Slowing down?

[clementk]

Ah. Thanks. Missed that link until now. I skimmed past it first go with the small (thus looking darker to my eyes) red link text on black starry background.

 

[Malenfant]

Good idea, linking the blog to the Spica page - was going to suggest that myself.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Whoa! I hadn't scrolled down this way in a while because I thought the project was dead. Glad to see it's going again, in whatever form.

I'm still willing to contribute to this project. I'd have to go read through the various threads to see exactly what I originally agreed to do, though.

 

[Malenfant]

First, Linkage:
http://www.leaberry.org.uk/
http://www.leaberry.org.uk/Subsector%20C%20Data.pdf

Second: Orbital distances. Not a bad idea. Maybe use 1k, 2k, 3k etc instead of 1000, 2000, 3000 for the Distant orbits? Though you don't seem to have used my suggestion for denoting close, near, and far orbits with the brackets. Also, the K5 V companion of Spica is way too close - it's a few thousand AU from the four B stars, not 17!

Third: Did you generate the stars using my system? Cos there's a couple of VIs and and III/VI pair in there. And way too many Ds.

Fourth: I have actually started on the Realistic UWP Generation System again. So we may be able to get some realistic worlds done after all.

(it'll need testing first, of course... but I kinda envisaged Spica as being the test run )

Fifth: I'm outta here. Good stuff!

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Gruffty:
Spica: (B1 V B4 V) B5 V B7 V [K5 V*]

I guess either way works (as long as there's one far companion), but I think this is the better way to do it - put the * inside the Far companion's square bracket.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Gruffty:
Ah, well spotted, that man . The K5 V companion is actually in orbit no. 17 of the B1 V star. Therein lies a flaw in the data sheet. I agree, it's not clear whether I mean AUs or orbits and is confusing. But again, the sheet is only a rough and can be modified.

I think it should mean AUs rather than orbit numbers. I'm planning to do away with orbit numbers, in fact...

Star generation is going to need a few extra modifiers if we're doing it from scratch (since we don't have the +4 for habitable worlds, and we're doing the stars first).

Can you suggest some hex locations to remove some of the Ds from, to "realisticise" things?

Ideally, I'd say remove all of them .

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Gruffty:
What about the unusual stellar combinations? Any ideas? [/QB]

Working on that... the best thing to do would just be to regenerate the stellar data using my rules. Though you'll need to know what modifiers to apply... so standby for more info.

 

[Flynn]

The basic issue with using Malenfant's stellar generation method is that you have to have world data first. So you end up generating the UWPs before you get to the appropriate stellar data.

That's not a bad thing, but when I looked at your files, I didn't see that UWP data, so there appears to be an issue here.

More later,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

That, I can fully understand.

Happy Travellin',
Flynn

 

[Qstor2]

I'd be interested in seeing the sourcebook when it gets done

Maybe Martin can publish it through ComStar?

keep up the good work

Mike