Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Yup, Randy. On its way to ya.
LBB6 system generation questions
- Thread starter Fritz_Brown
- Start date
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Got it, thanks!
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Thanks, mickazoid!
Oh, one thing I forgot - you HAVE to have the various Excel toolpaks installed. Otherwise, you don't get the "DEC2HEX" function. If you don't get that, it doesn't work.
Of course, y'all probably do, what with this being CT and all.
The one macro that would be a good addition to this is one that would copy/paste the random values without unhiding those columns. In the monster version (a whole subsector at a shot), you just grab the columns, not individual hexes, to do the copy/paste.
The hardest part was a circular error I was getting (in 1.0) because I was trying to line up the columns too neatly. It is really hard to program a function to do the main world determination, and I tied too much of that back and forth.
If you want, I can tell you how to make the monster one fully functional - the whole shebang.
Oh, one thing I forgot - you HAVE to have the various Excel toolpaks installed. Otherwise, you don't get the "DEC2HEX" function. If you don't get that, it doesn't work.
Of course, y'all probably do, what with this being CT and all.The one macro that would be a good addition to this is one that would copy/paste the random values without unhiding those columns. In the monster version (a whole subsector at a shot), you just grab the columns, not individual hexes, to do the copy/paste.
The hardest part was a circular error I was getting (in 1.0) because I was trying to line up the columns too neatly. It is really hard to program a function to do the main world determination, and I tied too much of that back and forth.
If you want, I can tell you how to make the monster one fully functional - the whole shebang.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
I have discovered an interesting quirk. When you do the copy/paste bit, it actually misses one set of random numbers: the ones that determine the star spectral decimal (whether the star is M0 or M5, F0 or F5, etc). Those are (right now) inside the lookup formulas.
It changes things only slightly. I noticed it because the orbits were changing when it recalculated, even though I had already replaced the random numbers with constant values. If the orbit changes (say H to O), it affects some of the formulas (size, hydro, atmo, pop, etc.). Looks a bit crazy, but I'm not ready to change it....
I am also going to see just how far down the full subsector gen zips, and I will let y'all know.
And, thank you for the kind words.
Edit: First, I edited what uses the random number. It's the decimal part of the spectral classification, not luminosity. (Its the number in M0.)
Second, I also realized there is still a random number in the GG column. It is used to lookup whether it is a "LGG" or a "SGG".
I have "fixed" these two items. Now, I need to make sure it's properly done in the single system files. Would the three of you like the updated version?
edn edit
Edit: That should be "end edit".... end edit
It changes things only slightly. I noticed it because the orbits were changing when it recalculated, even though I had already replaced the random numbers with constant values. If the orbit changes (say H to O), it affects some of the formulas (size, hydro, atmo, pop, etc.). Looks a bit crazy, but I'm not ready to change it....
I am also going to see just how far down the full subsector gen zips, and I will let y'all know.
And, thank you for the kind words.
Edit: First, I edited what uses the random number. It's the decimal part of the spectral classification, not luminosity. (Its the number in M0.)
Second, I also realized there is still a random number in the GG column. It is used to lookup whether it is a "LGG" or a "SGG".
I have "fixed" these two items. Now, I need to make sure it's properly done in the single system files. Would the three of you like the updated version?
edn edit
Edit: That should be "end edit".... end edit
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
BUMP. I realized editing the previous post didn't count as a new post, so I'll ask again: Do y'all want me to send you the updated version?
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
I will get right on it. I might not be able to get to it this weekend, but I will try.
I may have found another anomoly as well.
I may have found another anomoly as well.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Oh, I had another question, as well. How do you represent a system with no planets? It has a star (or 2) but it has no planets at all. What is the UWP for that? A X000000-0 would seem to represent an unpopulated belt, at least.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I don't think there is UWP for a system without a surveyed mainworld. In fact the rules don't even really allow for it as I recall. The only systems that can be generated all have planets. I'd guess you'd have to use a different character than the usual alpha-numeric set. Perhaps dashes?
When I'd toyed with the idea of "empty" solar systems years ago they were mostly still with planets, just not locally surveyed, so all I listed was the star type and if there was a gas giant or not. The rest was there waiting to be detail surveyed by the IISS or explored by adventurers.
Remember the UWP is really nothing more than a distillation of the full system data, produced as a short hand guide for Referee/Player use and possibly as the entry heading in the Library program for TAS members.
When I'd toyed with the idea of "empty" solar systems years ago they were mostly still with planets, just not locally surveyed, so all I listed was the star type and if there was a gas giant or not. The rest was there waiting to be detail surveyed by the IISS or explored by adventurers.
Remember the UWP is really nothing more than a distillation of the full system data, produced as a short hand guide for Referee/Player use and possibly as the entry heading in the Library program for TAS members.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Right you are, Dan. I have occassionally gotten that arrangement, though - a very small number of orbits rolled, but they are in the no-planet realm because they would be sandwiched between the primary and the binary star. I don't think I have broken any of the rules to get that, either.
Two stars, few orbits and no room for planets seems like such a rare event that I would take advantage of it to be creative.
I might make the system two Stars in orbit around their center of mass forms the core of a system where a small number of orbits are around the star pair.
PS [A star with absolutely nothing around it is of so little value that I would represent it as a blank hex with an asterisk and a note.]
I might make the system two Stars in orbit around their center of mass forms the core of a system where a small number of orbits are around the star pair.
PS [A star with absolutely nothing around it is of so little value that I would represent it as a blank hex with an asterisk and a note.]
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
I might do exactly that, at. But, I want to see if there's a different idea, first.
Dan, the other use for the UWP is on the star-chart - that's the big reason for asking this question. I think I will leave the spreadsheet as is (so it's really obvious when this occurs), and think about how to display it after the fact.
Dan, the other use for the UWP is on the star-chart - that's the big reason for asking this question. I think I will leave the spreadsheet as is (so it's really obvious when this occurs), and think about how to display it after the fact.
M
Malenfant
Guest
Not as rare as you might think. Two low mass stars orbiting close enough to preclude individual planets around each star may not have enough gas/dust left over after formation to allow anything to form beyond their '3D' distance and orbit the pair.
That's usually the solution for close binaries. Realistically though, you're not going to get proper planets orbiting beyond about 50 AU from a star or barycentre - there's just not enough material to form planets that far out. In practice, orbit 10 (in CT terms) is about as far as you'll find a planet from a star.
'Empty systems' should be fairly common though - one thing I don't like about the OTU (add to the list...) is how it assumes that every system has usable planets and just about every system has people in it. The former isn't necessarily likely at all, and certainly there's no good reason for people to be wanting to live on godforsaken barren rockballs orbiting red dwarfs.
But then the OTU bears about as much resemblance to the real universe as Middle Earth does...
M
Malenfant
Guest
Just for the record, that is a bad thing. Right? </font>[/QUOTE]YesOriginally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Malenfant:
But then the OTU bears about as much resemblance to the real universe as Middle Earth does...
M
Malenfant
Guest
Then I guess you're the ideal target audience for the OTU.
Your claim that "puking your guts out, loosing (sic) your hair and dying young" are "realistic aspects aspects of space exploration" is misguided at best though. Yes, there's lot of radiation out there, but it's only really a problem if you're caught with your pants down in outer space and nowhere near a storm shelter (and I'm sure that any starfaring society as advanced as the OTU would have their ships lined with nuclear-damper derived tech to remove that threat, or at the very least have radiation-hardened shelters and habitats). And I don't recall hearing about any real astronauts who are dying of radiation poisoning.
And yes, it's a risky business right now - but then so was flying and ocean travel when they first started. By the time the OTU is set, there's not so much serious risk involved in space travel (other than the perpetual threat of misjump and cold berth revival).
Then again, if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that people's opinions about what is realistic are usually very different to what actually is realistic. I just throw the realistic options on the table so people know what they are - feel free to ignore that if you have a TU that isn't based on reality.
Similar threads
