Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:38 am
only_shades_of_grey wrote:simsman24000 wrote:If it helps anyone's investigation, my coordinates only go up to 340. Maybe easier luck for me, then?
um the box just shows where the crosshairs are but the coordinates exceed 340 on both axis.
No, actually, my coordinates only go up to 340. The furthest left/up is -340, 340. The furthest right/down is 340, -340. And so on and so forth.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:39 am
Navar57 wrote:One question for everyone: I have found what looks like the Gatherer and the Thief on mine, but they don't have 5 or 6 stars that you need before being able to submit. Any ideas? I guess I could just keep clicking random stars around the area, but it is kind of time consuming...and it is 1:30 in the morning!
My guess is that you absolutely need six stars. You cannot connect to more than six stars, and the verification for the constellation will not appear until you click at least six stars. So the constellation we search for is probably one of the ones with six points.
It's 1:30 AM there, too?
I'm almost tempted to pull an all-nighter just to figure this out. I hope I'm not the only person crazy enough to be considering it...
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:39 am
not sure if its been noted but if you go to the board to the other clubs now they get smurf that you have joined astronomy not theirs
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:39 am
thats ridiculous
dirty TNT giving some people fewer coordinates why I have half a mind to drive all to California and throw something at them.
dirty TNT giving some people fewer coordinates why I have half a mind to drive all to California and throw something at them.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:41 am
simsman24000 wrote:only_shades_of_grey wrote:simsman24000 wrote:If it helps anyone's investigation, my coordinates only go up to 340. Maybe easier luck for me, then?
um the box just shows where the crosshairs are but the coordinates exceed 340 on both axis.
No, actually, my coordinates only go up to 340. The furthest left/up is -340, 340. The furthest right/down is 340, -340. And so on and so forth.
No, go here: http://images.neopets.com/altador/astro ... eopets.com
You will see that it extends past the coordinates of (-340,340). Also, the fact that we have coordinates such as (-572,34) in our individual get_star pages is enough to prove it extends past.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:43 am
soymimi wrote:simsman24000 wrote:only_shades_of_grey wrote:simsman24000 wrote:If it helps anyone's investigation, my coordinates only go up to 340. Maybe easier luck for me, then?
um the box just shows where the crosshairs are but the coordinates exceed 340 on both axis.
No, actually, my coordinates only go up to 340. The furthest left/up is -340, 340. The furthest right/down is 340, -340. And so on and so forth.
No, go here: http://images.neopets.com/altador/astro ... eopets.com
You will see that it extends past the coordinates of (-340,340). Also, the fact that we have coordinates such as (-572,34) in our individual get_star pages is enough to prove it extends past.
I went to that link and the highest number for me was 340....
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:48 am
Ken wrote:soymimi wrote:simsman24000 wrote:only_shades_of_grey wrote:simsman24000 wrote:If it helps anyone's investigation, my coordinates only go up to 340. Maybe easier luck for me, then?
um the box just shows where the crosshairs are but the coordinates exceed 340 on both axis.
No, actually, my coordinates only go up to 340. The furthest left/up is -340, 340. The furthest right/down is 340, -340. And so on and so forth.
No, go here: http://images.neopets.com/altador/astro ... eopets.com
You will see that it extends past the coordinates of (-340,340). Also, the fact that we have coordinates such as (-572,34) in our individual get_star pages is enough to prove it extends past.
I went to that link and the highest number for me was 340....
same with me.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:49 am
If you scroll over the stars, they will show what specific coordinate that that star is at. The farthest coordinates that the numbers in the bottom left show is 340, but that is just for where the cross hairs are pointing. The stars coordinates go higher then that.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:49 am
I've been thinking if this isn't too much unlike the LDP. It just seemed like TNT gave us some time to map out our temples before diving into the Mysterious Tablet's missing parts. Maybe they are giving us some time to map out our skies before the next step? Oh, messages changed for the janitor and archivist.
Janitor's message:
The janitor says, "Hm, so you joined an Astronomy Club, eh? That sounds like fun. I wish I had the time to join a club."
The Archivist's message:
The archivist says, "Ah, I see you've joined the Astronomy Club. Is there more excitement to be found than in observing the heavens, and mapping the intricate patterns of the cosmos?"
Janitor's message:
The janitor says, "Hm, so you joined an Astronomy Club, eh? That sounds like fun. I wish I had the time to join a club."
The Archivist's message:
The archivist says, "Ah, I see you've joined the Astronomy Club. Is there more excitement to be found than in observing the heavens, and mapping the intricate patterns of the cosmos?"
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:50 am
Theories & questions (mostly rhetorical):
1) Are we looking for a certain constellation first, or all of them?
2) Do we connect the stars in a certain color sequence?
3) Do we use the gems (some or all) as clues and/or the TCG cards?
4) Is the orientation of the starmap assumed to be flat or dome-shaped?
5) Is the earth round and does the sun revolve around it .. Oh wait no ..
6) Is TNT finally punishing us for "seeing things that aren't there"?
I realize nobody has all (or even some or any) of the answers yet but I just thought I'd throw these out there before we overwhelm ourselves.
1) Are we looking for a certain constellation first, or all of them?
2) Do we connect the stars in a certain color sequence?
3) Do we use the gems (some or all) as clues and/or the TCG cards?
4) Is the orientation of the starmap assumed to be flat or dome-shaped?
5) Is the earth round and does the sun revolve around it .. Oh wait no ..
6) Is TNT finally punishing us for "seeing things that aren't there"?
I realize nobody has all (or even some or any) of the answers yet but I just thought I'd throw these out there before we overwhelm ourselves.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:51 am
Could it be that some classes of stars (like all the annoying white ones) are insignificant and are just there as noise and filler and to confuse?
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:51 am
master_cat wrote:Ken wrote:I went to that link and the highest number for me was 340....
same with me.
Use the pointer to scroll over stars outside of the circular-lens area, which you look through. You see that the stars come up with coordinates outside of the +/- 340 range.
Also, view your get_star page... you'll notice the coordinates, once again, reach past +/- 340.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:54 am
OK, I think? I've got my stars mapped (it's almost 3 am here, I'm old and I'm tired 
) and I have the star data page saved to notepad.
What I started to do, but quickly found that it's probably just too darn late, is putting the letter for the color after each of the data coordinates. I have a feeling that right there could take a very looong time. Especially since some of the stars are right on the edge so they highlight when you cursor on them, but you can't see the coordinates. Those I will probably end up guessing at after I map the rest. Why am I doing this?! Is this even worth doing?
) and I have the star data page saved to notepad.
What I started to do, but quickly found that it's probably just too darn late, is putting the letter for the color after each of the data coordinates. I have a feeling that right there could take a very looong time. Especially since some of the stars are right on the edge so they highlight when you cursor on them, but you can't see the coordinates. Those I will probably end up guessing at after I map the rest. Why am I doing this?! Is this even worth doing?
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:58 am
everconfused wrote:OK, I think? I've got my stars mapped (it's almost 3 am here, I'm old and I'm tired
What I started to do, but quickly found that it's probably just too darn late, is putting the letter for the color after each of the data coordinates. I have a feeling that right there could take a very looong time. Especially since some of the stars are right on the edge so they highlight when you cursor on them, but you can't see the coordinates. Those I will probably end up guessing at after I map the rest. Why am I doing this?! Is this even worth doing?
I'm doing something equally as tedious. I cleaned up the coordinates of my get_star page in Notepad, put each coordinate on a seperate line (so it's not so jumbled up), and organized them by colors 1-6. I'm going to then organize them by those "out of range" (out of +/- 340) and figure out percentages and all this stuff.
It's time consuming and I'm not sure if it's worth it. But maybe I'll figure something out.
Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:58 am
soymimi wrote:
It's 1:30 AM there, too?
I'm almost tempted to pull an all-nighter just to figure this out. I hope I'm not the only person crazy enough to be considering it...
Ok, so now it's 1:55am. hehe. And yeah, I might just be crazy enough to stay up all night with you
My daughter saw me online earlier and I made the horrible mistake of saying the astronomy club was open! Yikes! I sent her to bed around midnight. So, I've only had a few hours of quiet thinking time...morning will be chaos around here!! Everyone will want to get online and play! Sooo, might as well do my playing tonight and sleep in tomorrow!!