|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 7, 2004 11:34:10 GMT -5
I forget which system this uses? I ask only because I was going to try and create a 'quick map' for Meksum...
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 7, 2004 20:10:58 GMT -5
I forget which system this uses? I ask only because I was going to try and create a 'quick map' for Meksum... 58,46,53 - M-V - A96AA99-C Hi Wa 814 Im 29X – Meksum Prime I hope it helps. By the way, we need to discuss coordinates - now stars strick to very widely speced grid... cannot be true.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 8, 2004 1:24:43 GMT -5
Thanks for that... and you've known about the conventions of the grid system since the very beginning of the project. The fact that the co-ordinates never go higher than around 59 and the fact that it's a sector has always been out there and up front.
It was, however, a convention for generation and to ease the number crunching at the beginning of the project. While having the closest stars at a continuous distance of just over one parsec is lacking in realism it is merely an abstraction. The original idea was to generate them in such a manner and then to randomise the position of the stars within their 'parsec cube' so that the final coordinates would be given in light years.
At this point, however, the advantages of keeping them in ~parsec divisions is far too useful. On the one hand it allows us to utilise some of the assumptions in GURPS Traveller: Far Trader, i.e. the 'jump distance' of Traveller is one-parsec which is around a median value of the 1-5 light year jump distance for 'calculated jumps' which, for the project, are defined as the most likely means of Civil trade...
While ultimately it would be good to have fully randomised positions within a 200 light year range rather than the ~60 parsec range, again the advantages are strong for keeping them as a transitional phase. That word 'abstraction' once again pops up...
?
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 8, 2004 6:07:32 GMT -5
Thanks for that... and you've known about the conventions of the grid system since the very beginning of the project. The fact that the co-ordinates never go higher than around 59 and the fact that it's a sector has always been out there and up front. No problem here, boss, it’s ok I just point out that you have very strange galaxy where everything in truncated parsecs. I just point out that it is far from true astronomy stuff, known to us. The average galaxy density is 1 star per l.y., according to stuff found on the net. In galaxy core the spread is smaller – up to 0.1 l.y. AFAIK. Anargo sector is closer to the core than Earth and we have no star within 1 l.y. to another?! This is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 8, 2004 10:44:01 GMT -5
<sigh> Yes, I know it could be construed as this. The number crunching for generation every light year is - and was - horrendous. Furthermore, we're outside of a galactic armour (kind of) where density drops. And, once again, it's just an abstraction. Again I point out theultimate desire to randomise the position of the stars to help ameliorate this effect. Stellar density cannot, however, be solved with such 'hand waving'... At this point there is nothing that can be done about it... Well, other than regenerating the statistics of the entire sector. Or, of course, just ignoring the rest of the sector and concentrating on the subsectors to the exclusion of everything else since, after all, that's not important. I believe that has been suggested before and was felt to lack... challenge. And, of course, the irony being that we're discussing the "ridiculous abstraction" on a hiveworld thread! Do you have a constructive way of approaching this? <-- <Kage interested>
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 8, 2004 22:18:38 GMT -5
Do you have a constructive way of approaching this? <-- <Kage interested> Of course I do after all I guess I'm known for my constructive approach. We just generate additional numbers, either totally random - roll 2D10 and get -+.5 and -+.05... or limit to .04 the variation, so minimal distance between systems only 0.2 parsec or 0.6 l.y. which is quite right. and Presice positioning is done only for made up worlds, not all.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 9, 2004 13:07:47 GMT -5
Yep, the approach that you advocated previously and which wasn't desperately interesting back then either. Either we generate them to the project - and you can edit the information - or we just leave things as they are for now.
I'm sorry, I really do find the reference to 'significant systems' to be boorish... And you've been working with the numbers for some time now and while I know that you advocated merely creating the subsectors before - a feature which makes sense now - at the time it was meant to be a bit more than the simple imposition that GW advocated. Rather, that the data would suggest things... Your approach is more "I don't like it I'm going to change it."
At this point merely adding data defeats the point. Consider the fact that with a 60*60*60 generates 216,000 point points. We got a 10% 'density' of systems, or thereabouts. Generating worlds to the density that you want 200*200*200 data points, or 8,000,000 or 800,000 systems. One word for you: No.
Unless, of course, you're willing to generate the UWP for all of the worlds, the star type for the systems, place the systems consistently... then draw some maps... then peeve people because there are suddenly far more interesting worlds...
Perhaps not, at this point. Or at least I would say...
As it stands we already have a huge number of systems.
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 10, 2004 4:27:37 GMT -5
Yep, the approach that you advocated previously and which wasn't desperately interesting back then either. Either we generate them to the project - and you can edit the information - or we just leave things as they are for now. Dear Kage! Please relax, I haven’t attempted to insult you in any way. Moreover, while I cannot prompt a system, which is better that TLs, we are stuck with them. It is quite probable that my answer that was done in the small period of rest between routine exercises in my slave pits, called work by others, caused me to write things that can be considered rude. And I sincerely apologise for that. As to editing info – no problem, I guess my knowledge of PC will allow me to give stars, which are already generated, more exact location. Moreover, I’m thinking about giving movement to some stars and star clusters, to represent non-static nature of universe that can be felt in 10,000 year period… I don’t even point on 60 million year stuff in Sargassos. I'm sorry, I really do find the reference to 'significant systems' to be boorish... You’ve made me to look in dictionaries once again… boorish… ok, let me elaborate my point. Yes, I’ve been working with the numbers for some time now but I never gave them any real importance. And I think that many other were more interested in size, star or hydrosphere than in exact location. The sole time I’ve looked at coordinates was during the creation of Neu Povolzh, because it is Agriworld that supplies Meksum. But even there for me G-V star was much more important. Of course now, after establishing worlds I want to know an exact distance between them. Moreover, with my subluminal heresy, I want to have a world somewhere, supplied with SLT. And for this I need small distance that ought to exist somewhere in the sub. 100% true, this means I don't like it I'm going to change it approach. And we met it before with M class stars for example. Moreover, we changed this stuff, exactly because we haven’t liked it… At this point merely adding data defeats the point. Consider the fact that with a 60*60*60 generates 216,000 point points. We got a 10% 'density' of systems, or thereabouts. Generating worlds to the density that you want 200*200*200 data points, or 8,000,000 or 800,000 systems. I don’t agree with estimation method here… we need 1 star per light year, such density suggested for our galaxy. We also need 1,000 imperial worlds, because this is average number of worlds in the sector. And I don’t even point out that stars get together in clusters with similar luminosity… and this wasn’t accounted for by random generation. Unless, of course, you're willing to generate the UWP for all of the worlds, the star type for the systems, place the systems consistently... How precise calibrating of location is connected with UWP stats? Seems they are unrelated. I’ve proposed a version that allows however close calibrating that does not cause merger of stars… why a star 1 light month away from your mainword worries you more than it being 3.2 l.y. away?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 10, 2004 7:37:53 GMT -5
Oh well then, that makes everything clear. With 1 star per light year we've got a nice grid, at least, of 8,000,000 stars... All I'm saying is that significant revision at this point would not only get on peoples nerve. And each star has a specific UWP. Admittedly with the large numbers involved I'm sure that there are 'clones'. Oh, and BTW, you might want to check a star catologue regarding the number of stars within 200 light years of Sol...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jul 10, 2004 23:09:57 GMT -5
Awww... well, maybe now that you have kissed and made up, we can get back On Topic. I'm dying to hear more about Meksum I!
That said... 1000 Imperial worlds average in a sector? Erm... Was this a typo of some kind, zholud? BFG has presented a lot of sectors and subsectors, but neither of them seem to have anything remotely close to 1000 Imperial worlds. After all, if there are one million Imperial worlds, and 1000 worlds in the average sector, then there would only be 1000 sectors. And that would make each sector pretty damn huge. I thought we already agreed, waaay back in the day, that there would be cirka 10,000 sectors in the Imperium, meaning that there would be 100 Imperial worlds in the Anargo sector, give or take.
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 11, 2004 0:47:59 GMT -5
Awww... well, maybe now that you have kissed and made up, we can get back On Topic. I'm dying to hear more about Meksum I! Probably will do... I want to make standard representation and have no time to adhere to all rules. But I will. I'd say 500-700, the 1,000-planet figure from Abnett's Eisenhorn. And according to Horus Hersy card game there were 2mn worlds just prior to Istvaan incident. And my point on number of Chapters was based on number of sectors...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jul 11, 2004 1:32:22 GMT -5
Probably will do... I want to make standard representation and have no time to adhere to all rules. But I will. What rules? In my opinion, it's rather 'silly' to say stuff like this after six months of the Anargo Sector Project, where we've all been working on the assumption that the average sector has something like 5-10 subsectors, with 5-15 worlds. After all, we are trying to create the average sector here. That is unless, of course, you've always meant that it should have 1000 worlds, and Kage just forced through the idea of 100 worlds. Now... Abnett is really not the guy to trust when it comes to subsectors and sectors, in my opinion. Actually, there's very few people you can trust about this, because none of them seem to agree on everything / anything
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 11, 2004 1:38:25 GMT -5
Once again, worlds are not systems. Look at Anargo, for example. That is one Imperium system but with seven worlds. More if you count the satellites, and more if you count the companion system of Anargo Secundus. And, yes, griping about the little glitches - much less than present in some areas of the 'fluff' can be problematic. (And, no, I didn't press through anything to do with 100 worlds...) Again, however, go and have a look at that local star catalogue... To help out, however, let's look at the local stars around Sol... Go here and scroll down!
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jul 11, 2004 5:22:15 GMT -5
I mean full standard representation, where one should have customs, laws, government, etc… considering that I prefer olde dice rolling, if I started it already… just to point out how old my point is I send you to specific post way ago on Portent in original thread – check it if you wish: Posted by zholud on 05-08-2003 01:04 PM: But, back on topic. First of all, I think that the idea is great, but 10 person project for over 1,000 planets is a little bit too much, don’t you think? So, first suggestion: start with single sub-sector, not sector. On number of planets in subs (it was mentioned as a question): ” All human-inhabited space is further broken down into sectors, which are most usually cubes of space roughly 200 light years to a side. Each sector is comprised of a number of sub-sectors ranging from ten to twenty light years in diameter, centred on densely populated star clusters, important worlds, or meeting points of various trade routes through the warp. The areas between sub-sectors and sectors - unexplored or uninhabited regions, alien empires, areas inaccessible by the warp etc, - are known as wilderness space or wilderness zones and make up a far greater proportion of the galaxy than that controlled by Humanity. .... A sub-sector contains many stars, but of these only a few will have any planets orbiting. The vast majority will be gas giants or planets locked in sub-zero ice ages. This means that any given sub-sector will have relatively few star systems actually worth fighting over. Of these, the majority will be mining worlds, agri-worlds and other worlds with a sizeable population and contemporary technology level (categorised as civilised worlds). A few systems may have a forge world, hive world or other such planet. Occasionally uninhabited systems also have strategic importance as jump points or gathering places for assembling war fleets. The sub-sector maps only show those systems of military or strategic importance to the forces fighting in the Gothic War.” BFG Rulebook in Dan Abnett Eisenhorn Trilogy Hecican sub consisted of “over a hundred inhabited worlds” and was part of sector that consisted of 7 subs. Rambling on number of sectors in Imperium. It is stated many times that Imperium has “millions upon millions of worlds”, so I assume it is right to take 2,000,000 as guesstimate on number of habitable worlds. More worlds is too much IMHO, but less is contradiction of fluff. 5 Segmentae gives 400,000 per Segmentum on average. With 100 worlds per sub it gives 4,000 sectors per Segmentum. My guess that it means extreme autonomy of sectors, BTW, otherwise ruling pyramid was much more smooth, not 1:5:4,000:100. As you can read, I pointed on this from the very start... – it was my first post on ASP I guess. As to the trust to Abnett – I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 11, 2004 5:36:26 GMT -5
zholud... I'm failing to see the point. We're going to have information that conforms to that. Your suggestion that we have worlds 1 light year apart is already integrated. Your suggestion that we have lots of worlds 1 light year apart doesn't bear up to a consideration even of our local space.
Old posts really don't make a difference...
|
|