Astrobe wrote:
Some things depend on the system dimensions (basically the edges of the witchpoint-sun-planet triangle). From what I understand, the intention is to have a constant "traffic density" for systems that may vary in shape. That would explain the observed increase in the number of entities. However, since the algorithm considers three lanes, the rescaling may have thrown some of its computations off (there are "magic numbers" here and there).
In my opinion, one might want to partially revisit it:
From version 1 I've known that a longer lane equates to more traffic (entities) but it's only recently that I've realised the extent to which I had overcompensated.
Double the lane for double the traffic, so double the lane width (thinning out the traffic) to balance this. However, in doing so I had made a very basic mathematical mistake.
Lane length is one dimensional, lane width however is not, it is 2 dimensional (there is no 'lane height' only a lane width applied to two dimensions).
Thus (up thread a bit):
Redspear wrote:Width is not the same as area of course...
- 2x2 (twice scanner radius) = 4 /1 (lane length) = 1:4 encounter ratio (standard game)
- 4x4 = 16 /2 = 1:8 encounter ratio (rescaled game)
- 3x3 = 9 /2 = 1:4.5 encounter ratio (proposed adjustment for rescaled game)
The lane is I understand a cylinder rather than cuboid and so area = π r2, rather than just r2 (mistaken for length), but with r being the only variable I believe the point is moot. [couple of edits in that last sentence to clear up the explanation]
Thus a new value for lane width should probably be more like 2.825 than 3 (or the 4 that we currently have).
I've made the change on my own computer and encounter rates seem to be up. Your recent data will make a nice comparison for me to test against.
As for "magic numbers" I think you're right: I'll need to take another look.
Astrobe wrote:
- I would consider making the lane length a fixed quantity. "Scale" as the word suggests is a relationship between two objects. One is typically a "unit", the other is the subject. Archeologist and mineralogists sometimes photograph artifacts with a coin next to them to show the scale of the subject. In Space, we have a similar problem of observing objects whose distance and size is unknown, like planets. Making the distance a constant would give a better impression of the relative size of planets, which contributes in restoring the sense of scale.
Since Cim is the author of the default populator, one should certainly wait for his opinion on this.
Good point and it is something I've wondered about before (I think others have flagged it up too) but I also like that some systems just take longer to travel through than others (by virtue of distance rather than other factors).
Sun distance is also proportional to planet size I believe but perhaps that needn't be the case. At present I think the clearest way to tell how big the planet is is to check the apparent size of the sun upon system entry (without checking f6 or f7 of course). This however at least make proportions look different upon entry.
This is non-urgent stuff of course and very much in the cosmetic category as I see it.
Astrobe wrote:
I've played a bit with the latest version and the improvement is indeed noticeable.
That's good to hear. Thank you.
![[EliteWiki]](/images/elitewikismall.png){kind=small}
Alien Systems