From No Man's Sky Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Complete Removal vs Overhaul of Signal Booster[edit source]

Peacebomb removed the monolith Signal Booster variant... I haven't tested it, but that is only reasonable if the game does NOT support the method anymore. Otherwise the two should be mentioned alongside.

ALSO, if portal interference etc. still blocks forward bases from being build by base computer, the area which details how to find a consistent base point should at best be corrected or reworded... not removed. I call the recent edits thus into question and will retain the right to reverse several parts of them if my tests show that a forward base is still realistic. Deletion of entire paragraphs without discussion is questionworthy at best.Thamalandis (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The signal booster problem HG patched in is undeniable, this makes finding forward bases tremendously hard (not impossible though). The passage should not be removed... and it should be mentioned in the version history to preserve the game's changes as DDF prefers. The erasure of the Forward Base area is STILL wrong Peacebomb. I will revert it.Thamalandis (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Forward bases paragraph is not very relevant to the Portal travel in the current version. What is its purpose on this page? Peacebomb
I didn't see you copy the portal page to make a legacy version for Next or Visions, so by rule of DDF, HISTORY PRESERVATION. It tells people how it once was and what they can expect as portal explorers. You might not like it, but it is part of NMS history.Thamalandis (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Then this paragraph needs to be explained as having historical value only. Right now it is out of place. There are not enough changes to warrant a different page for this version. Peacebomb
You do realize you altered the ENTIRE "how to find" section from signal booster to stellar charts already... right? That was a MAJOR edit and this is exactly more than enough to make a legacy page prior to it for a Visions version. But since you already altered the former... my point still stands. Further the Forward base part of the portal traveller history and guide is part of an entirely different section. If the thing that disturbs you is the "subpoint" of 'Forward Base', it can be reworded and merged with portal travel as an addition below now... as it is kinda a legacy now like permanent portal travel, which is also discussed at the end of the paragraph before that. Thamalandis (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Separate page for address research?[edit source]

I think there's a lot of information currently on this page isn't what people are looking for. A lot of text is dedicated in deciphering and guessing the portal address of particular planets, while I believe only a fraction of that information is relevant for the general players. Please consider cleaning up the research portion and leave the only useful bits of information here... namely, how to find and enter the glyph address into a portal, and how to translate the hex address from signal booster into the glyph address. Kgptzac (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You can travel to worlds without their coordinates or anything just by using math. So if you want to discover voxel 32,108,112 you can use the glyph math to jump there without anyone ever being there. It is part of what the portals do and how they are structured. You can post the link to the Pilgrim's Star etc. at a fitting location if you want. It can convert the code just fine. As mentioned in the article, glyphs use the center -/+ as reference, coordinates go from Alpha Minoris to Delta Majoris.Thamalandis (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal Interference[edit source]

Apart from a possible bug which people may be experiencing, I think the intended purpose of "Portal Interference" is unclear. After going thru a portal I started to get this error when trying to call my freighter and use the station teleporter. After searching around it looks like most people are getting this notice as a bug, as they did not go thru a portal in the first place.

To get rid of the bug, I simply traveled back to the originating planet, and then used station teleporter to travel to the destination system's station. Why this restriction exists is inconceivable and possibly by itself is a bug or design flaw. Kgptzac (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I had it until I went back to Utforn and went through the portal to the original world again. I reckon the teleporter now operates the same. In the past this couldn't even happen as you couldn't call ships during "portal mode". So you had to return and deactivate it anyway and then port over to the new base. It is most definetly bugged right now. So I wouldn't make final statements.Thamalandis (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Beginning[edit source]

We began research on the matter, if you want to contribute, feel free to test the new network to find rules. Currently it is nigh impossible to find portals on dead worlds. With the "portal order" sequence we might find out if those even exist at all. Of course I need to visit a system with a dead world and a living one first. Thamalandis (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Took me a night, riddle solved. Now you all can just calculate your portals. I claimed all four corner teleports though. I take it as personal reward. Thamalandis (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I declare this a high priority article for updates! I unfortunately restarted so don't have much knowledge of the new portal system, so please, everybody who has used the new portals, start working on this article. Ideally all systems/hubs should now have addresses on their pages, and there should be a central list of the most populated areas due to the new multiplayer orb feature.

--Nodiddlyoddly (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought very early in my game, I discovered once a portal that had the liquid wall inside the round hole. I stepped through, the liquid disappeared but nothing happened. Since I can not find any video with liquid inside the portal I am starting to think I am just mixing up things with the trailers. However, I remember being quite confused as nothing happened :D Did anyone ever discover a portal with liquid inside, showing the same behavior? It must have been in the original PC release version, before any patches were released yet. So maybe the liquid was patched out, as it did not do anything yet?

Visual Representation[edit source]

Win lee (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC) > For easy understanding portal's coordinate system i've created and uploaded 3d galaxy charts with Portal coordinate system and 2 others coord systems

I hope this helps convince you to delete "research" paragraph from the article about Portal due to their confusing content abounding in tautology. Also the graph clearly shows where are the edges of the galactic sandbox/what are the edges coordinates

The portal coordinate picture is wrong. The interval ends at 7FF or Insect-Quadforce-Quadforce or 2048. 0000 is used for its highest potential, not as its first potential. Also the other side uses 2049 up to 4096 (or 0000) with 4096 being the center again. In my eyes the picture is thus portraying the actual numbers wrong. So using negative numbers is fine from a math perspective, but not translated to the ingame glyphs. The Signal Booster uses the other coordinates, but your picture uses Gamma Minoris to be the "visual" source. The absolute 0 point is Alpha Minoris and so the coordination system should just use it as its fix point (even though it is inside ingame) and name the quadrant in my eyes. Ultimately this point is minor and a simple text passus explaining it while showing Alpha Minoris and Delta Majoris should suffice. The picture also implies a sphere for the galaxy... it is a plate and height only 1/16-1/17 of its radius. Also we do not delete the reasearch area, we condense it and migrate it to the portal adress page. Thamalandis (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I have finished condensing the information into a proper small passus on the portal page and put them in their correct regions (travel/address etc.). So the research area has been removed entirely. There is nothing left to research anyway. Thamalandis (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ST2005's answer(sorry if leaved in a wrong form)[edit source]

-- 14:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC) I think that these materials you've provided are worth of having their place in the page itself.

Axis Orientation[edit source]

I am quite surprised by your research on the portal coordinate system. Did you take a look here. Talinwind (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The page you linked has 2 flaws. First it does attribute Z to what we call the y axis in math, I added z (or height) to the reasonable version. So yes, I can rename DDD to XXX (which is the same, including the multiplier for YYY of 250-500 per teleport area). Thamalandis (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thamalandis I get your point. About the orientation of XYZ axis, well that is always subjective. If you look at how a voxel is represented then you see that X goes right, Y goes top, Z goes front (I recall same as in math). I guess this orientation come from the signal booster coordinates and the save files X,Y,Z,index order. In game, where ever you are, you look at the center. So your actual orientation may vary. If you are at the middle of Y axis, and on the fringe X high of the map, you look at the sun, then your front point to -X absolute axis.Talinwind (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You did modify "[P][R][SS][ZZ][YYY][XXX] - (P = Portal ID / R = Region ID / S = System ID / Z = Height / Y = Depth / X = Right-Left)" Shouln't it be "[P][R][SS][YY][ZZZ][XXX] - (P = Portal ID / R = Region ID / S = System ID / Y = Height / Z = Depth / X = Right-Left)" ? Y goes top, Z goes front ?
No, because the galaxy is NOT a theoretical cube or a sphere it is an actual 3D enviroment. You can not apply voxel logic to this as that is based on computer screens (them being flat and z going in and out). If you do, then nothing would change here anyway though. The galaxy has a fixed plain of orientation (which is viewed from above due to symmetry) and a reduced expansion to top and bottom. So it effectively has a 2D design like a normal galaxy. Or would you say a plate is as high as it is long and has a small width? No you apply the coordination system at the symmetry. The grid of the galaxy is flat and it extends in a circular shape. That circle has a certain "height" (z) and that is how you describe it. That is also how I categorize the extreme coordinates up to now. And that won't change. Because "inside" = z is ONLY based on monitors. Thamalandis (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well it is up to you... coordinates orientation is nothing more than subjective... Voxel logic is especially valid in 3D environment! voxel is at a 3D space what pixel is at 2D space, just a part of the space, represented 1x1(x1) unit... once again there is a difference between the orientation of the camera and the orientation of the space in the game logic... but hey! I was just discussing about that to converge about a common nomenclature and clarify the explanation to players... up to the wiki to converge or diverge...Talinwind (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I come back to this discussion about the orientation of axis. It appears that PC people have dig in the game save file, and found variables names PlayerStateData.UniverseAddress.GalacticAddress.VoxelX, PlayerStateData.UniverseAddress.GalacticAddress.VoxelY, PlayerStateData.UniverseAddress.GalacticAddress.VoxelZ And when you test the orientation In game you get that the portal address order is [VoxelY][VoxelZ][VoxelX], with X and Z the long edges of the galaxy and Y the short dimension. Talinwind (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a voxel is build using the X-Y plane as the monitor and z for moving in was never doubted. I simply prefer z being the height as X-Y for me is an even plane in a 2D field. And going by the galaxy shape of a plate, attributing the height to Z seems more natural. As long as people refer to their coordinate allocation as "voxel" like Win Lee does on portal address, I have no problem. Ultimately... what do I care about the letter. In the end we all agree its the "height". I can just replace z=0 with h(0). Thamalandis (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Astronomers are using terms "Height above the galactic plane / height below the galactic plane" , NMConnect coordinate tool from the beginning was using Voxel coordinate format (native format of the game), later pilgrim star path also started using that axes orientation (X-Z).
Thus it is possible to say, that Galactic Plane (the plane in which the majority of a disk-shaped galaxy's mass lies) is located in X-Z/PorlalX-PortalZ/VoxelX-VoxelZ plane, and Y/PortalY/VoxelY can be used for measurement of Height from the Galactic Plane (above/below) Win lee (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the z information on Euclid and the implemented areas of Portals with the neutral synonyme of h for height. I also changed the used letters to their proper words of length and width/depth. This makes them universal in either system. That being said, I did not do this for the remnants - which I haven't implemented in the base article yet - of the portal research. This will be done once it gets merged, not before. We can migrate and combine it with the portal address page in the following days by removing some redundancies but copying the important orientation of the coordinates and other important facettes the portal address page is lacking for now. Thamalandis (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Glyph 2-4[edit source]

I am quite interested by your theory that the glyph 2-4 are the region and system index... Are you sure about that ? I like this new bit of info... Talinwind (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also the star class is NOT UNIQUE and every star has its own address version in their region. Believe me that part of the page... is wrong. That is a unique star ID not a "star class". Unless they also meant "star ID" and accidentally used the name for classification of stars. So if they used an accidental name... meh. Then our theories are 90% the same. The first glyph of the three makes little sense for star ID though. If it was, Hello Games would project up to 4100 systems per area. Like zhe ZZ coordinate, that would be excessive. Also the "second" glyph never really reaches the 16th glyph. If you find a system with 16/16 as an actual address and it has one up, I concede. But no test has proven that. And it still isn't a star class, but a star ID. Otherwise you would have regional duplicates. Thamalandis (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thamalandis I get your point. About the class star, well that "hex number" is actually used in game in the system description as "star class" (this field comes back in the last patch) that is why the web page use this term. That "name" do not change the fact that this number is an star ID as you are saying. One bit of info that you add is that the glyph 2 identify a region inside the voxel, where the webpage I linked just say glyph 2-3-4 are a system ID... Talinwind (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Boreas and Zadon are both in the Oxandr Instability, but both are the same "star class" as shown ingame G0F. Belive me that is NOT part of any address. Every star of a region has its own UNIQUE ID counting up outside of its spectral class. If the "second" glyph is higher than Dawn, this means you got over 256 stars. I don't know of any cluster that dense. I will not exclude the possibility though. For now that is the only part I am not fully sure. Thamalandis (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Boreas Is a good example indeed. Looks like glyphs 2-4 are not linked to the star class (I will contact the author of the web page about it)... I am really curious to understand this bit of the address. Need more investigation... Sorry Zadon do not show conclusive info.Talinwind (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
About the glyphs 2-4. I get feedback from the author of NMSCoordinateExchange and it is my mistake, sorry. You and him both agree: Those glyphs represent the System index and is unique inside the same XYZ coordinates. As noted on the web page "Star class determines star temperature(color)/radius/luminosity and is unique inside voxel, but the same class can be in a nearby voxel". That was my confusion between what he call "star class" and what in game is called "spectral class" (G0f in Boreas). I suggest him to change the name to avoid other misreading. And I apologize for the trouble I caused to you about that. Talinwind (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I am very curious to experiment the idea that you add: the glyph 2 is common inside one region.
/ idea of mine - not tested at all / what if all the galaxies are build "on top of each other" means the game could use the same XYZ coordinates but use these 3 characters index to define in which galaxy the star appears. Then the game will have use of the range in 3 hexa character. but in each galaxy only a few star are plotted... Do you think that could make sense ? Talinwind (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd love that, but no. You got one glyph left over which is most of the time - as seen to now - the Dawn. So it is either added for some speculative SUPER galaxy with dense nebula or it is used for regions if they overlap. But naming the regions after their "cuboid" (I am not sure if it uses voxels due to the low height for regions. Would imply less regions stacked) seems viable. So that would make the second glyph... useless. Overall you would need TWO glyphs to reach all 256 native galaxies and then SOME! I haven't checked portal sequences of Eissentam etc. but I doubt it works that way. That aside, the ingame map is clearly three dimensional. But just as a piece of paper, X-Y is the flat symmetrical part lying down and z is the height. It makes no sense to give the "smallest" increment to the width. Thamalandis (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I get some info that prove that my crazy idea above is wrong... players have explored the game save file and notice that the galaxy (index) is store in a different field. In addition they explored what happen if you keep the same coordinates (signal booster) but increment the last digits (the equivalent of glyphs 2-3-4) and well, no pattern have been found so far source Talinwind (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Portal Bug[edit source]

I see it state: "The last portal of multi-body systems is unuseable until it has been charged. This might be a bug."

I have, however, charged portals on both sides of several attempts to find a planet on which to build a base near a portal and in all three cases so far I can not get to the correct planet in the system. I arrive at a neighboring planet each time.

I have relevant information on the following pages:

I am disheartened at this point and I am not sure what do to about this. I was excited to get all 16 glyphs after over 200 hours in game and now I am bummed. Oh well.

But I don't think it has anything to do with charging the portals. I have charged all them so I could get photos of the address, as you can see above, and only afterward have I done any testing.

Also, I have visited each the hard way to be sure they didn't have an active connection. I had left one activated but not used at one point (current base world) and I thought maybe the outgoing connection was blocking the connection. I went back, restarted the portal activation without actually entering an address, and observed the powered portal without an outgoing connection. I tried it from the other side and got the same error as before.

I also tried connecting the portal at Jagid's Garden World to itself and when I stepped through I ended up on the neighboring world. But I was able to step back through and get to the original portal. That has been the only way I've been able to portal to one of these bugged portals. I can't make an outgoing connection to one, but if I go back through the portal I just exited through, I can go back where I started.

Is there more testing anyone would like me to try on this? Should I just give up on NMS until a patch fixes this? I have everything I want to buy, and I am not a greed-motivated person and acquiring more wealth carries no interest for me. I had thought I was entering the earnest-exploration phase of my NMS game, but broken portals make we worry about not being able to return to my discoveries in order to harvest the materials I found there or even just to observe their beauty.

Jagid3 (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Jagid3

I don't think this bug is in place any more (NEXT 1.59 on PC). I have gone to all the planets in two different systems using the portal, and it seems to be working as intended. I think this warning about the Portal Bug could be removed. If it is needed for historical purposes, could change it to read "At one point, there was a bug that acted like this, but it seems to have been fixed."
OrlonVonSpandex (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)