Aurora > Gallery

Starmap positioned according to JPs

(1/2) > >>

I am trying to position systems on Galactic map according to the position of JPs in said system. Beside the one jump point through which I first get there, all systems to which you can get from given system depends on the bearing and distance (from system core) of JP that leads there. If that would lead in system too close to other one or being crossed by other JP-JP line I may move it a bit.

Starting 2018 with conventional start and real stars I am currently on 3rd March of 2073. 20 systems known, 13 fully surveyed. That's all systems 3 layers "deep" from Sol, except in few places where I could not continue because of "Hungarian Irbis" NPR. Surprisingly it is not too messy. Yet.

So looking at the image I can see to get to Gliese 526 from Sol one needs to go quite far to the northeast "corner" of Sol (but not so far as when travelling to Alpha Centauri), than go just a bit to the south in Proxima Centauri and finally go far to the west in Wolf 359. See also Sol JPs in the corner according to which the first layer of systems around Sol is positioned.

Off-Topic: show

Currently only JPs of one system are in ratio. Possible variants would be using them all in ratio to show difference between small and bigger systems or using the position of the first JP instead of the system core.


Has any of you tried some similar system of positioning of systems for bigger galaxies?
Is any of you renaming the NPRs you me according to their randomly flag and image?

I have tried this before. It eventually doesn't work as JPs between multiple systems won't match up to.

Michael Sandy:
I am looking for a map strat that accurately conveys travel distances.

I've been doing the opposite in my campaign, and moving the jump points to the bearing of the star they connect to. In conjunction with this, I have been arranging my galactic map by actual star positions relative to the galactic plane (it is a maddening spiderweb that will disgust any and all who just put everything into a sterile grid). It's the only way I can think of to maintain any consistency between the big picture and individual systems.

Michael Sandy:
That is a lot of tight clustering.  Lots of triangles and square links.  What numbers did you use for cluster size and percent?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page


It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
There was an error while thanking
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 
Go to full version