JustinInOz
SOC-12
2D to 3D Conversion
G'Day,
If it is of any interest, I have set up a spreaddy that takes a set of 2D coordinates and converts this to a set of 3D coordinates but preserves the relationships between the 2D points.
This allows to keeps the routes and distances between near systems as they were but the whole thing now exists in 3D space.
If you send me a subsector, I would be happy to covert it for you. The conversion goes on the following jump distance assumption:
Jump-1 7.3 ly
Jump-2 10.2 ly
Jump-3 12.8 ly
Jump-4 15.1 ly
Jump-5 17.2 ly
Jump-6 19.2 ly
This keeps the same number of available jump destinations in 2D space per Jump number for 3D space.
It uses a linear program to minimise the differences in distances between the subsector stars 2D and 3D.
Where it becomes more interesting is between subsectors in a sector. Instead of having 8 neighbouring subsectors, you now have 12. This difference is what makes the borders more porous. Also the jump distance conversion works perfectly for the each jump. It breaks down when you string a series of jumps one after another. If there is a gap in the route that you can not jump enough to cross, then that route is still closed to you.
But if you look, 3 Jump-1s cover a greater distance than 1 Jump-6. So in the long haul the lowest jump numbers will not be as bad as they are in the 2D universe. Jump-6 will still have great route selection though. The poor route selection of Jump-1 will erode this greater efficiency.
G'Day,
If it is of any interest, I have set up a spreaddy that takes a set of 2D coordinates and converts this to a set of 3D coordinates but preserves the relationships between the 2D points.
This allows to keeps the routes and distances between near systems as they were but the whole thing now exists in 3D space.
If you send me a subsector, I would be happy to covert it for you. The conversion goes on the following jump distance assumption:
Jump-1 7.3 ly
Jump-2 10.2 ly
Jump-3 12.8 ly
Jump-4 15.1 ly
Jump-5 17.2 ly
Jump-6 19.2 ly
This keeps the same number of available jump destinations in 2D space per Jump number for 3D space.
It uses a linear program to minimise the differences in distances between the subsector stars 2D and 3D.
Where it becomes more interesting is between subsectors in a sector. Instead of having 8 neighbouring subsectors, you now have 12. This difference is what makes the borders more porous. Also the jump distance conversion works perfectly for the each jump. It breaks down when you string a series of jumps one after another. If there is a gap in the route that you can not jump enough to cross, then that route is still closed to you.
But if you look, 3 Jump-1s cover a greater distance than 1 Jump-6. So in the long haul the lowest jump numbers will not be as bad as they are in the 2D universe. Jump-6 will still have great route selection though. The poor route selection of Jump-1 will erode this greater efficiency.