You added the list of stars and constellations that do not have basic in reality. I have some memory loss, so I dont want to change the page without someone double checking, but I seem to remember Wolf 359 is a real star with a companion black hole, so Wolf could be removed from the list
- True, but in the SC2 universe, Wolf is a constellation, whereas the in real life Wolf 359 is a single star. Are there other Wolf stars, like a Wolf catalog of stars? There's also a type of stars called Wolf-Rayet. Imho, since its not a star-star or constellation-constellation correlation, I think that it would belong on the list. We can always include a mention of Wolf 359 in the entry, also. --Fyzixfighter 06:09, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)
- I seem to recall it being documented somewhere that the HyperSpace starmap shows stars that are actually different from the way that we (in reality) see and name stars in "TrueSpace". Stars in HyperSpace are different from those stars in TrueSpace, even if they have the same name. What we see as Betelgeuse in the HyperSpace map is actually not the same Betelgeuse star that we see right now in the 21st century. I think it's explained as humans, when they see the stars as they appear from HyperSpace, assign their own familiar names to these stars. --Phoenix (t) 07:16, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)
- On the hyperspace star map that came with the game: "The positions are based on HyperSpace coordinates, which may be unsettling to some students of TrueSpace astronomy. Defined long ago by Chenjesu stargazers, the constellations are now accepted by all Alliance races as the standard. Due to the great diffuculty in pronouncing the Chenjesu language, each race has translated the names into their own tongue. When it came time for Earth to adopt this system, the United Nations decided to use traditional astrological designations at random." I think I might need to be more explicit on that list, to say that these are the names that are neither real constellation names or individual star names. --Fyzixfighter 08:01, 17 Nov 2005 (CET)
Hi there. In the Probe article, I think you left a sentence dangling: "Unlike catalog item 2419, this". I'd finish it myself if I knew the rest. :-) --Doubleyou 00:11, 2 Dec 2005 (CET)
- Blast, guess I forgot something when I was moving everything around. IIRC that sentence fragment was part of an intermediate draft of that paragraph and is now redundant. Fixing... --Fyzixfighter 00:37, 2 Dec 2005 (CET)
FYI, people complained that my old cargo images taken from the UQM content were too tiny. We should probably use the wiki software to scale those up 2x (and the new ones you uploaded) for wherever they are used in articles, unless somebody wants to scale them manually and upload new versions. -Fadookie 01:37, 16 January 2006 (CET)
- Thanks for the reminder. Yeah, I remember seeing the comments about that and agree the raw images are much too small. I believe <crossing-fingers> that I uploaded copies of all the raw images, except those that had already been uploaded. Not being a really aesthetic person, I avoided figuring out the right scale but, like you've already noted, the wiki software can easily resize them to whatever we decide on. I hope I didn't offend anyone or step on anyone's toes when I made those uploads, but I kind of agree with Svdb that it's more honest to present the raw material instead of enhanced images, unless we all agree on how to enhance those images - just my R$ 0.0456600. --Fyzixfighter 04:20, 16 January 2006 (CET)
- I agree with you and SvdB about using the straight game content, and not only out of laziness. :)
- There are other places for enhanced images... i.e. PONAF. Back when the Ultronomicon was a bit younger, there was discussion about using PONAF's animated gifs of each race's comm screen, but I was against this (as was SvdB if I recall). There is a place for everything, and I don't think that the Ultronomicon is the place for 'enhanced' content, especially if it is scaled to an arbitrary size with an arbitrary resizing algorithm that tries to make the graphics appear smoother than they actually are.
- The only kind of pre-upload scaling I would support for the Ultronomicon is nearest neighbor 2x (basic, pixelated scaling), although screenshots of UQM using its internal scalers for purposes of comparison may be appropriate.
- -Fadookie 07:08, 16 January 2006 (CET)
What are you planning to do with those footer nav plates? I think they're nice, but main Ultronomicon pages shouldn't refer to pages in the User namespace. — SvdB 05:58, 6 October 2006 (CEST)
- Sorry about that - yeah, I was planning on moving them out of my personal namespace. They still might need a little work, but you're right that they should be in the main space. I'll move them over today. --Fyzixfighter 19:45, 6 October 2006 (CEST)
SC2/UQM star database?
Is there a small database defining all the stars? Or is there any XML files around defining all starnames, their positions in space, their color and their size (how big it should be on a map)? It would be neat to create a vector-based starmap of the 2D-universe... maybe by using SVG. It would not be hard to do it, given the right data :)
- Well, I might not be the best one to answer your question as the limits of my involvement with UQM is basically this wiki. But I can tell you that you're not the first, nor will you be the last to want to do something like this. In fact, several fans have created a number of maps . The topic has also come up on the UQM discussion boards more than once, so I would recommend scanning the threads there. One in particular  has a link to the data you're looking for, and tells you where you can find it in the actual game code. Likewise, someone awhile back created a page of Star Coordinates (though it lacks the color and size).--Fyzixfighter 02:14, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- There is functionality in uqm that can print a list of all the info you'd need. It's not in XML format, but it would be trivial to change the code to dump it anyway you like. You'd need to compile the game from source in debug mode though.
- An interactive SVG based starmap exists. See this page.
- — SvdB 07:19, 17 December 2006 (CET)
- MrMist 11:50, 19 December 2006 (CET)
- Oh, you're only interested in the stars, not the planets. Right, plandata.c should be enough then.
- Note however, that the Ultronomicon is not an image dump for SC2-related pictures. If an image does not go with an article, it doesn't have a place here. I'll leave it for the moment, but don't expect it to last. Actually, even this discussion shouldn't be here. We have the UQM forum for things like this. — SvdB 12:41, 19 December 2006 (CET)
- Ah. I see. Well... I though this wiki was supposed to contain all things surrounding Ur-Quan Masters. As for the picture: I just wanted to provide an example to describe the things I've been requesting, and also to document the current progress of development. It was kind of natural to provide a visual example. I did however not expect it to be such a big problem to post a screenshot. Don't worry... I'll quit writing here right away.--MrMist 14:22, 19 December 2006 (CET)
Oh, you wanted to make a starmap for in the Ultronomicon. I misunderstood. In that case a request for information is appropriate here. I apologise for jumping to conclusions. — SvdB 17:47, 20 December 2006 (CET)
SC1 and SC3
Assertion 1: Ur-quan masters equivalent of Star Control II. Assertion 2: Star Control I and Star Control III are in existence. Assertion 3: Full knowledge of Star Control requires full knowledge of series. Assertion 4: Database identified as Ultronomicon deals exclusively with Ur-quan Masters. Conclusion A: Star Control databases must include information on Star Control I and Star Control III. Conclusion B: Database identified as Ultronomicon is incomplete. Query: Unit identified as Fyyzixfighter is directed to either affirm or negate this argument. -A petetionning Daktaklakpak 22:17, 14 February 2007 (CET)
The name of the Avatar laser is actually a "Terawatt Laser". http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc2/shipspecs/rw-chmmr-spec.jpg 18.104.22.168 02:46, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
- Sorry, that image is not part of the accepted Star Control canon. It is a fan-made image - I'll try and hunt down who created it. In actuality, I believe it is a touched up version of the 3DO spinning image of the ship. The names on it, and the other fan-made images for SC2 unique ships, are for the most part fan-made also, and do not appear anywhere in the canon. The Star Control Writers FAQ is also not necessarily canon. I don't know where the person got the name terawatt from in that FAQ, but it's not from the manuals, the RPRG, or the game itself - therefore, it's fanfic plain and simple. Of course I'm open the idea that I may have missed something (as I discovered as I listened to the 3DO ship descriptions), but please remember how we define canon for the Ultronomicon. Cheers. --Fyzixfighter 04:51, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
Perhaps they used their brains and engaged in critical thinking rather than just replaying SC2 dialogue over and over again to arrive at that conclusion? The VUX laser is, after all, named a Megawatt laser. 22.214.171.124 21:18, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
- Honestly I'm fine with people extrapolating when they're creating fan-fiction. However, we strive on the Ultronomicon to stick to canon. Any reading between the lines and critical thinking should be guided by the canon. Also, please don't insinuate that I didn't use my brains nor think critically about this topic. Let me show you how I consider this critically: if someone used their critical thinking to get "Terawatt" then I have to question their reasoning abilities because the jump from Tera- to Giga- (the VUX laser is a Gigawatt not a Megawatt) seems simply based on the general fact that the Avatar laser is more powerful. The SC2 manual states that the Avatar laser has "twice the destructive force of the feared VUX laser" (a point which is confirmed in-game, see also List of weapons for damage]]). A terawatt (10^12) is not twice a
megawattgigawatt (10^9) (or 30 dB greater if you like a log scale - a factor of 2 would be 3dB by the way). It looks like tera- was chosen simply because it's just the next metric prefix above giga-, but why not call it an Petawatt or an Exawatt or a Zetawatt (I think the argument for Zeta- is a little bit easier since a Zetawatt is 240 dBm and a Gigawatt is 120 dBm). We really should then call it a "2 Gigawatt Laser", assuming of course that laser power scales as destructive force, which it may not in such a non-linear regime (I've played with Terawatt/Gigawatt pulsed lasers (~25fs pulses) to drive non-linear processes). I certainly would be interested in knowing the reasoning behind "Terawatt" to see if the reasoning was more subtle and insightful than "Terawatt is the next metric unit above Gigawatt, therefore let's call it a Terawatt".
- If you want to call it a terawatt in your gameplay and when talking with others, go ahead, I really couldn't care less; but please avoid non-canon terminology to the Ultronomicon. We certainly would appreciate your help on making the Ultronomicon better, and it would be sad if you don't based solely on this one disagreement of acceptable canon. However, if the adherence to this defined canon is too much of a sticking point, then we are at an impasse and any material you add based on non-canon sources will be removed. --Fyzixfighter 00:41, 11 May 2007 (CEST)
- Quick defense in the case of the Terawatt, however, can you say where you found the name x-ray laser? I never heard it.--Gaeamil 06:21, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
- It is named so in the 3DO ship spin video. I don't know where it can be found on the Internet, if it can - I don't know if Fyzixfighter had the 3DO SC2. Valaggar 07:52, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
- Are those the videos where the ship rotates while a female voice describes them? If so, they're all on the Pages of Now and Forever.--Gaeamil 07:54, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
3DO Ship Spin Models
We can use the 3DO Ship Spin images together with in-game/Databank pictures on ship pages. I just wanted you to know that, I don't think anyone has any objections. Valaggar 11:48, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
- There was some similar discussion in regards to including animated gifs for the spec images over on Talk:Blade. I'm inclined to agree that moving images/video on the page would be distracting, and a steady state image is preferable. I'm also not sure if the hi-res movie files are still up on fileplanet, leaving us with only the lowres vids on PONAF. I think including a link to the specific page on PONAF with the 3DO video would work, without being too distracting and still providing access to the info, but I'm still mulling over the manner of including the link (in a template, external link section, see also section, in-line link,...). --Fyzixfighter 23:04, 13 May 2007 (CEST)
So we should indeed use the images, and make them link to the 3DO videos? Sounds good. Valaggar 13:02, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
- Depends on which images you're talking about - I'm not exactly certain I understand which images you mean. --Fyzixfighter 17:18, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
I mean screenshots from the 3DO videos. However, I don't see a method to take them - my screen capture software (both 2 programs) don't capture that well, and RealPlayer doesn't seem to have a "save" option. There must be a way anyway. Valaggar 17:31, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
The following articles are just cluttering the wiki and are included in your "Pointless articles" section. I support their deletion.
- Alpha Lyrae
- Beta Andromedae
- Beta Centauri
- Beta Lyrae
- Delta Centauri
- Epsilon Centauri
- Gamma Centauri
- Zeta Centauri
You know, non-admins cannot delete articles. Valaggar 16:42, 1 June 2007 (CEST)
- Yeah, I've been meaning to get to that list but school/work has been quite busy as of late (I'm only posting now because I'm waiting on a measurement). I'd definitely be in favor of getting rid of the Lyrae star pages and Beta Andromedae - those are completely non-notable. The Centauri stars I hesitate on since they're close to Sol (and Delta C. is actually somewhat notable - most # of BioUnits on a single planet) but the same could be said for Lyrae and Canopus - but I think Centauri has a slightly more prominent position in pop sci-fi simply because of Alpha Centauri so some people might find those of interest. I'm torn on Achernar, Canopus, and Capella since those are single star "constellations" and we have pages on other non-notable constellations. But since this a wiki and not paper (it's all just electrons), eventually it might be nice to have pages for every star. My preference though would be to start on the notable stars before doing the non-notable ones. Let me think on a bit more before I do something (I should have time this weekend). --Fyzixfighter 00:16, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
- Cluttering the wiki means cluttering the "Random page" feature, and this I don't like. Plus, we have Sage's planetary database.
Image Upload Test
G'day Fyzix, regarding the recent image upload and your subsequent deletion, please see this UQMF thread.
Cheers --Zeracles 19:57, 7 December 2007 (CET)
- Thanks Zeracles. Sometimes it's hard getting out of defensive mode given the number of vandals we've had. Anyways, again thanks for the heads up. --Fyzixfighter 23:37, 7 December 2007 (CET)
I should've put in a good description, sorry. -ptx
I see you fight with vandalism on almost daily basis. Why not require wiki user login? That would solve the anonymous vandalism at least... ?
Ptx 16:55, 13 December 2007 (CET)
- It might, but we've also had instances of anons creating random user names and then vandalizing several pages. Also, I am but a lowly sysop, only able to delete, undelete, rollback, and ban - User:Svdb (aka meep-eep) is the administrator/bureaucrat/maintainer of the Ultronomicon and would set those kind of things. I'm sure he's already considered that option, so you'd have to ask him why this isn't done. Honestly, I don't mind devoting a lot of time to fighting the anon vandalism - there's little else that I intend to add (I usual compare new edits to canon and make stylistic edits these days), and fighting vandalism is a way to defend something that I and others have put a lot of time into. We've also had good contributions from anons, so the price of fighting the spam/vandalism is worth it for me. --Fyzixfighter 19:15, 13 December 2007 (CET)