Cyborg IM1 wrote:
Perhaps we simplied it too much.
While I am a simpleton, it's not helping me too much
We used the Right Ascension value of each star, AD2000 data. We then adjusted simply for galactic center as follows:
RA = 0-hours (TRAILING)
RA = 6-hours (RIMWARD)
RA = 12-hours (SPINWARD)
RA = 18-hours (COREWARD)
We did NOT do any more serious adjustments. I know that throws some things off, but since the flattening of the 3-D map into 2-D does so much of that already, we felt our simplification was OK.
Hope that helps!
Let's take an example. How about Barnard's Star? Coincidentally (?), you've got it exactly where I put it with galactic coordinates.
It's at 17h 57m 48s +4° 41' 36"
What do you do wth the 17 hours and how does that relate to the hex positon?
Ok, maybe I'm seeing it now. Barnyard is close to 18 hours, so it's Coreward. Proxims st 14 29 43 is close to 12, so it's Spinward?
Yes, that is how we did it. If the RA was 18 hours, it was straight Coreward, if it was 14 hours, it would be Core-Spinward. Then we used actual distance and put it in the nearest hex. Basically, use a counter-clockwise rotation of the RA value starting with Zero being to the Right (Trailing) or at 0-degrees in a cartesian coordinate system.
We DID have situations where multiple stars would have fallen in the same hex. The farther from Earth, the more likely this was to happen as the numbers go up with the cube of radius in 3D but only the square of the radius in 2D. In that case, we picked the most "interesting" star (if it had a common name it was likely to get picked for example) and either moved the other to a nearby hex, or ignored it.
My friends call me Richard. You can call me Sir.www.XmasDragon.com