So there's more useful systems on the edges, while in turn, starting outwards will result in "reaching the border" sooner, where there is nothing left?
Well, game balance wise, that could be fine, but that'd seriously hurt my suspension of disbelief.

I see your point.   The one thing I'm wondering about is the effect the change in stellar density may have on game play.   My feeling is that the 3D to 2D projection, where you 'fold' all stars over and below onto the horizon, will reduce average distances between systems*, except distances to Sol, which are kept at correct 3D values.  Also, this reduction will not take place in a homogeneous way.   The further you are from Sol, the more "shrinkage" you get.   

In other words, the problem is less that density or distances change, but that the universe becomes "centred" around Sol, which would be further away from other systems (because it is the only star with "unshrunk" distances).   In contrast, your typical NPR race, which begins the game far from Sol would almost always live in a denser area of the galaxy.  This might create some imbalance, no?

But then, this certainly can be tested, by generating a large "real star" universe, and calculating some indicator like 'average distance to the nearest N stars', for a significant number of stars, and plotting it against distance to Sol. 

* this is on average, of course, for two systems very close to each other right at the "top" of the sky, distance can actually be vastly increased

You can do better than that: just randomize positions, and assign real names and properties according to distance.     This way, you get plausible distances, correct class, mass and names.    

I believe you could even change the bearings to their correct value (in your 2D projection system, that is).   Such random corrections would not change overall density.    

To summarize, the procedure would be :
1- generate a random set of nameless, massless and classless stars, according to some prior density (controlled by game parameters)
2- sort the systems according to their distance to the sun, and associate each one with a real star, thus determining name, class and mass
3- change the bearing of those stars, to match those of their real namesakes (therefore maintaining the constellations in order, a good thing since many stars are named from their constellation)

I haven't done the maths, but I believe that so long you don't change the distances from step one, you remain in line with the original density.    

Francois

I wouldn't be keen on random systems with the only element of 'real stars' being the idea of naming them based on order of proximity.    That is almost the same as random stars.    The whole point of real stars is using the actual mass and spectral class of each star and having them in the correct xy direction.   

I wouldn't be keen on random systems with the only element of 'real stars' being the idea of naming them based on order of proximity. That is almost the same as random stars. The whole point of real stars is using the actual mass and spectral class of each star and having them in the correct xy direction.