Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Help With Planetary Data
Found a couple more (will send along in an email so we don't lose them):
- Mostagnem and Mostaganem, I believe the latter is the correct spelling and I know it has the correct coordinates.
- RWR Outpost 27 and RWR Outpost #27, not sure which one is spelled correct, but RWR Outpost #27 has the correct coordinates.

I'm getting close to having connectors for all the systems that don't have connectors.  There were about 142 systems that are not connected and they'll need close to 700 systems to connect them.  Keep in mind this is a rough estimate right now and I still need to cleanup some of the existing connectors which might cut this number down.  When I get something I feel good about I'll share it.
Reply
I was able to get it down from the 700 systems I mentioned before down to 479 but I don't think I can go down too far below that to connect the 142 systems that are not currently connected.  Too see the inital set use the attached planets.xml.  All the new systems are at the bottom of the file and are not properly formatted as this is just a test copy that I'm still reviewing.  All of the system data outside of the name and the coordinates came from Sir Chaos's System Creation text file that had random tables for spectral class, subtype, luminosity, and description.

The one question I have is what should the names for these be?  Currently they are named CS-<SystemFromID>-<#ofJumps>-<DistanceToTerra> for uniqueness.  I believe I should change that and follow the older NP and DPR forms, but I wasn't sure where the delineation of the names occurs.  Where/when does the Near Periphery (NP) become the Deep Periphery (DPR)? 



Reply
So 68 of the systems remain unconnected due to a math error I have in the code I used to generate the systems.

On top of that I found two more duplicates that need to be removed/merged:
- Riga (HL) and Riga - Riga has the right coordinates and probably name, but Riga (HL) has the correct faction changes I think.
- IE Base 14 and Interstellar Expeditions Base #14 - Interstellar Expeditions Base #14 has the correct coordinates and I think the correct faction change.

I'll pass these along in an email as well.

I'm beginning to wonder if it would be better to rip out all of the previous connector systems and then re-generate connectors that replace all of them.  What do you guys think?
Reply
Ok found and fixed the bug, so here's the new xml.  Again the formatting and naming are not finalized, but all of the systems should now be connected.

I think I'm going to go ahead and try one with all of the existing connectors removed and then generate new connections just to see how it looks.  I think it would be easier than trying to clean all of the existing connections up.

I went ahead and removed all of the existing connectors and then generated new ones and I've attached the files. 

So now:
- planets-connectingsystems.zip - this is the 0.3.21 planets.xml with just the connectors needed aced with the newly generated ones
- planets-updated-StrippedDown.zip - this is the 0.3.21 planets.xml with the existing connectors removed
- planets-updated-StrippedDownConnected.zip - this is the 0.3.21 planets.xml with the existing connectors removed and newly generated ones taking their place

Let me know what you think.


Attached Files
.zip   planets-updated-StrippedDown.zip (Size: 491.77 KB / Downloads: 2)
.zip   planets-connectingsystems.zip (Size: 502.29 KB / Downloads: 3)
.zip   planets-updated-StrippedDownConnected.zip (Size: 515.1 KB / Downloads: 4)
Reply
Thanks for getting these put together! I'm going to try and take a look and get these implemented soon, assuming I don't spot any issues.
Reply
Thanks!  Just let me know what you find as I'm sure it won't be a one off item and more likely need a tweak to algorithms I was using.
Reply
Just a heads-up: I hope we can get my clean-up of the Planet data included soon, which will greatly simplify any future patching and changing. One of the features is the fact that the planetary data can be now split among any number of XML files. There still have to be one data/planets.xml file, but theoretically it could just be empty (though I'd suggest to leave Terra in there) and everything else be partitioned out and shuffled into separate, smaller data/planets/whatever.xml files.

@Jayof9s: How far did you proceed with DaddyHolby's changes?
Reply
Pretty sure I just needed to actually commit the changes. Life has been hectic to say the least since January.
Reply
So, what's the verdict? Can we use the "stripped down" file and add the connections as an auxiliary file, or is there some work to do?

EDIT: Having loaded the file in MekHQ, every single system "between" the others is exactly in the straight line, exactly 29.90 ly from the other ones. That's good enough to connect them, but doesn't look particularly "nice" ...
Reply
Yeah I followed the logic of what had been done previously for the connectors, with the difference being I did some VBA code to do it automatically instead of by hand.  So things ended up in a straight line for the connectors, which while not really realistic, at least allows you to get from one place to another.

If it needs to change let me know and I can alter the VBA pending real life work.
Reply
(04-25-2016, 11:15 AM)DaddyHolby link Wrote: Yeah I followed the logic of what had been done previously for the connectors, with the difference being I did some VBA code to do it automatically instead of by hand.  So things ended up in a straight line for the connectors, which while not really realistic, at least allows you to get from one place to another.

If it needs to change let me know and I can alter the VBA pending real life work.

Creating a Delaunay triangulation of the "outer", unconnected systems and then filling in each edge with a fractal line or similar is not the problem, really. And soon people will be able to replace the connectors with whatever they feel like works for them best. I'm more interested in your fixes to the "official" planet list.
Reply
I'm fine with the connectors as they are. In my mind the connectors are a filler (that may last quite a while) until the map can actually just support generating stop-overs as needed. I.e. if there's a giant gap that can't be bridged by passing through inhabited systems, an alternate route needs plotted. Even in canon there are countless uninhabited systems and alternate ways to travel without using inhabited systems. However, it's rarely done in universe because unless you're on a 'standard' path, you can end up stranded with no one knowing where to look.

In short, the connectors are filling in a limitation with the MHQ map because we don't want systems/areas that can't be visited. If someone wants to add a bit more variety in the paths, I'm okay with it. However, I do think most trips through uninhabited systems would likely be plotted to be as direct as possible and likely avoiding any systems with suns that would make for extended charging times.
Reply
Well, it'll get easier to fix now (and for everyone to make their own systems and connections, too), since planets.xml doesn't need to be a monolithic single file anymore.

Still, I'm more concerned with data errors than what shape connections will have. I added a small verification pass to my version of MekHQ, and this is what it had to say about very close systems:

Code:
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Adhafera <-> Tania Borealis: 1,962 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Cambridge <-> Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station: 0,513 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station <-> Cambridge: 0,513 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Electra <-> Maia: 1,114 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Havdhem <-> Silkeborg: 1,835 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Hyades Cluster <-> Taurus: 1,454 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? IE Base 14 <-> Interstellar Expeditions Base #14: 0,004 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Interstellar Expeditions Base #14 <-> IE Base 14: 0,004 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Maia <-> Electra: 1,114 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Maia <-> Merope: 1,322 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Merope <-> Maia: 1,322 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Mostaganem <-> Mostagnem: 0,004 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Mostagnem <-> Mostaganem: 0,004 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? RWR Outpost #27 <-> RWR Outpost 27: 0,003 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? RWR Outpost 27 <-> RWR Outpost #27: 0,003 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Silkeborg <-> Havdhem: 1,835 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? TF4 <-> Transfer Facility 4: 0,490 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Tania Borealis <-> Adhafera: 1,962 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Taurus <-> Hyades Cluster: 1,454 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Transfer Facility 4 <-> TF4: 0,490 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Wolf Orbital 82 <-> Wolf_82: 0,360 ly
Extremly close planets detected. Data error? Wolf_82 <-> Wolf Orbital 82: 0,360 ly

Obviously, Merope, Maia and Electra are supposed to be close (they are all Pleiades), as is Taurus to the remainder of the Hyades.

Those seem to be simply duplicated data: IE Base 14 <-> Interstellar Expeditions Base #14, Mostaganem <-> Mostagnem, RWR Outpost #27 <-> RWR Outpost 27, TF4 <-> Transfer Facility 4 and Wolf_82 <-> Wolf Orbital 82.

Looking at the maps, Adhafera <-> Tania Borealis seems correct, as is Silkeborg <-> Havdhem. They are really this close (and so likely "far" binary stars).

That leaves Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station <-> Cambridge. 0.51 ly might be quite far, over 32 thousand AU in fact, but it technically still is inside the gravitational well of a F3V star. Our own G2V (which is like half as massive) still manages to have a Hill sphere radius of over 1 ly, after all. So that seems like a data error too, but I'm not sure. Sarna.net isn't very helpful either. Any comments?
Reply
Don't use the sarna data?

There should be a link in this thread to the current accurate data, or a link to another forum with a dropbox link to the current data.
Reply
(04-25-2016, 10:26 PM)pheonixstorm link Wrote: Don't use the sarna data?

For Cambridge? Well, if someone could point me where the "Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station" is described in so that it can be determined if it's inside the Cambridge system (and thus a data error) or a deep space station, I'd be happy to.

EDIT: For everyone who feels like wanting to help or enhance the official data with their own private set of systems, I documented the current planetary data specification now. The file will also be included in the next release's documentation folder.
Reply
the Cambridge defense station is in Interstellar Expeditions. It's only shown on the map. No other details are provided.
Reply
Looking back at my notes and a previous post in this thread I think they are supposed to be the same thing, the only question I had was which one had the correct faction change event data:

(12-10-2015, 08:56 AM)DaddyHolby link Wrote: - Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station and Cambridge - Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station has the correct coordinates and I'm not sure which one has the correct faction change events
Reply
IE only has that place as a dot on the map, no idea where all that other data came from. To clean it up, I'll just take over what's under "Cambridge Perimeter Defense Station" and add <spectralType>F3V</spectralType> from the other entry to it.

Fixes and errata can be done way easier now anyway. In doubt, cut out whatever data you want to fix from planets.xml and make it a new "something.xml" file in the data/universe/planets folder (and then send it our way for inclusion).

This works since today's daily build, by the way. Which you can as usual get from http://mm.akjosch.de/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Planetary governor needs to give up! kipstafoo 2 451 08-12-2016, 06:02 PM
Last Post: BLOODWOLF
  Planetary Ownership 3145 Madcow9000 3 646 01-17-2015, 10:21 AM
Last Post: Jayof9s
  Planetary data representation Akjosch 4 628 01-16-2015, 01:54 PM
Last Post: ralgith
  Loading Planetary Data crash Groggy1 6 955 07-10-2013, 11:49 AM
Last Post: Jayof9s
  planetary ownership mchapman1970 2 894 10-12-2012, 11:48 PM
Last Post: mchapman1970
  how much data can the program have mchapman1970 10 1,978 05-31-2012, 06:39 PM
Last Post: ralgith
  Planetary recharge times Alain Dumont 5 1,290 03-28-2012, 04:30 PM
Last Post: Alain Dumont
  Question about the location of Planet Data Hammer 4 1,008 12-18-2011, 06:14 PM
Last Post: FogHat
  Planetary Map in MekHQ Snowene 2 1,183 11-28-2011, 11:51 PM
Last Post: Snowene
  Suggestion: Data Files Themicles 2 958 07-22-2011, 12:01 AM
Last Post: Themicles

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)