AstroSynthesis Who is playing with it.

[Lapthorn]

I recently started building a CT subsector in Astrosynthesis just for fun - no campaign on the horizon yet.



Randomly-generated stars, 50ly cube.

Given average stellar separation is about 7.7ly, that's what I use as Jump-1. (I find that to achieve this in Astrosynthesis, I need to generate the sector on minimum stellar density, and then expand it by a factor of 1.1 using a plugin; so I actually generated a 45ly cube.) I use an exponentially-declining scale for higher jumps to stop people being able to jump right out of the subsector too easily.

I did a search through the sector for worlds with certain characteristics of gravity and temperature, and that gave me about 30, which is roughly right for a subsector.

The blue lines are CT'77 "jump lanes". Letters in brackets after the world names are starport codes.

One thing I like about this setup is the "points of light" nature. To make a Jump-1 trip, you have to go through a number of "link" systems. Smallish gas giants in the link systems, that a 1G M-drive free trader can use to scoop fuel, will be natural pirate hangouts, unless the sector is heavily policed. Which obviously it won't be!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yet another reason why holographic displays for starship bridges AND flight traffic controllers at starports really ought to be a technological imperative. Although you CAN (with enough training) "get away with" what amounts to "2.5D" displays (2D displays showing 3D information) ... what you really want is a proper "holographic tank" 3D display that shows the information in "proper 3D" trideo format.

Even something as mundane as an interplanetary transfer orbit gets a LOT easier to visualize (and comprehend) when 3D information gets presented in a 3D format via holographic display.

Given average stellar separation is about 7.7ly, that's what I use as Jump-1. (I find that to achieve this in Astrosynthesis, I need to generate the sector on minimum stellar density, and then expand it by a factor of 1.1 using a plugin; so I actually generated a 45ly cube.)

Kind of makes me wonder what would happen if you were using an 80 light year cube with no scaling factor.
If necessary, generate as a 2x2x2 array of 40x40x40 light year cubes that then get assembled into the larger 80x80x80 subsector cube.
Then set J1 @ 8 light years, maximum.

I use an exponentially-declining scale for higher jumps to stop people being able to jump right out of the subsector too easily.

That depends on how much "space" you want to generate.

• The "thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 718–1,470 light years thick.
• The "thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 8,500 ± 1,600 light years thick.

In 80 light year subsector increments, that would mean:

• "Thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 9-18 subsector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.
• "Thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 86-126 subsector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.

You could then define a sector as being a 5x5x5 array of 80x80x80 light year subsector blocks. This would make each sector a 400x400x400 light year cube of space (or a 10x10x10 array of your original 40x40x40 light year cubes that you were generating).

• "Thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 2-3 sector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.
• "Thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 17-25 sector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.

Point being that higher jump numbers probably SHOULD be able to "jump right out" of subsector blocks relatively easily ... but jumping out of a sector block is really only practical if you're starting from "near the edge" of a sector block.

 

[Lapthorn]

Yet another reason why holographic displays for starship bridges AND flight traffic controllers at starports really ought to be a technological imperative. Although you CAN (with enough training) "get away with" what amounts to "2.5D" displays (2D displays showing 3D information) ... what you really want is a proper "holographic tank" 3D display that shows the information in "proper 3D" trideo format.

Even something as mundane as an interplanetary transfer orbit gets a LOT easier to visualize (and comprehend) when 3D information gets presented in a 3D format via holographic display.

Kind of makes me wonder what would happen if you were using an 80 light year cube with no scaling factor.
If necessary, generate as a 2x2x2 array of 40x40x40 light year cubes that then get assembled into the larger 80x80x80 subsector cube.
Then set J1 @ 8 light years, maximum.

The distance between systems limits the number of Jump-1 connections. The size of the cube doesn't matter in that regard. If you set max jump to 8ly, and did not increase the space between systems, you would have a dramatically higher number of J1 connections.

That depends on how much "space" you want to generate.

• The "thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 718–1,470 light years thick.
• The "thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 8,500 ± 1,600 light years thick.

In 80 light year subsector increments, that would mean:

• "Thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 9-18 subsector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.
• "Thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 86-126 subsector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.

You could then define a sector as being a 5x5x5 array of 80x80x80 light year subsector blocks. This would make each sector a 400x400x400 light year cube of space (or a 10x10x10 array of your original 40x40x40 light year cubes that you were generating).

• "Thin" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 2-3 sector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.
• "Thick" disk parts of the Milky Way galaxy disk are 17-25 sector blocks "tall" when vertically stacked.

Point being that higher jump numbers probably SHOULD be able to "jump right out" of subsector blocks relatively easily ... but jumping out of a sector block is really only practical if you're starting from "near the edge" of a sector block.

An 80ly cube in AS gives you about 2600 systems, i.e. about 6 sectors' worth of the OTU, or about a quarter of the Imperium.

So a 5x5x5 array of such sectors would give you about 30 Imperiums.

Or you might mean still only have 30-40 systems per 40ly or 80ly cube, but with higher jump numbers. That's fine, but you are going to have an awful lot of empty systems. In fact if you only have mainworlds in 30-40 systems out of 2600, you are probably talking about a setting where there are only colonies on garden worlds. Which is fine, of course.

Just on a practical note, AS starts to get very wobbly for me on about 100k systems. Pushing it to 250k-300k (125 x 2600) may not work.

 

[Dragoner]

One thing I like about this setup is the "points of light" nature. To make a Jump-1 trip, you have to go through a number of "link" systems.

This is what I mean by there being a certain terrain or stellar-ography to 3D maps, I like this feature.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Or you might mean still only have 30-40 systems per 40ly or 80ly cube, but with higher jump numbers. That's fine, but you are going to have an awful lot of empty systems. In fact if you only have mainworlds in 30-40 systems out of 2600, you are probably talking about a setting where there are only colonies on garden worlds. Which is fine, of course.

The "lot of empty systems" is what gives you:

1. A Frontier to work (and explore) ... even in "settled" regions of space claimed by an interstellar polity.
2. An "archipelago feel" to regions or domains ... creating a "spheres of influence" type of arrangement conducive to Pocket Empires which can then merge into larger interstellar polities or fracture into competing factions.

So a 5x5x5 array of such sectors would give you about 30 Imperiums.

That's what happens when you Add The Third Dimension to your mapping system.

Just on a practical note, AS starts to get very wobbly for me on about 100k systems. Pushing it to 250k-300k (125 x 2600) may not work.

I figured that there was probably an "upper limit" somewhere, hence the desire to create in smaller chunks to plug into a larger whole.

The distance between systems limits the number of Jump-1 connections. The size of the cube doesn't matter in that regard. If you set max jump to 8ly, and did not increase the space between systems, you would have a dramatically higher number of J1 connections.

In that case, canonically speaking, 7.7 light years is slightly over 2 parsecs (3.26-3.27 light years), so technically speaking 7.7 light years ought to be J3 ... not J1.

If you set J1 @ 3.3 light years maximum, you're going to need a MUCH higher star density in your map generation parameters in order to have "J1 mains" going on. However, just because there are "more stars" within a cube block of space doesn't necessarily have to mean that there is a greater proportion of "major worlds" worth going to.

The original LBB3 and LBB6 world generation system was predicated upon the notion that there would be 20-30 star systems that needed to be detailed per subsector (80 hexes). Of those star systems, only a superminority fraction would be "wonderful places to live" (see: Garden World) ripe for colonization.

If you've got a 3D map generating application that is giving you "way too many worlds" for what FEELS LIKE a subsector of space (whatever you define that to be), there's a relatively easy solution to the problem of over density of world options when mapping in 3D.

Roll world stats at DISADVANTAGE.

So if instead of rolling stats for worlds a single time, roll twice ... and take the "worse" result.

Rolled Atmosphere: 6 for a world?
Great, roll again and see if you still get a 6 result. If you do, keep the 6 ... if you don't, use the "worse" result of your two choices.

That way, with an "overdensity" of stars and star systems in a block of 3D space, the vast overwhelming majority of worlds are likely to be "uninhabitable" without significant technological support and industrial base. You'll still wind up with "garden worlds" but they'll be few and far between ... true "jewels in the rough" of star system generation.

The net result would be something of a scattershot archipelago type of map. Because of the higher stellar density you'll have a lot more 3.3 light year range J1 options, but few of those destinations will be "developed" and will instead become "jump over territory" for getting to other destinations beyond each individual stop along the route.

Note that a "roll at disadvantage" for world generation would seem to fit well with the "Terra is quite unique" hypothesis about the Sol star system. It means that finding other worlds with identical size/atmosphere/hydrographics codes becomes a LOT harder (not impossible, just rarer in terms of probabilities). It also means that there's going to be an ABUNDANCE of "underdeveloped" locations in and around ... hubs ... of civilization, reinforcing the archipelago "feel" for the maps.

Like the citizens of Australia like to say about their continent ... "there's miles and miles of nothing in between but miles and miles of nothing in between."

Nothing wrong with having "lots of stars with sparsely populated systems" and only a scant few standout worlds with significant populations dominating their local region of space.

 

[Lapthorn]

The "lot of empty systems" is what gives you:

1. A Frontier to work (and explore) ... even in "settled" regions of space claimed by an interstellar polity.
2. An "archipelago feel" to regions or domains ... creating a "spheres of influence" type of arrangement conducive to Pocket Empires which can then merge into larger interstellar polities or fracture into competing factions.

That's what happens when you Add The Third Dimension to your mapping system.

I've been messing around with 3D mapping for a good 10 years or so now, so I reckon I have a pretty good idea what it involves.

In that case, canonically speaking, 7.7 light years is slightly over 2 parsecs (3.26-3.27 light years), so technically speaking 7.7 light years ought to be J3 ... not J1.

I don't care that J1 is a parsec in canon. Canon is 2D, so I have diverged from it anyway.

I won't go any further with the point by point reply, as I think we actually agree on some of what is cool about 3D mapping. I wasn't sure you'd fully considered the sheer number of systems involved if putting together 125 40x40 or 80x80 cubes, assuming roughly real-life stellar density. Astrosynthesis at least will struggle. And in any case, I don't really see what that volume of information would bring to an actual game.

I've shared an example of my 3D worldbuilding approach - I'd be interested to see yours, or others'.

 

[kilemall]

I use that RT something gen system which factors in stellar type and using just local stars, most of which are red dwarfs, you simply won’t have garden worlds most systems. Add in flare behavior and they really get tough.

I think the new MgT2 system would yield similar results.