STO Maps as Real Life Star Maps
I had shared this with the Foundry group forum, but then realized that RP-er's might have even more use for this ongoing project.
Basically, I plot the real life positions of the stars and place them on a 1 light-year per grid scale map using STO's sector configuration. After doing that I begin reconciling this "real life" map to sources such as STO, ST:Star Charts, and Memory Alpha, etc.
It's an ongoing project that will extend the detailed sector maps out to 100 LY distance, I'm currently working on getting the recently completed 40 LY ring of sectors published to the blog link below, and I'll update here as I do.
Check out the ongoing progress at Real Sector Maps - Online Atlas - For Star Trek
Overview Map (based off Suritaca's)
Sectors Done So Far (although some get updated):
Quadrant Block overview map:
Quadrant Block Intersection Map
TOS/TAS Voyages on Map
NX-01 Voyages Maps
Gazetteer: want to know where a star system, star base, or outpost is? The Real Sector Maps Gazetteer is where you will find an alphabetical list of such things with links to the sectors they appear in (for published sectors only.)
seems like some of these spots have things in the wrong spot if you go by STO's charts..... memory alpha and wolf 359 are the biggest culprits that i know of.
not saying your positions are wrong. just pointing out the difference.
I don't know... I'm having a lot of trouble reading this map. The lines don't all have the same thickness, I'm unclear what that means, if anything, I can't find Sol (should be on the edge between the Alpha and Beta quadrants, cause the Pinkskins get to draw all the lines). I did manage to find Eta Eridani but the knowledge that Sol is roughly twenty lightyears away from that does me no good at all, and it's a two dimensional map with no legend (I'm forced to guess the star colors denote sequence) and no notations for offset from the Z axis so... what's the point?
I'm sure it's a fun project but it's all colored dots to me.
to address Wolf 359 and Memory Alpha:
Wolf 359, in reality, would be in the Teneebia Sector...that is dictated by the overriding requirements of orientation that place Vulcan and Andor in the Vulcan Sector. You could, in theory, shift everything 1 LY to the right and 3 LY's down and still keep Vulcan and Andor in the Vulcan Sector and have 359 be on the north border...but for the sake of long term simplicity for myself in keeping Sol at the center it ends up in Teneebia. (the spreadsheet I use has complicated enough algorithms, let alone to start slipping in adjustments at this stage, I mean, I suppose I could and redo the maps, but what a pain in the arse! lol)
Memory Alpha is called Memory Alpha because its in the Alpha Quadrant, although STO could retcon it to mean "Alpha" as in the primary library instead of which quadrant it was in. ST:Star Charts, which STO loosely bases its mapping on, has it in Alpha Quadrant, I'm sure the placement was more for developer convenience than anything else.
In these maps, Sol is at the very center (in STO it appears to have a 1 LY right and down offset)
On the Sector Maps:
Each grid point is 1 Light Year.
The thicker lines are every 5 LY and separate out the "Sections" (i.e., Gamma Hydra, Section 10) but are not marked with Section Numbers.
The Star Colors are according to spectral class:
O, B, A = Blue
F = Light Yellow
G = Yellow
K = Orange
M = Red
WD = Gray
In the case of binary, trinary, etc. star systems *only the color of the primary* is shown...on the map if you see two stars in the same location it *is not* a notation of a multiple star system, merely stars that share the same 2D coordinates, their Z-axis is shown.
X,Y coordinate 33,-38: Stephenson 265 @ -46, V1386 Orion @ 48
This indicates that Stephenson 265 is 46 LY below 0 Z LY and V1386 Orion is 48 above.
A simpler way to think about it: if this relationship is placed on an STO Map: Stephenson (Regulus) would be well near the bottom of an STO Map and V1386 Orion well near the top, but they would be in roughly the same X,Y position.
Clear as mud?
Ok, on the Quadrant Block Map the scale is different because we are looking at the next "step" up from Sector Maps.
On the Quadrant Block each grid is one sector (20 LY) and the thicker blue lines are 5x5 sectors.
The "known" Sectors are given a one or two letter abbreviation in gray (so near the center you'll see a "V" this is where the Vulcan Sector is.)
The Quadrant Block map shows the intersection of 4 Quadrant Blocks (each of the Blocks being 500LYx500LY, but only about 400 LY of each block is shown at the moment) centered on Sol and showing roughly 400 LY radius around it (minus the inner 100 LY which will be shown on the individual Sector Maps.
Well, clearer. It'll still give a skewed idea of the distances involved. Position on the Z-axis doesn't only matter if two stars have to share the same vicinity on X and Y.`What may appear to be the nearest star on that map, may well be much further away than the next one over, or one even 'farther' away. I mean, if it's meant to be useful somehow to people, shouldn't it be accurate? Then again... I suppose it's not as if I'm really going to plan my vacation with a starchart, so maybe it shouldn't matter.
Also, I mixed up Eta Eridani with 40 Eridani. (That's what I get for having most of my knowledge tieing into Sci-Fi. 40 Eridani's where Vulcan's supposed to be.)
Like I said, it's factored into the positioning...but the only real way I could figure to do it "right" would be to make layers of sectors. So that, for instance, the Vulcan Sector would represent the "center" 20 LY (10 LY up and 10LY down) and then the next sectors above and below it would be from 10 to 30 LY positive and negative, etc.
But if we did that then neither Vulcan or Andor would be in the Vulcan Sector...
Vulcan (40 Eridani) X/Y/Z: 3 -16 -16
Andor (Procyon) X/Y/Z: 10 -5 11
So we can tell that a sector has to be *at least* 27 LY's "high" ... likely 20 LY "up" and 20 LY "down"...going down the list in the spreadsheet I could see that the bulk of stars fall within this range so it didn't seem to make sense to populate the next two "up and down" sectors 20 LY above and below the Sol plane.
So within the confines of the STO Sector system, where the sectors are apparently 20 LYx20LYx40LY...there's simply not much point in showing the potential upper and lower, more sparsely populated "sectors"
The galactic disc is approx. 1000 LY thick, which would mean you could potentially have 25 of these z-sectors in any particular x/y-sector point. But most would be relatively empty.
On top of which...well lets face it...most folks cannot handle thinking in 3D...and the concept of "upper" and "lower" sectors (let alone a dozen upper and lower sectors) would blow most folks minds.
This thought lived on, apparently, when they were making the graphics for TNG in the 80s, likely because the only maps they had to go on were the same ones I had when I was a kid, the Star Trek Maps (1980)...and they could have included Memory A-B-G-D to flesh out their display. *shrugs, go figure*
Here's an excerpt showing the path of the Doomsday Machine and the Klingon Border from Star Trek Maps (1980), and it is very different from ST:Star Charts version just from what you can interpret from this snip:
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM.|