the parts that are closer to the neutron star are moving slowest, while the parts on the outer edge are moving fastest - the exact opposite to the way an accretion disc ought to operate. It's the exact opposite to the way planetary rings ought to operate too, but that's a separate question.
And if you do a timelapse video of those rings, you will notice that the entire ring is rotating as a single object - the parts that are closer to the neutron star are moving slowest, while the parts on the outer edge are moving fastest - the exact opposite to the way an accretion disc ought to operate. It's the exact opposite to the way planetary rings ought to operate too, but that's a separate question.
Well, yes, don’t even get me started on “totally unrealistic things you start to notice about Elite Dangerous”. Planets/stars right next to each other with absolutely no evidence of gravitational interaction (e.g. ripping each other apart)... that lighting model that can have a planet right next to a star completely black... just because the primary stellar object in that system is a black hole... and then black holes themselves in the game look all kinds of wrong (they’re just that lens screensaver you used to get with earlier versions of MS Windows).
Well to be fair when they put the black hole effects in the game no one had an actual picture of them and the one we now have will only be really useful for setting up the visuals when they put in accretion discs.