UWP Changes

[robject]

The suggestion was to eyeball the sectors. To me that means displaying the Sunbane sectors and comparing them to the AOTI sectors. If all the dots line up, it's probably OK.

There are other tricks, I think, though I'll know more once I've borrowed AOTI.

For instance, I believe the only AOTI world names are for high population worlds. Thus a simple sanity check would be to cut out everything except high pop worlds from Sunbane, plot, list, and compare.

My Perl code essentially mimics your manual system, though it deals with pieces of data as soon as it knows how to. I suspect Excel would work similarly.

 

[DaveChase]

Sorry to be posting so late into this thread. I tried to read through everything (and will have to read it all again 'cause there is a hell of a lot of it).

If we are talking about making Traveller accurate to real world stuff then I am all for a gravity UWP code, which inturn would be mulitplied by the size UWP which would give you no jump zone for each world.
Min jump would always UWP size times 2.

Just my -0.02 cents worth

Dave Chase

Originally posted by far-trader:
Not really sure where else to propose this, maybe MTU ideas, but anyway this seems the one place it might have a chance at making a difference. Not that it's likely to gain any acceptance I guess. Feel free to add other UWP clarification/change ideas here too.

...

Additionally, and more importantly, it will relate jump limits to gravity which will make a lot of people happy. That could be done with tables as suggested elsewhere or simply keep the old 100d and 10d but redefine them as perhaps 100 or 10 times the Mass code times 1000km (or more).

 

[robject]

Hi Dave,

Yes, some people are talking about correctifying Traveller data, and have contributed some excellent house rules (check out Malenfant's star determination rules).

For a few months we were simply combing our way through the Marches and Core looking for problem worlds and things we "would like to see". Some edits made it into Marc's Second Survey list.

Currently, Marc's talking about making the UWPs in Imperial sectors consistent to the slightly-tweaked UWP generation system.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I agree with Dave on a grav element for the UWP (or extended set). Of course, it would really have a huge influence on all the other elements: hydro, atmosphere, etc.

 

[robject]

Come to think of it, there are a bunch of optional "extensions" proposed for the UWP, and gravity or density could be in there somewhere. It would be painful having to reconcile hydrographics and atmosphere to them... perhaps the tail has to wag the dog, here.

 

[robject]

Gruffty, your analysis has some useful outputs. Namely, every randomly generated world can be categorized according to the kind of information present in AOTI; therefore, randomly generated worlds can be assigned to their required slots.

Alternately, for each UWP to be regenerated, a totally random UWP can be generated until its "AOTI footprint" equals that required for the current target world.

I can do this in Perl, but I don't know if this can be done in Excel!

Still, a parallel issue is determining which Sunbane sectors vary wildly from AOTI, and which are fine.

I'm going to have to modify my sec2ps script to generate maps which look more like AOTI's maps. Although, there's no way I'm going to output square hexes.

A second benefit of your analysis is that it's possible for people to transcribe a sector.

A-as through E-as: asteroid world
A-de through E-de: desert
A-wa through E-wa: wet world

[bases][gg presence]-[starport]-[world type]-[allegiance, if not 'Im'] [hex] [world name, if high pop]

All lowercase. Terse-and-easy is best. Scanning the hex top-down might be best, too.

Examples from Zarushagar sector:

sg-c-as 0101
g-b-as 0106
g-b-wa 0108
ag-b-wa 0109
g-b-wa 0110
g-d-wa 0112 numdaag
ng-b-as 1205

Maybe hex should come first.

 

[robject]

Zarushagar A

This took about five minutes. Allowing ten minutes per subsector (frequent breaks!), that's less than 3 hours per sector.

If an average of sixteen people worked on this, AOTI would be transcribed in three hours' work time.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">FORMAT: hex starport-world type[-bases] [world name]

0101 c-de-s g
0106 b-de g
0108 b-wa g
0109 b-wa-a g
0110 b-wa g

0201 b-wa g
0204 b-wa-s g
0209 b-wa-n g

0302 b-de g
0304 a-wa-g
0305 b-wa-n g
0306 b-wa-n g
0309 a-wa g
0310 b-wa-n g

0402 a-wa-n
0404 b-wa g
0405 c-wa g
0406 b-wa g
0407 b-wa g strela

0502 e-de g
0503 d-de g dugemaa
0504 c-wa g
0507 b-wa-n g
0510 b-wa g

0605 b-wa g
0606 e-de g
0607 a-wa g

0708 d-wa g
0710 d-wa g

0801 b-de-n g
0802 a-de-n g
0803 b-de g
0804 b-de-n g gishin
0805 c-wa g ginshe
0806 a-wa g</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[DaveChase]

Yes changing every part of the UWP would make a lot of worlds different. I do believe that we need to leave a bit of fiction in the word Science Fiction, so are only suggesting that the gravity be there for determining gravity wells (for jump) and velocity escape.
Trying to land or leave a planet with a greater gravity than manuever drive capicity.

Dave Chase

Originally posted by robject:
Come to think of it, there are a bunch of optional "extensions" proposed for the UWP, and gravity or density could be in there somewhere. It would be painful having to reconcile hydrographics and atmosphere to them... perhaps the tail has to wag the dog, here.

 

[robject]

Error Report for Zarushagar Sunbane

I think the main thing to look out for in Zarushagar Sunbane is the bases; particularly where there's two bases, the naval base tends to get dropped. So quite possibly, the low-bandwidth solution for an initial "prep to cleanup" is to note worlds in AOTI which have a naval base and scout S or W and check against Sunbane.

Error report from five subsectors:

These Sunbane systems are MISSING their naval bases:

0109
0217
0422
1012
1415
1226
1740
1902
2725
3109
2914

These systems have 'S' when they should have 'W' (or 'A' instead of 'B'):
0621
1902
3136

1920 should have 'D' instead of 'N'.

Finally, 2740 in AOTI is named in lowercase, with the utterly generic name 'world'. It's either a late edit or a mistake.


Aside from the base fiasco, five subsectors (A,B,C,D,E) of Zarushagar Sunbane check out as agreeing on fundamentals with AOTI. The actual numbers may be bad, but at least they're playing by the rules as far as GG presence, and whether the world is Hi, As, and with or without water (different from Desert world, by the way: Va and De are both waterless, while Ic (I think) and Fl are also "wet" worlds).

Addendum These worlds are classified 'wet' in AOTI, but are Fl in Sunbane. This is opposite to how most other sectors treat 'water content', and I think is incorrect.

0115 Mediterranea
0315 Brandybuck
0433 Solomon
0510 Chaundeler
0825 Gymir
0827 Dweomer
0937 Koringap
1209 Samlane
1320 Tree
1502 Haragraf
1602 Kunagnos
1802 Elsevier
2112 Muskegon
2419 Custancia
2422 Skaob-heti
2708 Faithe
2809 Wu
2911 Bercleah
2939 Riccardo
3201 Hattiesburg

 

[robject]

Report for Ilelish Sunbane

I have manually checked all Way stations, Depot, and Naval base-Scout base combinations, and they are all correct in the Sunbane data.

I've also checked subsector A, and found one issue: 0409, a dry world, has been classified in Sunbane as a wet world (BAC8033-B -- probably 'Fl', eh?). EDIT This is the same convention followed in Corridor sector: 'open-circle' worlds may be Desert, Vacuum, Fluid ocean, or Ice worlds. So this is in fact correct data.

EDIT ALL 36 SYSTEMS in the subsector accord with the AOTI baseline.

I must assume that each sector may have different problems. At this pont I cannot make broad assumptions between different sectors.

 

[robject]

Close Enough?

After the fixes mentioned above, I'm reasonably satisfied that the AOTI baseline data is represented well-enough in Zarushagar and Ilelish Sunbane sectors. I suggest that the corrected sector data can be used as AOTI sources.

To do

Codify and analyze random sampling (any 40 systems) of data from the remaining target sectors, to estimate possible data corruption.

Codify and analyze worlds with Scout and Naval presence, Way station presence, and Depot for possible errors. This adds another 10 systems or so to the list of worlds manually checked from each sector.

These two steps should give a pretty clear view of the state of the data for each sector.

 

[robject]

Massilia Sunbane Sector Report

Massilia appears to have the same problem as Zarushagar sector -- Way stations are being marked as Scout bases, and Naval bases are disappearing where there is a scout base also present.

I also found a single 1-bit error (out of 40 systems checked), again in the water-no water category, for world 3003. In AOTI it is wet; in Sunbane it is dry.

 

[robject]

Addendum to Massilia Sunbane Sector Report

It appears as though Knightfall suffers the same errors as Sunbane... i.e. not following AOTI. Sunbane must be based on that book. Even 3003 is a desert world there.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by DaveChase:
If we are talking about making Traveller accurate to real world stuff then I am all for a gravity UWP code, which inturn would be mulitplied by the size UWP which would give you no jump zone for each world.

Dave,

As good an idea as that is, let us avoid adding anything to the process at the moment. An UWP gravity code can be added at a later date.

What you're watching here between Robject, Gruffty, and the others is a historic moment. After nearly 20 years, Traveller is finally going to have a clean set of UWPs for the entire Imperium. Once this corrected or regenerated data set is created and available, we can begin to make other adjustments. Getting the base or default data set is all important. Everything else can than flow from it.

So, let's quietly watch the men here do this important work and try not to jog their elbow. Okay?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[inexorabletash]

Crud, lost a post. Main points:

When shown on GDW maps, "wet" worlds must have:

Hyd lt 0 (else, De)
Atm gt 1 (else, Ic)
Atm lt A (else, Fl)

Therefore a "dry" world has lots of possibilities - violate any of the above conditions. Ilelish 0409 is fine as-is. Massilia 3003 is not.

Speculation: the GEnie data was provided by DGP; presumably the Knightfall data was provided by DGP to GDW (they were partners in this at the time). The errors may have crept in when DGP was adapting the AotI data for the first time.

Suggestion: Ping HIWG members to see if anyone else has done this sort of analysis. Apparently there are well known errors even in the AotI, e.g. Iwahfuah. I've only seen second-hand references to the errors, not a comprehensive analysis, but it might exist.

 

[Gruffty]

AotI isn't specific about Fl, Ic, Wa worlds - only De worlds. I use the canon Trade Code parameters because AotI doesn't give UWPs, and thus we are not privy to finer details of the world.

Again, looking at the SM map on the MT CDROM, worlds are only shown as having "no water present" and "water present" (a white dot or a blue dot).

<Snip: Trade Codes bit taken out, just in case of copyright problems. Please refer to one of the published rulesbooks for Trade Code parameters.>

Realistically, all that we can "extract" from AotI about each world's UWP is the absolute basics (see my previous post on "skeleton" UWPs).

 

[Gruffty]

AotI vs. CT Supp 10 vs. CT AM6

Date Points:
AotI = 1065
CT Supp 10 = 1108
CT AM6 = 1110

(Note: ? = Allegiance not shown. Applies to both AotI and CT Supp 10).

Subsector A: Solomani Rim

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AotI Skeleton CT Supp 10 CT AM6

0105 E1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ ? 0105 Faiwyd E500589-7 Ni Va G ? 0105 Faiwyd E500589-7 Ni Va A 712 Im
0106 A1+x x9+xx-x N Hi xx1+ ? 0106 DARRUKESH A4859CF-D N G ? 0106 DARRUKESH A4859CF-D N Hi 823 Im
0110 A1+x x9+xx-x Hi xx1+ ? 0110 IDDAMAKUR A7799AB-7 In G ? 0110 IDDAMAKUR A7799AB-7 Hi 303 Im</pre>[/QUOTE]Conflicts:
0105
Shown as De (open circle) in AotI, CT Supp 10 shows world as a "Va" vacuum world and "no water present" (black dot) and CT AM6 shows world as "water present" (black dot).
Not shown as Amber Travel Zone in AotI or CT Supp 10. Shown as Amber Travel Zone in CT AM 6.
0106
Not shown as a HiPop world in CT Supp 10 (no "Hi" Trade Code) although AotI, CT Supp 10 and CT AM6 name the world in capital letters.
0110
Not shown as a HiPop world in CT Supp 10 (no "Hi" Trade Code) although AotI, CT Supp 10 and CT AM6 name the world in capital letters.

 

[Gruffty]

Consolidation of UWPs

Using 0105 as an example (from above):
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Name Hex UWP B Trade Codes Z PBG Al Stellar Data
Faiwyd 0105 E5x0589-7 De Ni 712 Im</pre>[/QUOTE]All that is needed is a decision on the Atmosphere digit and Travel Zone.

 

[robject]

Gruffty, I suggest that the term "desert worlds" in AOTI is a misnomer: in fact, AOTI defines "desert world", i.e. open circle, as having hydrographic percentage zero. It doesn't mention atmosphere or whether the 'water' is 'water'.

I'm tempted to say that "desert" doesn't mean trade code De, but simply means "hydrographics zero". Supp 10 and AM6 seem to agree with this usage.

What do you think?

 

[Gruffty]

Spica/C

Direct from AotI. Note I am using "X" for the base codes until I can dig out the correct codes.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hex Name UWP B Trade Codes Z PBG Al Stellar Data
1702 E1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
1705 C1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
1706 E1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ Na
1802 C1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ Na
1805 E1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ Na
1901 C1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
1904 X1+xx8-xx-x xx0 Na
1905 D1+xx8-xx-x xx0 Na
1906 B1+2+08-xx-x De xx0 Na
1907 D1+xx8-xx-x xx0 Na
1909 D1+xx8-xx-x xx0 Na
1910 C1+2+08-xx-x xx0 Na
2002 A1+xx8-xx-x xx0 Na
2003 TYROLIA A1+xx9+xx-x Hi xx0 Na
2010 NUGENT A1+xx9+xx-x Hi xx0 Na
2103 B1+2+08-xx-x X De xx1+ Na
2105 A1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ Na
2109 C1+2+08-xx-x De xx1+ Na
2205 C1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
2207 C1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
2306 A1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
2307 B1+xx8-xx-x X xx1+ Na
2310 B1+xx8-xx-x X xx1+ Na
2401 APOLLO A1+xx9+xx-x Hi xx1+ Na
2404 A1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
2405 A1+xx8-xx-x X xx1+ Na
2406 C1+2+08-xx-x De xx0 Na
2407 A1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na
2410 C1+xx8-xx-x xx1+ Na </pre>[/QUOTE]