OTL Map Thread Mk IV., 2014-
- Thread starter Pragmatic Progressive
- Start date
I was trying to update the Neptunian Trojans... but then I hit a snag...
No Data.
Current hypothesis suggest there are likely about 10x as many as Jupiter Trojans, but we don't know for sure, and there is no data on their groupings.
With the Jupiter trojans... apparently they don't really have much groupings compared to the asteroid belt, so I can't edit that much either. Ofc, if someone wants to give it a shot making all the asteroids more consistently shaped compared to the asteroid belt, that would be good, but in general theres little more data I can build off of :/
Space, it seems, is still difficult to map... nice and blurry about stuff we do know, and stuff we don't know.
I didn't make this; I don't know who did, however I use it all the time and I didn't see it on the wiki. It still needs Alaska, Northern and Western Canada, Japan, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Greenland.
I did merge it with the blank river map. I can't upload it in this post so I'll have to double post.
I did merge it with the blank river map. I can't upload it in this post so I'll have to double post.
Me too. Looks very spacey. But.... I doubt anyone would ever try to colonize the surface of the sun. Bright yellow or white would be better than green. It's the Solar System equivalent of Antartica.
In the first post I discussed this. It's not "Colonizing the surface" but colonizing the closest survivable region. High levels of energy can make this it's own sort of contested region. As far as anyone is concerned, it's basically colonizing the sun, just not in the "Landing boots on the ground" or "Floating cities in the fogs of Jupiter" sort of way.
More like Antarctica if Antarctica had the most oil known to man hiding under it.
Last edited:
Okay.... but then, wouldn't a sort of "dyson sphere" or ring or whatever apply?
Huh? No this is present day.
It's like Jupiter. Each floating city has to be constructed. With the sun, however, it's each "close-sun" satellite which has to be constructed. An entire Dyson sphere or ring wouldn't have to be constructed, because the Sun Colonies would just be in orbit. In the long run such things could be constructed, but the space will be fought over for colonization even without such mega-engineering projects in place.
Even Dyson himself discussed the idea that before a Dyson Sphere would come into existence it would first be a Dyson Swarm, and before that A Dyson Swarm Ring, all made up of individual satellite colonies.
The map is accurate if there is a Dyson Swarm, ring, or sphere, or not.
Could you explain the scale of this map in more detail? As for the coloring, if it were me, I would use different colors for stars and rocky bodies, and probably a third color for gas giants.Hmm... something more like this?
Sure.
I said it was a modified logarithmic fit... but that's probably less accurate than just explaining my process. I admit... it's not as mathematical I might have first made it appear.
It is based on radius. Radius of the planet relates to Radius of the circle on the map (the green part is what was sized. Outlines were put on afterwards).
The largest object on the map (The sun is arbitrarily sized, because any version of it being accurate is basically insane) is Jupiter. It has 10.97 Earth Radius which was multiplied by a factor of 20 to match up with the 220 Radius it gets in the plot.
From there I would slowly increase the multiplier until I reached the earth.
Earth's 1-Earth-Radius is multiplied by 40 so it has 40 radius on the map.
And I kept ramping up the multiplier so that whenever a "Gap" between sizes got too large the multiplier increased. So, Mercury still gets a 40 multiplier, because the moons between it and the earth made it such that there weren't any huge gaps.
Pluto, if it had a multiplier of 40, would only have a radius of 7, but it ended up getting a multiplier of 55 because there weren't that many intermediate sized moons or solar system objects.
The smallest objects I put on the map (and marked) have .06 Earth Radius. Such as 2002AW. This was multiplied by 80 for a radius of 5 (.06*80 = 4.8 ~5).
So... If you lined up all the objects on the map, the sizes would have a weird non-linear fit, but the order would be correct. >.>
I was originally making it so the multipliers matched a linear fit, but I distorted it so much with the smaller items so that they could be on the map that it's probably not honest to call it a linear fit.
-------------------------------------------------------
Also, as for the colors, No "Space Color Scheme" has been decided, and as such I leave it up to the user. The truth is that Space is harsh, and so every type of planet one goes to will have unique issues to deal with, whereas this map is suppose to just give general land locations.
I guess it's similar to the fact that our universal blank map does have versions with topography and rivers and versions with biomes, but we don't use that as our base-version. The base-version of the map just has a light green for "unclaimed/unorganized/uninhabited" and that's what I was going for.
Too much information will also conflict with previous color schemes. I wanted this map to be compatible with a Roman Empire space empire or a Chinease space Empire, or some super Cold War. Too many colors will make color choices more constricted for individuals, and make it less compatible.
Plus, anyone can modify it as they see fit. I hope they do! If a version of this map that is used the most has those types of planets and bodies marked, then so be it, but I think it's better to only convey so much information on the generic "political" version, and to have other such information conveyed on side-help maps like we do with the Worlda Maps.
*shrug*
That's pretty interesting.
Do you think it would be difficult to design a map with an actual logarithmic scale? For example, the distances planets are from the sun could be proportional to the square root of their distances from the sun in real life, and the diameters of objects could be proportional to the square root of their diameters. In that example, if you use kilometers, Earth's size would be a manageable 1/10 of the sun, and Jupiter would be 1/3. If kilometers are too arbitrary, maybe a map can be made using the sun's diameter as a standard unit instead.
This isn't a criticism of your map. I'm just wondering if there would be any logical or mathematic difficulties of such a map.
First off, the sun throws EVERYTHING off...
Second, with a logarithmic scale... the stuff on the lower end of the spectrum are still too small, so you have 2 choices, up the map size, or leave stuff out of the map.
Second, distances are worse than sizes. That's why I didn't keep them combined in my map and made two separate sizing systems for them. If you attempt to keep distances on the same scale that you size the planet it will be even more impossible than keeping the sun to the same scale as the other planets. Distances in space are crazy.
I'm sure it's possible, but how big and how unreasonable does the map become? I'm not sure. I suppose you could do one as big as the Q-bam, and other than the Sun and keeping distance on it's own separate scale it would be accurate logarithmically.
Lots of "Buts" but I guess it's possible.
IIRC there was a fix for the Serbia-Austria border, but said fix seems to be missing in all the maps linked to on Page 1.
Deleted member 67076
Many of the maps for the 1800s are on the outdated basemap. Are there any more up to date versions?
Has anyone noticed the dissonance between the Rivers and Mountains of the Topographic Map? The Lena literally is flowing over mountains.
No offence, but this basemap SUCKS. Why are only major powers colored? Why the heck isn't even Italy colored?!