M
Malenfant
Guest
Good idea, linking the blog to the Spica page - was going to suggest that myself.
Shadowdancer
SOC-14 1K
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.
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.
M
Malenfant
Guest
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!
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.
)Fifth: I'm outta here. Good stuff!
M
Malenfant
Guest
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.
M
Malenfant
Guest
I think it should mean AUs rather than orbit numbers. I'm planning to do away with orbit numbers, in fact...Originally posted by Gruffty:
Ah, well spotted, that man
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).
Ideally, I'd say remove all of them
.
M
Malenfant
Guest
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.
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
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
Similar threads
