Solar Storm

[RafaelLVX]

Been a long while since I last drew a map... this time something different. This is a star system for a new campaign setting for Épico RPG called Solar Storm. About 1 hour work.

I know it's not great, but it's my first space "map", I practically had no reference to draw from except a quick search I've done earlier. A lot of room for improvement, and I still wanna test a different style. Names aren't final.

Anyone has tips for this kind of map? Come on, feel free to give me a hard time about the impossible physics in my setting, but do bring something constructive too if you will!

[Bindusara]

you should end the ellipses to the middle of the planets
no moons?
it's for a RPG : players will need a few information about the viability of each planet. Maybe you should add a few infomation : giant gazeous, earthly like with arid weather, unsuitable for leaving, 3,5G on the ground (ouch, i'm so heavy)
No scale . A map with no scale and no legend is not a map (i think my geographic teacher when i was 12 learn me a least this thing ;-) )
planets can have gradients, that can be interesting, making the solar system not flat

these are only a few thought, just ideas

[RafaelLVX]

you should end the ellipses to the middle of the planets
no moons?
it's for a RPG : players will need a few information about the viability of each planet. Maybe you should add a few infomation : giant gazeous, earthly like with arid weather, unsuitable for leaving, 3,5G on the ground (ouch, i'm so heavy)
No scale . A map with no scale and no legend is not a map (i think my geographic teacher when i was 12 learn me a least this thing ;-) )
planets can have gradients, that can be interesting, making the solar system not flat

these are only a few thought, just ideas

Yes, the orbits should go through the middle of the planets.

The "missing information" such as no moons, no bases, no death star, no info on what each planet is like, I'll figure out when I know better how this map will scale in print, if ever. Much of that information might have to go in the manual and not the "map".

Now I'm using "map" again with double quotes as I did in the description for the same reason you mentioned, it is no proper map, doesn't measure distances, it's not even close to scale. That is usual with solar system gimmicks, and probably will always be unless I redo this in some 3D software to get some sort of scale. Now unless I get some sort of orbit simulator, distances will always vary with the passing of time as planets move through space, so it is all an abstraction. Obviously I must add this information to the "map".

Now I didn't quite get what you mean with planets can have gradients, they already do... but maybe there's something I'm missing?

[Greason Wolfe]

You could still "scale" the orbits as a function of their actual distance (say a square root or cube root) in pixels which would maybe position them better (although you may already have done that). That wont account for any eccentricity in their orbits, but might give a better visual representation of their distance from the parent body. Then, as long as the orbital rings are drawn as vectors, you could use vector text along the ring to identify its "real" distance.

The same could be done for the planets using a square root of their radius as an image width/height. And then a set of labels identifying what type of planet it is (I.e. terrestrial, gas giant, and so on) and its "real" radius as it compares to some standard (I.e. 1.25 Earth radii).

Again, you may have already thought about all of this, just tossing it out there as food for thought if it is at all helpful to you reaching the end goal for your map.

Edit: I won't talk about whether your physics are impossible or not. That's just way too much math for my tired old brain.

Edit 2: Also, I think what Bindarusa meant was that all the planets don't have to be on the same solar plane.

[Bindusara]

Edit 2: Also, I think what Bindarusa meant was that all the planets don't have to be on the same solar plane.

==> that's exacly what i mean. And you can add another idea, all planets don' spin on an axis perpendicular to the solar plan

[RafaelLVX]

You could still "scale" the orbits as a function of their actual distance (say a square root or cube root) in pixels which would maybe position them better (although you may already have done that). That wont account for any eccentricity in their orbits, but might give a better visual representation of their distance from the parent body. Then, as long as the orbital rings are drawn as vectors, you could use vector text along the ring to identify its "real" distance.

The same could be done for the planets using a square root of their radius as an image width/height. And then a set of labels identifying what type of planet it is (I.e. terrestrial, gas giant, and so on) and its "real" radius as it compares to some standard (I.e. 1.25 Earth radii).

Again, you may have already thought about all of this, just tossing it out there as food for thought if it is at all helpful to you reaching the end goal for your map.

Edit: I won't talk about whether your physics are impossible or not. That's just way too much math for my tired old brain.

Edit 2: Also, I think what Bindarusa meant was that all the planets don't have to be on the same solar plane.

Although most simple representations of our solar system seem to get away with not using any scale, that seems to be a top priority for many people, so yes, I'm considering those options now. Displaying the planets in some sort of proportion is important to me too, though first I'll need to figure out what those proportions are exactly. Some things are changing as I develop the environments; for example I found that the Delta-Epsilon system makes more sense in an orbit closer to the binary star, so they're now becoming the Beta-Gamma system, pushing former Beta and Gamma to be the new Delta and Epsilon planets.

The labels and the essential information in the form short numbers will probably be a good idea... you also gave me a good idea of how I can turn the fake grid and fake rings to scale without going through the trouble of modeling this in Blender... hmmm I'll try to work this out later!

[RafaelLVX]

==> that's exacly what i mean. And you can add another idea, all planets don' spin on an axis perpendicular to the solar plan

I'm sorry if I'm still confused, english isn't my native language... do you mean like having orbits that are further "north" or "south" of the sun, as in a variable Z axis?

I'm already studying varied movement types for rotation and orbits, this gets intense very quickly. I just now realized that the planet system means those two both have an eclipse every day if they're tidally locked. Physics hurts! :-o

[Bindusara]

you've got an exemple here : ellipse is centered on the sun, but make an angle with the orbital plan of others plantehttp://https://www.maptrove.com/pub/...m-wall-map.jpg with Pluto.
For my idea "all planets don' spin on an axis perpendicular to the solar plan" : see the earth here http://https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki...ecliptique.png

[RafaelLVX]

you've got an exemple here : ellipse is centered on the sun, but make an angle with the orbital plan of others plantehttp://https://www.maptrove.com/pub/...m-wall-map.jpg with Pluto.
For my idea "all planets don' spin on an axis perpendicular to the solar plan" : see the earth here http://https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki...ecliptique.png

Oh yes, the orbit of Pluto. Crazy right?

I figured how I'll make this "map" to scale, I'm remaking it and I'll post here soon.