Mike--
RE: Subject lines--I think I am better at changing subject lines when I
change the subject than I am at doing it in replies where the subject has
already changed, but I am trying to catch those as well.
Back to topic, I may be jumping ahead a little bit here, but this is in my
mind, so I might as well discharge it. I am thinking that "not far enough"
means that, "you did fix some of the world/star mismatches (% unknown at
this point, it would be nice if I could satisfy myself by comparing
pre-TNE stars with TNE stars with youseguys' EDG fixes to see how far we
got against the ideal, but I don't think I'm going to get that done, and
it is not fair for me to ask someone else to do it for me)" but didn't get
all of them.
And I think that the Delta between "fixed some" and "not up to the ideal"
is a combination of the following:
1. Standard error (hopefully small) in stuff slipping through the QA
2. A failure to appreciate that M5+ V still had no hab zone, and assuming
erroneously that switching D to V fixed it (this one annoys me, but I
think it's probably a reasonable explanation)
3. A new post-EDG understanding that the hab zone model does NOT capture
adequately all of the issues, i.e., while an M star gives you a hab zone
in terms of simple heat, its wavelength is centered too low to give you
the full spectrum you'd want for growing plants (Sol's wavelength is
centered in--guess what: Green), and while a bright star gives you a hab
zone in terms of heat, its wavelength is centered too high, giving you
rather too much UV for safe life
4. A new post-EDG understanding that a late-life giant would have done
something to blow the biosphere off of the remaining undigested worlds
5. Failed to properly rename degenerates as degenerates
6. Failed to fix the companion degenerates along with the primary
7. Maybe something else in addition
I get the impression that we're waiting for EDG to clarify points 3 and 4
above that you guys worked from.
Assuming that the above is accurate, that would provide me a basis for
saying, "okay, we got some but not all" and moving on with my life.
Another thing that this points out is that the "existing" (at the time of
TNE) star generation system is flawed in that it adds on Luminosity Class
D after generating spectral class which tends to force an unnecessary
error. Really you should determine if it's a remnant or a "real star, open
for business" at a step BEFORE calculating spectral class. The existing
process fully explains why Traveller had G2 Ds or whatever, because going
through the steps you had already written down G2 (or had your buggy
program drop G2 into the fields) before you got the D value. So an ideal
generation system would start out with, "Is there a star here," then, "If
so, Degenerate or not," then, "If not, generate spectral type, luminosity
class," etc.
Although arguably if the primary target is "how to add logical stars to
existing 3I UWPs," it would proceed differently, asking, "what does this
established world require," then randomly generate specifics within that
narrower band.
> Ø Oh look, there's Alell. Never mind, DED, we found it.
>
>
>
> Oh look, there is a big ol screw-up on me.
>
>
>
> The physical characteristics of Alell are 467. So, yes, indeed, it
should
> have had one of its stars increased to be F-K. I probably should have
made
> it have stellar data of K7V M7V. I dunno why I screwed it up. Maybe I
thought two M7Vs in a tight formation would have produced enough heat?
Regardless, I should have definitely bumped it. Maybe I could have
swapped
> it around with Boughene and make Boughene be an M7V, and Alell be a K7V M7V
> so as to try and keep the distribution a little more like the original.
>
>
>
> On a related through, I noticed in your reply to DED that Frank hated
the
> high-pop hostile world. I really hate those, too, and (with the
horrible
> upheaval even in the Domain of Deneb/Regency) used that as an excuse to
ruthlessly crush many (maybe most) of those worlds. (In fact, I
initially
> went too far and ended up putting some of them back.)
>
>
>
> Mike West
>
>
>
>
>
>
RE: Subject lines--I think I am better at changing subject lines when I
change the subject than I am at doing it in replies where the subject has
already changed, but I am trying to catch those as well.
Back to topic, I may be jumping ahead a little bit here, but this is in my
mind, so I might as well discharge it. I am thinking that "not far enough"
means that, "you did fix some of the world/star mismatches (% unknown at
this point, it would be nice if I could satisfy myself by comparing
pre-TNE stars with TNE stars with youseguys' EDG fixes to see how far we
got against the ideal, but I don't think I'm going to get that done, and
it is not fair for me to ask someone else to do it for me)" but didn't get
all of them.
And I think that the Delta between "fixed some" and "not up to the ideal"
is a combination of the following:
1. Standard error (hopefully small) in stuff slipping through the QA
2. A failure to appreciate that M5+ V still had no hab zone, and assuming
erroneously that switching D to V fixed it (this one annoys me, but I
think it's probably a reasonable explanation)
3. A new post-EDG understanding that the hab zone model does NOT capture
adequately all of the issues, i.e., while an M star gives you a hab zone
in terms of simple heat, its wavelength is centered too low to give you
the full spectrum you'd want for growing plants (Sol's wavelength is
centered in--guess what: Green), and while a bright star gives you a hab
zone in terms of heat, its wavelength is centered too high, giving you
rather too much UV for safe life
4. A new post-EDG understanding that a late-life giant would have done
something to blow the biosphere off of the remaining undigested worlds
5. Failed to properly rename degenerates as degenerates
6. Failed to fix the companion degenerates along with the primary
7. Maybe something else in addition
I get the impression that we're waiting for EDG to clarify points 3 and 4
above that you guys worked from.
Assuming that the above is accurate, that would provide me a basis for
saying, "okay, we got some but not all" and moving on with my life.
Another thing that this points out is that the "existing" (at the time of
TNE) star generation system is flawed in that it adds on Luminosity Class
D after generating spectral class which tends to force an unnecessary
error. Really you should determine if it's a remnant or a "real star, open
for business" at a step BEFORE calculating spectral class. The existing
process fully explains why Traveller had G2 Ds or whatever, because going
through the steps you had already written down G2 (or had your buggy
program drop G2 into the fields) before you got the D value. So an ideal
generation system would start out with, "Is there a star here," then, "If
so, Degenerate or not," then, "If not, generate spectral type, luminosity
class," etc.
Although arguably if the primary target is "how to add logical stars to
existing 3I UWPs," it would proceed differently, asking, "what does this
established world require," then randomly generate specifics within that
narrower band.
> Ø Oh look, there's Alell. Never mind, DED, we found it.
>
>
>
> Oh look, there is a big ol screw-up on me.
>
>
>
> The physical characteristics of Alell are 467. So, yes, indeed, it
should
> have had one of its stars increased to be F-K. I probably should have
made
> it have stellar data of K7V M7V. I dunno why I screwed it up. Maybe I
thought two M7Vs in a tight formation would have produced enough heat?
Regardless, I should have definitely bumped it. Maybe I could have
swapped
> it around with Boughene and make Boughene be an M7V, and Alell be a K7V M7V
> so as to try and keep the distribution a little more like the original.
>
>
>
> On a related through, I noticed in your reply to DED that Frank hated
the
> high-pop hostile world. I really hate those, too, and (with the
horrible
> upheaval even in the Domain of Deneb/Regency) used that as an excuse to
ruthlessly crush many (maybe most) of those worlds. (In fact, I
initially
> went too far and ended up putting some of them back.)
>
>
>
> Mike West
>
>
>
>
>
>