Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2018
     
    Oh dear :(

    Possibly time for a relational database so you can cascade updates to all the affected files and everything stays in sync?

    Just a thought...
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2018
     
    On spreadsheet is okay, list of planets in alphabetical order. The one where I have the planets listed by Column, Serctor, then Sub-Sector are where most of the problems are. And I found a planet article link that worked, but it had extranious info in the link... fixed it.

    I would have no idea in how to tie such a database between my blog and my home computer. I'll most likely stop work on this current checking when I get tired of it, make some maps, then go back to it.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2018
     
    1024 planet profiles added, checked, or edited. About 550 pages/articles left to check. Not all of them are planets, some are just info on various things.

    Found a number of map errors in my Breloss Star Cluster, fixed many of them. I may take a break and do some mapping as I found text errors today in places I had edited just last week.

    Whew.

    "To Infinity and Beyond !"
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2018
     
    Over 80% done checking the 1065 planets. Some parts of the site have lots of errors, some have next to none. I'll be happy when this is done.

    Then I'll start work on mapping downports.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2018
     
    I've been drawing a very large multilevel building all day long. I think I was a bit tired when I scanned your last comment. I thought it said you had checked 1065 plants!

    That's a pretty big greenhouse, I thought. LOL!

    Good luck with the downports :)
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2018
     
    An incredibly large greenhouse. Well, not that I have ever used a green house, saw a few by the road though.

    I really have to stop watching Billy Connolly stand up comedy videos on youtube... I keep reading the posts here like he is speaking them.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2018
     
    And now you have started an incurable fit of the giggles as I try to imagine speaking like Billy Connolly! LOL!
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2018
     
    1173 planet profiles checked, edited, etc. out of 1265 on my site. I realize this is likely boring to most here, but when I get these done I'll be back to mapping.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
     
    We're cheering you on, Jim :D
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
     
    Thanks !

    This just got weird. A search on my site for UWP: gives me 1219, a search for Planet: gives me 1265. Well, 1274, but thats planets with extra pages for a planetary survery. But when I count the number of articles left to check, I get less than 30. There are 1642 articles on my site. I have part of page 2 and part of page 3 article listings to check, each article list shows a maximum of 100 articles. I must have skipped some accidently. Oh, not all of the articles have to do with planets. Some are Sub-Sectors, Sectors, star ships, info about various non-human races and empires.

    I'll just compare the spreadsheets with no UWPs in them, and compare that with the articles on my site.

    And Textpattern calls them articles, while other blogs/cms systems call them posts.

    No big deal. I think I'll work on dungeons for my Tunnels and Trolls site on Thursday.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
     
    Of course, I understood that perfectly!

    You do seem to have an inordinate number of problems with this just lately. I hope you get them all sorted out soon :)
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
     
    Well, I decided to look for all errors and typos. I found way more than I thought was there. The first paragraph is me mostly grouching about the disparity in uwp counts.

    And my computer is acting flaky today, no updates, so I'm checking for viruses. I'm just now able to get online... been trying for around an hour.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
     
    Ah, got the whatever on my computer off. All fixed now.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018 edited
     
    Well, isn't that spiffy...

    I have 1234 universal world profiles, and 1265 planets. All planet pages have a UWP. I double checked with my alphabetized spreadsheet of planet names. Nothing missing there now.

    Discrepency of 22. I can look for them later, it may be the lines in the spreadsheet where I just have a planet name, is one of the ones with no UWP. Maybe I'll check this over next month.

    Off to mapping I go !

    edit: 1244 profiles, not 1234. Found a few typos going back through my site. Editing so it wont bump up just for text.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2018 edited
     
    I finally got it all straightened out. The site software search searches the title of each post/article and the body text.

    Couting them by hand, and noting in my spreadsheet which planet has a uwp, I found there are 1246 of each. The number of planets was being miscounted by the blog software search. It looks like it looks at 'Planet:' and discards the ':' in the search.

    Now I can go back to mapping and maybe make more downports.

    edit: fixed some typos.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2018
     
    I still think a simple database would do wonders, but if your happy... :)
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2018
     
    Happy, Happy, Happy. Tired, eyes glazed over, etc.

    But I got it done.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2018 edited
     
    1287 planets and 1287 universal world profiles. Egad ZeBoing !
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2018
     
    I'll estimate that that out of the 16 sub-sectors per sector, on average, only 8 have solar systems in them. Each sub-sector map has 8 rows.

    So the 3D map would have to be made or each row. That would make 8 additional maps for each sub-sector to show trade routes, X-Boat (messengers) route, etc. Of course, not all hexes in a sub-sector have solar systems.

    One of the 'problems' we discussed is that red dwarf, etc. stars are underrepresented in many maps made before this. I haven't looked at the official map site to see what they did about that. Of the 140 planet surveys I have typed up and uploaded to my site, a few of them are type M stars, most are type G like ours, with one or two F type stars.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2018 edited
     
    Jim, cross-referring to our discussion that rather hijacked this topic elsewhere on the Forum, regarding how to represent star clusters for Traveller on maps, I must admit it's a very long time since I looked at that RPG at all. A friend loaned me the basic books at college, but I lost interest after spending half a day designing characters, only to have them each die before they reached the game-playable stage! Lousy dice-rolling by yours truly, certainly, but to me always a major flaw of the system, and the primary reason why I lost interest and never went back to it. There were others, including the even-by-1980 clunky technology involved, something that also seems reflected in your note that the game seems to imply representing 3D objects like star clusters only in 2D. However, it's not the only science-fiction RPG that seems to make this assumption - plus it's easier to show a 2D layout on a printed page or mapsheet, of course.

    I'm not sure I quite followed the hex diagram you showed in that other topic, since I don't know what the three sets of identically-placed numbers-in-hexes represent, but from your notes there about the three "levels", I assume they're somehow meant to show which star-system is where, using the three-level "stack" comprising that basic cluster.

    Aside from the use of different colours for the different levels in the cluster we both mentioned before, you also commented on the problem of what happens when more than one system occupies the same (hex?) "space" as seen from the perspective of the 2D viewer (so the more distant systems become effectively hidden by the nearer ones). I'm not sure if the standard Traveller designs would allow this, but the obvious thing - assuming you still need to fit the pattern onto a hex-grid - would be to use the different colours for the different levels, and a slight relative offset for each level, so you can still see the more distant systems. This might mean making the hexes significantly larger than those in your example for clarity (or reducing the typeface for the numbers - if each system has to be shown by a number; as I said, my unfamiliarity with Traveller means I'm not sure about this). I can't imagine that would be a huge problem though, given it's really a scaling matter for the map.

    Another alternative for the distance-from-the-viewer indicator would be a simple numerical one, maybe as a sub- or super-script number to the system indicator, to show the level each was on. So the central level in the cluster could be, say, "0", with those further from the viewer "-1", "-2", etc., and those closer to the viewer "+1", "+2" and so forth. I used this method when designing my own galactic map layout, again many years ago now, and that did work quite well, albeit on the scale where parts of a galactic arm or two can be seen, there is a much greater "vertical" condensation of scale than would be apparent in the more-nearly-spherical approximation found in a typical star cluster. I did though use specific light-year values, not just the simplified "level" values here for that, because I wanted to be able to compute direct distances between individual star-systems.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2018
     
    How about doing it in a Perspectives style?

    A bit like a 3D chess board?
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2018
     
    Jim will know far better than me, but I think that might be too complex for the generally-preferred Traveller mapping methods, Sue. Plus it's not easy to present the necessary information with sufficient clarity once you start to think of that ISO style projection for what are essentially 3D objects composed of dots in space all at different distances from the viewer (i.e. a typical star cluster at a scale which can be readily viewed and mapped on a straightforward chart).
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2018
     
    The problem would easily be solved if I could place 10 columns and 8 rows of stars in one cube area...

    The star cluster I am working on is one sector of 16 sub-sectors.

    To use an Iso map, I would have to place the planet symbols, names, hexagon numbers, and show any X-Boat, messenger, routes. It may or may not be possible. I'll try and look at it.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2018 edited
     
    Actually, I'm not certain what that 3D map I posted on the other thread is for.

    Here is one that may work. Have to rotate the hex grid though. The letters are the same levels on my overhead map of the Breloss Star Cluster. I would have to use one of these for each of the 8 rows. Some rows on some levels are empty, but this would show the spatial relationships better. That would mean 128 of these maps.

    And I can remove the word 'Layer' as this is for all 7 levels.
      sub_sector_horizontal04b.png
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2018
     
    What's the hex-scale here, Jim? Just wondering why you need 128 maps for the 10 x 8 hex 2D cross-section, as that suggests a long tubular structure heading away from the viewer to me. As I said though, Traveller's not my strong suit, and I can't really remember what the jargon meanings are for "sector", "sub-sector", etc.

    Really pleased you weren't sure what that other diagram was either - thought it was likely just me!
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2018
     
    Sectors are made up of 16 sub-sectors. Each Sub-Sector has 8 columns to place planets. The scale of each hexagon is one light year.

    Seven levels per vertical map. 10 x 8 x 7 = a maximum of 560 stars. I'm not going to place that many stars in any sub-sector, too crowded. It would be 8 maps per Sub-Sector. It would be 128 of these vertical maps per sector.

    Is that clearer ?
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2018
     
    Thanks, Jim. That does clarify things a bit, but does this mean each hex is a sector, a sub-sector, or something else? From what you've said, I'd guess at one hex being some small fraction of a sub-sector, though that's assuming each hex represents a one-level region of one of the eight columns (of hexes?) in a sub-sector. And is each hex also a 1 light-year deep "tube"?

    Maybe I should just go and see if I can find some basic Traveller mapping info online, and stop hassling you with it all, given I started out trying to help, only to realise I didn't understand enough of what you were wanting to map to do so (and am still not that sure!)... :D
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2018
     
    Each hex is for one solar system. There are 80 possible locations for a solar system in each sub-sector.

    Here is the Traveller wiki introduction page. I haven't used it so I don't know what all it has.

    Not a hassle.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 17th 2018
     
    Not all sub-sectors have planets on every level. So I wont have to make a plethora of maps for this one star cluster. Whew.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2018
     
    I think I've solved the problems I was working on.

    Of course, the remining problem is; how do I combine the side view and the top down view visually in a map ?

    When I get more progress, I'll make a new thread of the side view sub-secotr maps and top down view of the same sub-sector.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2018
     
    Do you want to map the whole thing in both views?

    If you only want to do a few of the more interesting bits in one of those two views, the best way is probably inset maps? Insets are usually a bigger scale, though - to show more detail.

    Otherwise its really two separate maps side by side.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2018 edited
     
    Well, in order to put trade routes in... I would have to map all of the vertical slices that have solar systems. Most of the horizontal sub-sectors are done. Well, levels 7, 6, 5, and most of 4 are done. That leaves levels 1, 2, and 3 left to do. About 618 planets in the star cluster, with 300 done.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2018
     
    Done a bit more digging regarding Traveller, but it's all been a bit overwhelming, given the number of different versions of the game there've been over time (which I hadn't appreciated), and the overall variable information about each that's available online. Too many places seem to assume you'll already know enough about it to navigate quite complex website layouts with minimal help, whereas all I really wanted was some - to me fairly basic - information regarding the stellar mapping conventions used!

    From the information on the Wikipedia Traveller RPG page, it seems what little I knew came from what's now called "Classic Traveller", though judging by your own website Jim, you've moved on to what I think is called "Traveller5", the 2013 version (as that's the one by Far Future Enterprises; Mongoose Publishing seem to have a more recent - 2016 - version of the game system in print, if that Wikipedia page is right, though I suspect this may be using a variant universe and/or game system).

    I got pretty lost among the Traveller Wiki (not Wikipedia!) pages, as that one you linked to above had almost no useful information - it's only about the original Book 0 from "Classic Traveller" - and the links from the homepage available from that didn't really point me anywhere useful regarding stellar mapping.

    I did eventually stumble upon some information elsewhere, including PDF versions of various of the rules (I'll not link to these, as I suspect some or possibly all may be pirated), some of which seemed to relate to the parameters you'd mentioned already (like the 8 x 10 hex subsector layout), although most seem to suggest the basic mapping hex size for both Classic and Traveller5 is 1 parsec (so 3.26 light years), rather than 1 light year. I'm not sure if that applies to what you're doing though, as it is noted this is just a suggested, or approximate size in what I found. [PRE-POST EDIT: However, I see from a check in case this topic had been updated while I was typing, that you've already added a new topic on mapping the vertical and horizontal Traveller subsectors here, which mentions the hex sizes as 1 parsec across.]

    As for your more recent question, as Sue already said, I think you'll have to go with a top-down and side-view map side-by-side for clarity. Even that can be quite complex to appreciate in viewing, as I did something similar with my long-ago galactic mapping noted previously.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 18th 2018
     
    Yeah... I'm not too aquainted with Traveller. It is one parsec not one light year for the hexagons. I don't have version 5. I have CT, GURPS, and a few Mongoose books.

    I put my maps on the other side of the galaxy from the oficial Traveller universe ( OTU). Mine is more of the ATU, Alternate Traveller universe. Mine is basically located in the visual shadow of the galaxy core. There is a wedge of the Milky Way galaxy that we on Earth cannot see due to all of the dust around and near the core.

    The problem I have always had with wikis is you have to know what terms to search for in order to find things. But if you don't know much about a particular subject, their mystery navigation is a pain to use. Thats why I try to have site navigation menus on my web sites.

    Its my understanding that Mongoose is similar but parallel to FFE's version.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2018
     
    Thanks Jim. I'd assumed you were our resident Traveller expert on all matters pertaining to the RPG! Mind you, having recently found out how many different versions there've been over time, that would be a pretty tall order for anyone, I suspect.

    To be honest, and approaching as a long-standing astronomer, I've never liked parsecs as a distance measure, as they're much too arbitrary, being based on the Earth's distance from the Sun. But they're easy to apply computationally to raw observations made from Earth, so what can you do?

    I think you're sensible in setting your bit of the universe as discrete from the official Traveller one. My own ancient galactic mapping was done to pull together a number of different wargame (tabletop and boardgame) settings into the same general region of the galaxy, and because I wasn't reliant on any already-published settings, I simply used our own galactic neighbourhood, so I could fit it in with what was known of real-world stellar and deep-sky object locations. I'd intended to also include the features from the Humanx Commonwealth novels by Alan Dean Foster, long my favourite series of science-fiction stories, but was beaten to it by other fans of the books coupled with various unwanted facets of our reality. However, it's good to know this setting's details are fully available online via the series' author's own website here.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2018
     
    I thought, when I first encountered it, the parsec was useful. But there should be a term other than kiloparsec and megaparsec.

    Isn't light year based on the amount of time it takes a beam of light to travel in one year ?
    • CommentAuthorSkidAce
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2018
     
    Yes, thats the definition of lightyear.
    • CommentAuthorthehawk
    • CommentTimeAug 19th 2018
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: JimP</cite>I thought, when I first encountered it, the parsec was useful. But there should be a term other than kiloparsec and megaparsec.</blockquote>

    The parsec is an SI now, so technically you can put all the fractional prefixes on it, right? Although I think the AU is still usually used.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2018
     
    AU is for inside a solar system as its about 93 million miles. Our planet's average distance form the sun.

    I've heard astronomers on 'How the Universe is Made' show use megaparsec. I just think a better term could be used but its not up to me.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2018 edited
     
    According to Wikipedia (the Parsec page is here), since 2012 - I couldn't recall the date - the parsec has had an official SI definition via the International Astronomical Union. It's given in metres. So yes, kilo-, mega- and giga- parsecs are all in common scientific usage. You may also wish to check out the definition for the attoparsec from the link at the end of that Wikipedia page ;D

    Beaten to the light-year definition earlier, of course. And yes, that's also based on an earthly measure, the year, so isn't much more universal as a system than the parsec. It is though rather less esoteric a concept to explain! Light-year Wikipedia page is here, should anyone need it.

    [EDIT: Oops, forgot a link for the Astronomical Unit Wikipedia page as well - it's here. Worth noting that very precise definitions of the "year" (Julian year, in the case of the light-year as used nowadays) and Earth-Sun distance have had to be established in order to actually define these - partly hence the Wikipedia links.]
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2018
     
    I'm going to hold off on the vertical map slices as I haven't finished all 7 of the levels in the star cluster. Then I'll get the slices started.

    I just did about 100 FT3 planet exports to get me staerted. 318 planets left to place, 300 done. In the cluster that is.
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2018
     
    Lets see... Level 4 is done. Part of level 3 is done. About 150 planets to draw with FT3 ( for levels 1, 2, and 3), name, figure out where to place them, make sub-sector, and edit Sector, maps, to go. And make new sub-sector, and sector maps, for levels 1 and 2. Wheeee !
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2018
     
    But what are you going to do in the afternoon, Jim ;D
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2018 edited
     
    Well, a bit longer than that. Level 1 and 2 have few solar systems. I have completed 4 sub-sectors of level 3. Just 12 more to go on level 3.

    Then upload over 100 planet maps, type up articles in textpattern, upload sub-sector, and the new sector maps for these levels, and tie them together with links. Could take a few days for that.

    Levels 3 and 4 are the densest areas.

    Then I'll switch to something simpler, another Atlas map or maybe something on Crestar. Maybe a nap in there somewhere to.

    You all may not be able to see them clearly, but any planet covered with a hollow white oval over it has been mapped and entered as to location, etc. in a spreadsheet.
      Vespucian_Arm_columng_Sector06b.png
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2018
     
    418 planets mapped out of 618. Finally, on the home stretch. I think this is the only sector wide star cluster I will ever map.

    I think only 22 planets to maps and place on level 1, less than a hundred on level 2. I moved some... so I'm not sure of quantities on level 1 and 2.

    Taking a break for a day or two from mapping planets.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2018
     
    I should think so as well!

    I can't imagine doing all that stuff and never pausing to come up for air.

    Congratulations! :)
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2018
     
    You are welcome.

    Just adding planet symbols to a sub-secrtor and sector map isn't hard, its rather easy. To do all of this, I had to make, and continue to do so, planet maps in FT3, export as Cosmographer planets. typing info such as diameter, % ocean, etc. in a spreadsheet.

    Plan out the Sector, sub-sector, and level for the star cluster. Add more planet names to another spreadsheet, in alphabetical order. Another psreadsheet is used to track by sectors and sub-sectors.

    After all that is done. Upload the png files, type in the articles in my blog/cms, add links on the sub-sector pages to each planet map, add links on the sector maps to each sub-sector article.

    I've never uploaded and done this for more than 30 or 40 planets before. This will be over 200 planets... I suspect it will take me around a week, or maybe two, to complete.

    But not today.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2018
     
    So, today the Universe, tomorrow a World? ;D
    • CommentAuthorJimP
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2018
     
    Its just two segments of two galaxy arms, and the bits connecting them. I would have to have substantial help in making an entire universe.
    • CommentAuthorPerryC
    • CommentTimeSep 14th 2018 edited
     
    And here it takes me a day to one small map.....and I don't have a life.