Universal Star System Profile

[rancke]

Assuming for purposes of this thread that we want to define a Universal Star System Profile (USSP for short ) similar in concept to the UPP and the USP and the UWP, what information should it contain?

I think it would be a good idea if one was able to use the same software for USSPs as for UWPs, so I suggest the same basic format: A name field, an 8-character field, a one character field (the UWP bases), a comment field, a three-character field (the UWP second data field), and a two-character field (UWP alignments).

The name field: presents no problem. It's just the name of the system.

The primary data field: What eight factors do we most want to know about a star system? We can duplicate some of the information that a UWP has, but should we? Or should we duplicate some of them? The total population of the entire system is a useful bit of information that can't be found in the UWP. Should any of the information from the UWP be duplicated? Starport class, tech level? Bses? Gas giants, planetoid belts?

Your thoughts, ideas, and opinions are solicited.


Hans

 

[SpaceBadger]

Assuming for purposes of this thread that we want to define a Universal Star System Profile (USSP for short ) similar in concept to the UPP and the USP and the UWP, what information should it contain?

The answer depends heavily on the usage for which this USSP is intended.

Currently the UWP (especially Extended UWP) provide us info about the mainworld and some info about the system as well (Base, PBG, Worlds, Stellar data). Then if someone has done the work to flesh out the system w worlds located in their orbits, number of moons each has, etc, then we typically see a list of those worlds w UWPs for each world.

If we want the USSP to replace the UWP as the "top level item" for a system, to be followed by drilling down to individual world UWPs in the system if interested, then it needs to carry over a lot of the info from the UWP.

If we want the USSP just as a sort of alternative view of the system, w the UWP retained as the top level item seen in most casual views of a subsector, then the USSP only needs the items that refer to the system as a whole rather than the mainworld.

I agree that a sensible way to look at system data would be to begin with info about the system as a whole and then drill down to individual worlds within the system if interested, but that is kinda what we have now with the Extended UWP followed by system data listing individual world UWPs.

 

[whulorigan]

The primary data field: What eight factors do we most want to know about a star system? We can duplicate some of the information that a UWP has, but should we? Or should we duplicate some of them? The total population of the entire system is a useful bit of information that can't be found in the UWP. Should any of the information from the UWP be duplicated? Starport class, tech level? Bses? Gas giants, planetoid belts?

Your thoughts, ideas, and opinions are solicited.


Hans

Personally, I like to know:

1) How many (and type) of stars in system (e.g."0" = Rogue World; "1"= Solitary; "2"=Binary, etc) .

2) Configuration of Star-system: Are companion stars close/near/far (with orbit #s or orbital distances from primary), [or is the "companion" star actually a far companion composed of two close-orbiting binaries], etc.

3) Around which star (or group of stars) does the Mainworld orbit? (Or possible "multiple" mainworlds if there is more than one important world in a system

4) Overall system population

5) # of worlds & planetoid belts in system

6) Code indicating mainworld type (planet/satellite/belt, etc)

7) # of Gas Giants in system (possibly specifying Brown Dwarf/LGG/SGG/ Ice Giant, etc).

8) Code for Travel Zones specifying application to entire system as opposed to simply particular world(s) in system.
​

I am not sure how you would codify all of this into a digital USSP, however.

Also, I mentioned this once in a different thread: Would it be possible (or worth considering) using subscripts on some of the digits to add additional data at a glance?

 

[McPerth]

My suggestion:

(Refering at the digit positions as what they would in the UWP):

• Starport: system stars (single, close binary, far binary, etc...)
• Size: orbital position of main planet
• Atmosphere: number of planets (incluiding planetoid belts and GG) in the system
• Hydrographics: number of inhabited (let's say pop 4+) planets in the system.
• Pop: total population in the system (as pop in a planet)
• Government: relative richness per inhabitant (useful for commerce)
• Law: relative seccurity in the system (piracy, etc...)
• TL: TL (as shown)
• PGB, alleigance, bases, travel zones, etc...: as shown

See that this USSP is mostly thought for merchant traffic (hence the relative richness and seccurity), but don't forget that's the main goal of the Imperium.

 

[mike wightman]

Number of stars

Number of rocky planets

Number of dwarf planets

Number of gas giants

Number of belts

Best starport

Highest TL

System population

 

[The Oz]

A thought that occurs to me:

A letter code could be used to indicate the basic configuration of the star system, as well as the number of stars.

Letter   Meaning (x/y)  arrangement of stars close/distant
  0        no star
  A        one star (1/0)
  B        binary; (1/1)
  C        binary; (2/0)
  D        trinary; (1/2)
  E        trinary; (2/1)
  F        quad; (1/3)
  G        quad; (2/2)
  H        quad; (3/1)
  J         quint; (1/4)
  K        quint; (2/3)
  L        quint; (3/2)
  M       quint; (4/1)

 

[McPerth]

One more question: this USSP would be to sustitute for UWP or an addition to it?

I ask because I assumed it was an addition, so I already took as given the information in UWP, but I see some people oesn't, so I guess they see it as a sustitute.

 

[rancke]

One more question: this USSP would be to sustitute for UWP or an addition to it?

I ask because I assumed it was an addition, so I already took as given the information in UWP, but I see some people oesn't, so I guess they see it as a sustitute.

I wasn't too clear about that in my OP because I was in two minds myself. I suppose the most useful way to go about it would be, as spacebadger suggest, from a top level overview of the system to details about individual worlds. So let's say the USSP is supposed to replace the extended UWP (but not the UWP itself).


Hans

 

[The Oz]

I wasn't too clear about that in my OP because I was in two minds myself. I suppose the most useful way to go about it would be, as spacebadger suggest, from a top level overview of the system to details about individual worlds. So let's say the USSP is supposed to replace the extended UWP (but not the UWP itself).


Hans

Or maybe there could be a functional split: the System Profile could be for navigational purposes, and the World Profile could be for trade purposes.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

If we want the USSP to replace the UWP as the "top level item" for a system, to be followed by drilling down to individual world UWPs in the system if interested, then it needs to carry over a lot of the info from the UWP.

I disagree. I think a good chunk of the UWP is really not relevant at the system level - mainworld size/atmo/hydro. The rest of it is not relevant at the world level, but makes some sense to apply to the system as a whole.

Suggestion:
Starport/Stars/GGs/Planets/Belts/Pop/Gov-TL
I would add in a variation of LL/governmental presence if I could wedge another digit in there.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I disagree. I think a good chunk of the UWP is really not relevant at the system level - mainworld size/atmo/hydro. The rest of it is not relevant at the world level, but makes some sense to apply to the system as a whole.

Suggestion:
Starport/Stars/GGs/Planets/Belts/Pop/Gov-TL
I would add in a variation of LL/governmental presence if I could wedge another digit in there.

I didn't say it had to carry over all of the information from the UWP, I said a lot.

Your suggestion carries over 4 out of 8 items from the UWP; all of your suggested items are carried over from Extended UWP. While "a lot" is a kinda fuzzy term, I suggest it is not totally inappropriate.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Starport: (Best in System)
Star System Type (Codes following as per previous posts)
Number of Significant Planets or Moons: (Sizes 1-A Only, No Belts, Gas Giants, or Planetoids even if the mainworld is one)
System Population
(What Goes Here?)
Law Level: (Most Restrictive or Average in System)

TL

Bases (Naval Codes only, maybe Scout)

Zone (if ENTIRE SYSTEM is Amber or Red then Amber or Red, else nothing)
Allegiance
Population Multiplier
Planetoid Belts
Gas Giants

 

[77topaz]

Assuming for purposes of this thread that we want to define a Universal Star System Profile (USSP for short ) similar in concept to the UPP and the USP and the UWP, what information should it contain?

I think it would be a good idea if one was able to use the same software for USSPs as for UWPs, so I suggest the same basic format: A name field, an 8-character field, a one character field (the UWP bases), a comment field, a three-character field (the UWP second data field), and a two-character field (UWP alignments).

The name field: presents no problem. It's just the name of the system.

The primary data field: What eight factors do we most want to know about a star system? We can duplicate some of the information that a UWP has, but should we? Or should we duplicate some of them? The total population of the entire system is a useful bit of information that can't be found in the UWP. Should any of the information from the UWP be duplicated? Starport class, tech level? Bses? Gas giants, planetoid belts?

Your thoughts, ideas, and opinions are solicited.


Hans

Hm, I thought that the population codes in a UWP (as given in, for example, a SEC file) did include the population of the whole system, not just the mainworld - but most, if not all, of that would be on the mainworld. Otherwise, how could the SEC files be used to determine the population of, say, a whole sector, if the population codes did not account for "side" worlds in each system?