Re: Hyperspace navigation
- From: Christopher <auem28@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:57:01 GMT
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:46:38 GMT, H <H@xxx> wrote:
Christopher wrote:
Yes, but you called it degrees, it's confusing. Distance makes sense and
works with the system we use now, Right Ascension, Declination and Distance.
Not when you are needing the location of a star/planet in a 3
dimensional space. The degrees markers in the imaginary z co-ordinate
line gives the navigation database a set of co-ordinates in 360
markers, and if nesserary sub markers similar to go with the x and y
co-ordinates.
Why do you want the distance in 360 markers?
Look up Spherical Coordinates on Google or Wikipedia. You set a
direction(degrees) and a distance(parsec) to locate a point with respect
to another, three directions(degrees) just doesn't make sense. You could
say that 0 degrees along Z is 0 distance and 360 degrees is the edge of
the galaxy but you need to convert that to an actual distance anyway.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel...
Interesting.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- From: Ears
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- References:
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- From: H
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- From: Christopher
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- From: H
- Re: Hyperspace navigation
- Prev by Date: Re: Hyperspace navigation
- Next by Date: Re: Hyperspace navigation
- Previous by thread: Re: Hyperspace navigation
- Next by thread: Re: Hyperspace navigation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|