3d Jump Maps.

[Reynard]

A stack of hex maps do not line up. If you convert the hexes to square grid every other column is shifted a half a square. There are maps out there representing it but three dimensionally it doesn't fit well at all. Stick to simple XYZ. Soooo much easier.

 

[Rick]

A stack of hex maps do not line up. If you convert the hexes to square grid every other column is shifted a half a square. There are maps out there representing it but three dimensionally it doesn't fit well at all. Stick to simple XYZ. Soooo much easier.

Argh. I'm not actually suggesting creating a vertical stack of hex maps. :? All I'm suggesting is that, either in the system/planet profile, or next to the symbol on the 2D map, you have a + or a - sign, with a number next to that, denoting it's height above, or below, the plane of the map. No +/- would indicate it was at 'level 0' or in the plane of the map. It would mean that you could use the same blank sector map sheet, just with 1 small addition to make it a 3D map.

 

[Reynard]

I did understand what you were getting at and just reminding it would be difficult to determine distances of systems between the maps. You do seem to suggest using the standard Traveller map which is hexes. Were you actually describing a standard 3D grid map? Then your description is a common mapping technique.

 

[Rick]

I was actually suggesting the use of a standard Traveller hex map. The difficulty needn't be much harder than it is now - if you can work out the distances between 2 systems on a standard 2D hex map, then you can do the same with the 3D system. And you are right, it is similar to adding elevation levels to maps.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

There are a couple of old 'White Dwarf' articles on just this topic.

 

[Rick]

There are a couple of old 'White Dwarf' articles on just this topic.

Got the issue numbers?

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Not off hand... but I remember the diagrams!

 

[Rick]

Not off hand... but I remember the diagrams!

Got it, just looked it up; Issue 73, page 27. Just 3 Issues after the first ever appearance of the Type H 'Hunter' Scout variant.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

So what? No one here is going to make a 3D subsector map using 3D hexagons?

 

[Anonymous]

3D hex? Why would you do that?

What shape based on a 2D hex actually fits together in 3D?

What does it give that a straightforward X,Y,Z coordinate system doesn't?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

3D hex? Why would you do that?

What shape based on a 2D hex actually fits together in 3D?

What does it give that a straightforward X,Y,Z coordinate system doesn't?

You answered with three questions.

 

[Anonymous]

And you put a question mark at the end of a statement.

You here for discussion of Traveller or grammar?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

A stack of hex maps do not line up. If you convert the hexes to square grid every other column is shifted a half a square. There are maps out there representing it but three dimensionally it doesn't fit well at all. Stick to simple XYZ. Soooo much easier.

Argh. I'm not actually suggesting creating a vertical stack of hex maps. :? All I'm suggesting is that, either in the system/planet profile, or next to the symbol on the 2D map, you have a + or a - sign, with a number next to that, denoting it's height above, or below, the plane of the map. No +/- would indicate it was at 'level 0' or in the plane of the map. It would mean that you could use the same blank sector map sheet, just with 1 small addition to make it a 3D map.

Problem is some stars will be in front of other stars and it becomes hard to show them all on a single sheet of paper. Lets say a subsector consists of an 8 by 10 by 8 hexes. Each hex column would on average have four star systems in it if there is a 50% chance of each hex box being occupied. There would on average be 160 star systems per 3d subsector. Now if you had a 3d sector, you can expect there to be 64 subsectors per sector, if a sector is 4 by 4 by 4 subsectors. Would you like to calculate how many star systems that would be?

 

[Rick]

Tom - all I was suggesting was a normal distribution of systems across a 2D sector, then giving them 'elevations', either 'above' or 'below' the sector map, to make it more 3D.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

And you put a question mark at the end of a statement.

You here for discussion of Traveller or grammar?

I'm Californian?

Tom - all I was suggesting was a normal distribution of systems across a 2D sector, then giving them 'elevations', either 'above' or 'below' the sector map, to make it more 3D.

That is the way to go. A nice compromise using the hex map and adding some depth of field.