[TrashMan]

Take a look at the nodemap (3d one - the 2D one is a bit deceptive) As a general rule close starts are usually connected. There are exception, but I guess the stars are massive or something.
Very far away stars never seem to be connected.

[General Battuta]

On the nodemap.

But the distance between stars on the nodemap has very little connection to their distance in real life. On the nodemap, Delta Serpentis is closer than Ross 128; in real life, Delta Serpentis is almost twice as far away as Ross 128. Furthermore, nearby stars like Lalande and 61 Cygni aren't even on the nodemap despite being within 50 lightyears, as compared to Delta Serpentis which is almost 200 light-years away.

I'll quote Herra Tohtori in a past discussion of the topic:

I think it's supposed to emphatize the fact how subspace is so alien compared to normal space that conventional distances have absolutely no meaning there, and jump nodes form more or less randomly between two star systems that can be wide apart.

[TrashMan]

With all due respect to Herra, but his theories have no barring on canon FS. Canon FS is the nodemap - if the nodemap doesn't show 61 Cygni, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist in FS2 universe (at least not under that name). If it shw Ross128 and Earth close to each other, then they are.

What happens in Rela Life (tm) is irrelevant to FS.
Nodemaps are 3D representations of star systems, thus have 3D coordinates that would logicly be on their right position. Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?

And FYI, methinks your'e not getting what Herra realyl ment by that comment.

[Turey]

Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?

Because they'd be really hard to read, criss-crossing and such?

[General Battuta]

No, I'm not saying Herra's theory is canon, I'm saying that I agree with what he said.

So, Trashman, you're arguing that in the Freespace universe stars have been repositioned as compared to our own universe?

[Dark Hunter]

He (Trashman) does have a bit of a point. Many of the stars in FS have different colors, are different sizes, etc than they are in real life. The most obvious example is of course Capella, which is a yellow star apparently much like Sol in FS, but in real life is actually a set of multiple stars that would make a habitable planet next-to-impossible due to erratic orbit. So I don't find it all that unlikely that would have changed the positions of stars as well.

But I happen to agree with Battuta. I don't believe the nodemap represents real-space distance, but rather subspace distance.

If you want to check out nodes drawn on a real-life map, one was made and posted on HLP a while back. I'll see if I can't find it.

[Marcus Vesper]

You're wrong about the relation between distance and node connections. Delta Serpentis is about 200 light years from Earth; Luyten, Procyon, Sirius, Barnard's Star, Ross 128, and Proxima Centauri (most of which are in Freespace) are all closer. Earth has no node connections with them. Nodes seem to be arranged essentially arbitrarily.

In any case, Shivans seem to be able to jump wherever they darn well please - at least the Lucifer did. Distance may not be a huge factor.

Given the theoretical knowledge of how subspace works (needs large gravity sources - stars) the greater the distance between two stars, the smaller the chance that a node tunell will exist.

Technically the canon sources on subspace travel only explicitly mention the requirement of a gravity well for in-system jumps, not travel between systems via jump nodes.  It could still be a factor of course, you just don't have a firm canonical source to point to in an argument for that point.

[Fearless Leader]

Notice that the maps shown in FS are not scientific, they are military.
It dose not matter if they are accurate if they show all the information needed.  Along those lines, it shows the routes between systems with nodes, and what ones connect to each other.

(yes I know some military maps are accurate, but most used for briefing purposes are not)

[TrashMan]

Can you supply me a single reason why one wouldn't just draw nodelines on a normal map?

Because they'd be really hard to read, criss-crossing and such?

You really think it's hard to read? Every tried playing SOTS as human? I have little trouble looking up nodlines in a 200 star galaxy, and GTVA space in FS2 is far less crowded. I don't see it as complex. Besides, 3hy would you use 2 different maps instead of one?
the destinations are in real space anyway, and subspace is basicly a tunel. there is really no simpler way to represent it than just draw lines between connected system. Instead you think moving star system around and making a special map is somehow easier and more intuitive????

[General Battuta]

*shrug* We've hit the point where we can't do anything but argue in circles.

You believe that stars in the Freespace universe are positioned differently than in our own.

I and a few others believe that subspace links have no relation to actual distance between stars.

We have no evidence to decide either way; only supposition.

I prefer my explanation. I think the Freespace universe is more powerful as a work of fiction if it can be seen as our own universe in the future. It certainly can't be viewed that way if the stars have all moved around.

But if your preference is for a fantasy universe divorced from our own - less plausible, perhaps, but still workable - that's fine.

[TrashMan]

Actually, no.

The simplest and most logical solution is a single, normal starchart. Absolutely nowhere is it even suggested that the nodemap representations are not real ones.
Extraordinary claims require extraordianry proof, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Secondly, even if the starts positions do not match, it doesn't make FS universe any less believable - the humans could have easily re-named most of the stars

[General Battuta]

If the nodemap representations aren't real ones, how is that Delta Serpentis is many times closer to Earth than it is in real life? The distance on the standard nodemap is comparable to that between Earth and Luyten, yet in reality Delta Serpentis is many times farther away.

By appropriately 'bending' the node links on the 2D map, you might be able to move Earth and Luyten a reasonable distance together. You might even be able to get Vega close enough (it's a lot closer than Delta Serpentis.) You might even manage to get Regulus closer than Delta Serpentis, as it is in real life.

Yet still, look: the length of the subspace link-bar between Sol and Delta Serpentis is longer than that between Regulus and Polaris, even though the latter two stars are almost twice as far apart. Clearly there's some inconsistency, somewhere in the map.

Does this qualify as a suggestion that 'nodemap representations are not real ones'?

Star positions don't match. Your fallback suggestion is that humans have 'simply' renamed the stars - swapping around existing names to new stars, yes?

[Marcus Vesper]

Occam's Razor suggests the map is only showing relative distances through subspace.  There would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to even consider using accurate astrogation charts detailing the exact location of stars for an map of the galaxy in use by the military: They're million of light-years apart! 

There's astronomy for it's own sake (what we do, as we can pretty much just stare at the sky), and there's practical matters of astrogation in a fictional universe.  Except since all travel between stars is done via Jump Nodes, we don't actually need to know where anything is in relation to anything else (yay!) in real space, just the locations of the nodes and what's in that particular system.  Subspace makes distance almost meaningless, there's no real reason to worry about preserving it on a map.

[TrashMan]

No, the other way around. Occams razor. Why using two maps when you can use one? Why have abstract representation when you can have real ones that humans can more easily correlate to?

What's stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart? Nothing.
Is it any less understandable than the map you propose? No.

If the nodemap representations aren't real ones, how is that Delta Serpentis is many times closer to Earth than it is in real life? The distance on the standard nodemap is comparable to that between Earth and Luyten, yet in reality Delta Serpentis is many times farther away.

FS is NOT EQUAL to real life. Even a casual look at the star chart would tell you that - half the systems that exist in RL aren't there. Those that do really exist are completely different in FS regarding their size and composition. And somehow you draw the conclusion that their stellar positions MUST correlate to Real Life, even tough there isn't even a hint that the FS system called Delta Serpentis is our RL system counterpart.


Additionally, the travel time tough subspace nodes seems to be approximately 10 minute or so (at least for Sol-Delta Serpentis). Absolutely nowhere is it even suggested (again) that travel time trough subspace doesn't correleate with star distance.
So if your theory is to be correct, a system that's twice the distance would therefore have twice the travel time and consequently the nodeline would be drawn twice as long - if it's a representation as you say.
Do a little check in RL distances of systems and check if the node lenghts correlate. Guess what - they don't. 

[General Battuta]

You're misunderstanding Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor dictates that, given a set of solutions, the simplest one is the one you should select. It is simpler to accept that a map has been reorganized than to accept that a large number of stars have been reorganized.

You ask what's 'stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart'? Please understand that it is impossible. Given its proportions the current nodemap cannot be a normal starchart. Do you understand this? The distances between the stars are not realistic.

...unless, of course, Freespace does not equal Real Life, which you're suggesting. There's nothing we can do about that; you believe it, I don't. There's not really any evidence either way.

At no point did I suggest that the travel time through subspace nodes correlates with distance, and that's certainly not a part of my theory. In fact, when you say:

Do a little check in RL distances of systems and check if the node lenghts correlate. Guess what - they don't

You're essentially stating the main thrust of my theory

This should be enough to resolve the argument: we've reached an irreconcilable difference.

[Marcus Vesper]

Also my point was that a normal start chart is essentially useless for purposes of strategic planning.  Having more then 1 map is entirely logical, my city map doesn't show me the names of every building in the city (as well as their location) anymore then a map of interstate highways will show all the side streets in the country. 

100% accurate maps aren't maps anymore, they're photographs. 

Why we wouldn't be using the "accurate" map of the universe as a baseline for a node map?  There is no usable information contained in the accurate map for purposes of planning travel between the stars.  You really need to understand that point: No "Hyperspeed" means it doesn't matter where stars are in relation to each other, since the answer is always "so far away an entire civilization could rise and fall dozens/hundreds/etc of times before you got there".  Transit between the stars apart from using subspace nodes might as well be impossible for all the good it would do us.

And who would be making the "accurate" map of the universe that we're just adding node lines to?  We make star charts (not accurate in the slightest of course) now because they're handy for navigation, but since every star system would have an altered perspective of the sky it wouldn't do you much good outside of Earth.  Mapping the positions of things we can't get to because of staggeringly huge distance considerations strikes me as a really big waste of time devoid of any practical benefit (we do it anyways now in the hopes that the "can't get to it" part might change).  Especially when you consider that scientists can now actually study objects impossibly far away from earth up close and personal.

In short, normal star charts, in a universe setting getting around the lightspeed issue via fixed tunnels, are a colossal waste of time and effort to produce data that has no relevance to anyone (but nerds).  The people producing maps wouldn't be focusing on the universe, they would be mapping the objects in individual systems.

[ChronoReverse]

Incidentally, in the same vein of the logic that since Capella isn't a yellow star in real life, the FS one is a different star, the Capella in Supreme Commander is also a yellow star so it's entirely possible that it's the same star as the FS one =P

[TrashMan]

You're misunderstanding Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor dictates that, given a set of solutions, the simplest one is the one you should select. It is simpler to accept that a map has been reorganized than to accept that a large number of stars have been reorganized.

What in FS universe the stars have been as tehy are on the map all the time. FS universe in NOT our universe.
If there was no reorganization then it's far simpler.

You ask what's 'stopping you from drawing node lines on a normal starchart'? Please understand that it is impossible. Given its proportions the current nodemap cannot be a normal starchart. Do you understand this? The distances between the stars are not realistic.

 
Are you trippin or something? What do you mean you can't do them..of course you can. F'course, the systems themselves are represented bigger for clarity (more like systems boundries, alltough enlarged. The gist of it is that the center of hte systems are in the right positions), since the fs nodemap shows only a small part of the Galaxy (explored systems)

I cna draw nodelines on any starchart in the world. Heck I cna pull one from the internet and draw them.

...unless, of course, Freespace does not equal Real Life, which you're suggesting. There's nothing we can do about that; you believe it, I don't. There's not really any evidence either way.

Actually there is, but you conveniently choose to ignore it.
Face it, [V] made no effort to make it real, it didn't go into star system details such as size, number of suns/planets or even sun color.. it's a fictional universe, RL system are missing, there are some that don't exist. And yet you still claim it corresponds to real life.
Use Occam Razor here - given that ALL OTHER attributes of star systems are off, is it more likely that the positions are RL ones or that they too are off?

Pure delusions.


@Marcus viper - the military in general uses maps with similar data. All positions and relations correlate to reality.

Why NOT use an "accurate" map of the universe as a baseline for a nodemap? Will it be any more confusing? No. Any more difficult to read? No.
You have a bunch of green dots representing systems connected with lines in both version. They are computer maps, and travel time can easily be displayed in various way, even assuming it's not connected with distance (which is nowhere confirmed b.t.w.)

[Marcus Vesper]

Real
distance
is
meaningless
and
therefore
irrelevant.

I'm going to stop arguing because it's clear you just aren't getting my point, which is details like actual light year-distance are only preserved in a mapping system if it's relevant to the purpose of the map.  Faster then light travel (and this is the key point here) doesn't use real space and travel between the stars requires an existing tunnel.  The only relevant information for a map of the universe intended for navigational purposes then would be systems and node connections, with length possibly indicating longer travel time (perhaps that has something to do with relative stability of the node, it's age, etc).

Preserving a real space map of the universe and using that as the basis for navigational charts and maps would be utterly pointless! 

As for the fictional aspect of the setting, it's far easier to believe that Volition looked up a bunch of cool stars/used familiar stars and didn't bother too much with researching what type they were/how the system should appear.  We're already giving them fictional license to generate planets, moons, etc, so why would we expect them to get the details of each celestial body 100% accurate?  But considering they're using real star names, it's WAY more likely they're intended to represent the real world counterparts, rather then identically named and arbitrarily repositioned dopplegangers. 

Your average gamer might very well be familiar with a few of the names that the game rattles off, and it helps to create a setting where you feel like it's your own universe, just in the future.  But how many gamers would know offhand whether the star in each system is accurate?  I rather doubt most of us fired up a mission in Capella and looked around for the binary star:  we probably found out Capella was a binary system because we play this game and got curious.  Making each star system correspond to it's real world counterpart in appearance is a luxury most people won't have noticed and/or appreciated anyhow, so it's no surprise they didn't bother.  Time is money.

[brandx0]

Why hasn't anybody mentioned that it's more plausible to consider the node chart a measure of subspace travel due to the fact that it's absolutely daft to try and plot a set of 3 dimensional coordinates on a 2 dimension map?