Their later effort at a space-based RPG “Universe” included a map that went out to more like 50 Parsecs, using a square grid paper map.

I might be misremembering and they used Light years rather than Parsecs, been a while and my copies of the games are packed away in storage right now.

There were a few other tabletop games from BEFORE the major Computer Game era that used a 3d map – Godsfire and it’s REALLY wierd-looking but functional map comes immediately to mind, from the same folks that did Stellar Conquest (that closely inspired the classic Reach for the Stars! computer game).

The 3d video display stuff though looks a lot nicer.

@Krystian – been a little busy with exams lately, but I've been working on an update of the application. Will let you know when it's ready in the following week(s)

As for zooming onto planets and the position of voyager – I'm afraid that is something I won't do. The planetary scale is just on a completely different level of magnitude. And if would I start doing that, it would be difficult do draw the line. Do I show Pluto? Do I show the Moon? Do I show Titan? Do I show Asteroids?

But I'll keep that in mind, maybe I can come up with some sort of a compromise. Right now I can tell you, Voyager hasn't even moved a fraction of a pixel on that Map.

if i could change anything about the map i would click a button and the 'graph and the lines to stars' would disappear, leaving just the stars.

its is truly a wonderful map.

many thanks for creating the space map

First of all, I'm afraid the "3D polar graph" is one of those things that doesn't really work the way you might think it would if you put it into practice. If you put concentric spheres around the sun they need to be transparent or you would only see the outer-most. Then the transparency of the spheres would add up lowering the contrast and readability. Since the camera rotates around the sun as well, the spheres would appear to remain stationary when you rotate, not improving spacial perception at all. Finally, the exercise would be for naught since it would be very difficult to judge the distance of a star to the surface of a sphere. A star outside a given sphere would appear inside depending on from which angle you look.

As for you other suggestion – I start do understand what you are getting at but I disagree. There is no point of trying to capture the Universe "as it is". Because as it is, the Universe is arbitrary and confusing. It's like drawing a 1:1 map of a country.

The power of a map is the ability to establish a structure to understand a mapped object. A map will always be an interpretation. This is not a bad thing. Maps of our planet are full of "arbitrary" elements. The Equator, Meridians, Poles, political Borders. Even the orientation of the Map of the World is an arbitrary convention. This doesn't mean that there is no reason for the convention. This doesn't mean that the convention is bad. Rejecting those "arbitrary" elements outright is like rejecting language because the names of objects don't convey properly what the objects are.

There might be no grid in outer space but there are Stars and they have a position. There are many ways to measure that position. One would be a polar coordinate system (which is what astronomers use) but I find that unintuitive, too observer-centric. It also makes it difficult to judge distances between two objects. That's why I chose a unusual but more common-sense Cartesian system. It is still based on the established polar system – the grid is aligned with the plane of the ecliptic and the longitudinal angle. It affords speculation like the if it would be possible to detect Earth from Ross 128 using the Transit Method. Leaving this out means loosing that readout and gaining nothing in return.

sure, it's practical and convenient and very helpful to define a coordinate system based on the sun's location and either the ecliptic or the galactic plane. it makes sense, and it works.

but……there's still something that bothers me about describing the locations of stars in relation to 3 axes that are artificially constructed and which, frankly, don't exist. (again, they MAKE SENSE, but they're still technically arbitrary)

if this were my program, i would fix the grid relative to the observer, not relative to the universe. maybe move it to the bottom. when you rotate the fishbowl (still using the Sun as the centerpoint), the stars move just as they do already, but the grid stays flat in one place, and the vertical lines connecting the stars to the grid slide along the grid.

it may seem awfully nitpicky but here is my reasoning. the coordinate system is constructed solely by the observer (or by his good friend the programmer) as a means of comprehending 3D space. it is not inherent to the universe in any way. so then, why should it be part of the universe, rotating as the universe rotates? wouldn't it make more sense to fix it inside the observer's own frame of reference?

hope that makes sense…

PS: you said that, well, it IS a 2D map, because the computer screen is flat. how about an option for stereoscopic 3D? for those lucky people with 3D glasses at home

PPS: by 3D polar graph, i meant exactly what you said with the concentric circles, only extended into 3D, with spheres instead of circles. and i understand why you say cartesian works better

Wow, thanks for the in-depth comment! I'll try to answer it the answer it deserves:

The 2D Plane is necessary. I've tried to do without it. When you leave it out, the brain just doesn't have enough hints to comprehend the structure properly.

I understand how you push for a even more spatial representation but what is hindering us here are not visual aids but actually the fact that it IS a 2D map. It's a 2D projection of 3D Data. So your brain needs a lot of aids to make sense of it.

And even then, our brains simply has limits. You've mentioned it yourself – we are used to a ground as a plane of reference. All you accomplish by leaving it out is to confuse things rather than clarify.

I don't see how the visual aids undermine my intention. They are also 3D objects after all. They are designed to give the cloud of points more structure your mind can latch on to. They also facilitate judging distances. But of course, I could be missing something importat. If so, please do elaborate!

As for rotation axes, it's very difficult to map them all onto an interface. As somebody who uses 3D software on a regular basis, I've seen a lot experiments and difficulties with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "3D Polar Graph" maybe you could clarify?

I've seen a concentric approach to the "ground plane". I think it is inferior to a grid. It is worse at giving you a sense of space and it makes judging distances between two stars other than the central one impossible. Coordinate systems can't more or less 3D. There is nothing inherently 2D about a Cartesian coordinate system.

I've included a real perspective view in my next project. It gives a better feel for the space but distorts distances. But I agree, it is useful. I didn't include that in the first version mainly because some of technical problems it creates (like clipping planes).

you're trying to make the jump from 2D charts and astronomical maps into a 3D model. it LOOKS 3D, but IMHO it's still firmly 2D in principle.

i'm talking specifically about that big flat grid in the middle – sure, it's helpful, but i don't think it's necessary. you're trying to give the user's brain a sense of 3D-ness, but you're not going to fully accomplish that unless you do away with all 2-dimensional mental aids.

others mentioned that there aren't enough axes of rotation. it's as if the plane is the "ground" – no matter where you look, it's always level. that's natural for us, because we are planet-bound creatures. but like you said yourself, we all need to get beyond that.

instead of a contrived-looking cartesian plane, how about a 3D polar graph? for example, concentric spherical shells around the Sun that mark off light-year distances.

…just an idea. great job again with the model

PS – perspective would be awesome too