Before I try to say anything "useful," (my "weighing in" is merely a
wayward breeze wafting over the scales) I want to clarify something.
Alan's logic is good about the DGP data being what existed when TNE was
made (and you know what that imprimatur gets you, to freight up the
ecclesiastical metaphors), but Harold's original question was Travellermap
vs, GT (vs. his own CoE). Were either of those based on DGP stuff so there
are two (three) deuterocanonical sources, or does DGP make it three
(four)?
This reminds me of Dave Thomas' (SCTV) reading of Paul's Letter to the
Caucasians. "Dear Caucasians. How are you? I am fine. Come on down to Rome
sometime. Love, Paul."
> That's a tough one.
>
> As you know, Travellermap uses CORE for that sector, and the site admits
> that they're unofficial. I don't know that CORE is anything other than
> defunct these days. IIRC it came about during the T4 era but went
> nowhere. I don't know what Jo Grant is up to these days. The UWP data
> come from GENII, but I don't know if that includes the names.
>
> I'd recommend GURPS. At least they were an official publication. And if
> you need the UWP data (haven't seen it), they could be an improvement.
>
> But lighter fluid isn't such a bad thing. There are many neglected
> sectors in Charted Space. I tend to look favorably on the work done by
> fans who invest the time and effort to bring a sector to life versus
> some random numbers created by a flawed computer algorithm.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
> Harold Hale wrote:
>
> >>I've been going through all the Traveller News Service items at the
> SJG site for GURPS Traveller and noticed that aside from Home, pretty
> much all the star system names mentioned as being in the Aldebaran
> Sector don't appear correspond to any of the names used for star systems
> in Aldebaran at www.travellermap.
>
> Since technically the system names, etc. for Aldebaran at
> www.travellermap.com aren't "official";, and technically the ones used
> for GURPS Traveller are in an "alternative universe", what is the
> consensus of the group regarding which to use?
>
> I ask, because I already have my own set of unpublished data for
> Aldebaran from my personal archives for CoE, and if I'm going to try to
> incorporate at least some of the work done on one or the other into CoE
> 2.0, I'd rather go with what is considered to be the consensus pick
> rather than pouring virtual lighter fluid on them both and totally doing
> my own thing.<<
>
wayward breeze wafting over the scales) I want to clarify something.
Alan's logic is good about the DGP data being what existed when TNE was
made (and you know what that imprimatur gets you, to freight up the
ecclesiastical metaphors), but Harold's original question was Travellermap
vs, GT (vs. his own CoE). Were either of those based on DGP stuff so there
are two (three) deuterocanonical sources, or does DGP make it three
(four)?
This reminds me of Dave Thomas' (SCTV) reading of Paul's Letter to the
Caucasians. "Dear Caucasians. How are you? I am fine. Come on down to Rome
sometime. Love, Paul."
> That's a tough one.
>
> As you know, Travellermap uses CORE for that sector, and the site admits
> that they're unofficial. I don't know that CORE is anything other than
> defunct these days. IIRC it came about during the T4 era but went
> nowhere. I don't know what Jo Grant is up to these days. The UWP data
> come from GENII, but I don't know if that includes the names.
>
> I'd recommend GURPS. At least they were an official publication. And if
> you need the UWP data (haven't seen it), they could be an improvement.
>
> But lighter fluid isn't such a bad thing. There are many neglected
> sectors in Charted Space. I tend to look favorably on the work done by
> fans who invest the time and effort to bring a sector to life versus
> some random numbers created by a flawed computer algorithm.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>
> Harold Hale wrote:
>
> >>I've been going through all the Traveller News Service items at the
> SJG site for GURPS Traveller and noticed that aside from Home, pretty
> much all the star system names mentioned as being in the Aldebaran
> Sector don't appear correspond to any of the names used for star systems
> in Aldebaran at www.travellermap.
>
> Since technically the system names, etc. for Aldebaran at
> www.travellermap.com aren't "official";, and technically the ones used
> for GURPS Traveller are in an "alternative universe", what is the
> consensus of the group regarding which to use?
>
> I ask, because I already have my own set of unpublished data for
> Aldebaran from my personal archives for CoE, and if I'm going to try to
> incorporate at least some of the work done on one or the other into CoE
> 2.0, I'd rather go with what is considered to be the consensus pick
> rather than pouring virtual lighter fluid on them both and totally doing
> my own thing.<<
>