Celestia Forums

Since we weren't able to get a blank cfg file to work with the CelWP, we have decided to choose a real-life galaxy. We have two different options: M31 and M33. Please vote.

M31 is better because it already has not only a stellar distribution with over a million stars, but globular clusters, nebulae, and stars in its satellite galaxies. I cannot understand why M33 would be preferred.

(Edit: Lafuente_Astronomy's deletion of some posts broke the above link; the post has been restored here.)

The concern is that M33 is smaller and has less real-life data, allowing for more creativity in Worldbuilding.

fyr02 wrote:The concern is that M33 is smaller and has less real-life data, allowing for more creativity in Worldbuilding.

This is just wrong on so many levels. How does a smaller galaxy allow for more creativity? Also it is not true that M33 has less real-life data, unless you can find a source for it.

SevenSpheres wrote:

fyr02 wrote:The concern is that M33 is smaller and has less real-life data, allowing for more creativity in Worldbuilding.

This is just wrong on so many levels. How does a smaller galaxy allow for more creativity? Also it is not true that M33 has less real-life data, unless you can find a source for it.

1: Simple. It's it is more homely in there than if it were on a large galaxy(Undoubtedly we live on a large galaxy, so we have different definitions of the word "homely") Also, somewhat secluded, and also less popular in several worldbuilding projects than the Andromeda
2: True. Astronomers are very meticulous in counting every celestial object in the sky. But in terms of the number of real objects, obviously due to its size and distance, as well as popularity, Andromeda has more "discovered" objects than does M33

Even if your points are valid, so is ours

Luke's catalogs have like- 3-5 times more stars on M31 than M33...

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:1: Simple. It's it is more homely in there than if it were on a large galaxy(Undoubtedly we live on a large galaxy, so we have different definitions of the word "homely") Also, somewhat secluded, and also less popular in several worldbuilding projects than the Andromeda

"Homely", "secluded"...sorry, not convincing. "Less popular in worldbuilding projects"...this needs a source other than a Google search.

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:2: True. Astronomers are very meticulous in counting every celestial object in the sky. But in terms of the number of real objects, obviously due to its size and distance, as well as popularity, Andromeda has more "discovered" objects than does M33

SIMBAD does list somewhat more children for M31 than for M33, but this is only because M31 is bigger (which is a good thing!) M33 is no less well known that M31 is.

Gurren Lagann wrote:Luke's catalogs have like- 3-5 times more stars on M31 than M33...

...which is an argument for using M31. (Edit: this is actually incorrect, Luke has more stars for M33 than M31)

Added after 5 minutes 11 seconds:
The poll closed with M33 slightly in the lead, however there have been no convincing arguments for it. So it's a tie, I guess.

Added after 2 minutes 31 seconds:
I think the poll should be reopened, otherwise nothing can be decided here.

(Edited to strikethrough pointless arguments)

The poll has finished! M33 won with over 50% of the vote, which means there will be no runoff.
It's official. M33 will be used for CelWP

fyr02 wrote:It's official. M33 will be used for CelWP

Please do not ignore my comment:

SevenSpheres wrote:The poll closed with M33 slightly in the lead, however there have been no convincing arguments for it.

(Edited to strikethrough pointless arguments)

SevenSpheres wrote:however there have been no convincing arguments for it.

Hmm... what exactly is "convincing"? That you have been convinced by it?
Well for certain I have been convinced, at least from a worldbuilding standpoint. I agree that there may be logistical reasons why M31 is superior, but as a worldbuilder I don't want to have to be locked by the realms of stars that already exist. I want to create a star of any spectral type, any evolutionary stage, anywhere. And certainly M33 is more convenient in that respect. Certainly a "non-convincing" argument might be "convincing" from my point of view.

Certainly I cannot force my views upon everyone else in the projects, as you are clearly not convinced. That's why we create polls, to see who the community is convinced by: and it turns out that the community favors M33 (by quite a large margin, i would add: M33 has gotten twice the number of votes as M31). So when you say that there have been no "convincing" arguments, I would like to object that your statement is false - otherwise how did M33 get the most votes? Clearly there is a convincing argument somewhere in there that is causing people to vote for the Triangulum Galaxy.

But anyway, we shouldn't be musing over this descision; what has been decided has been decided. I wish everyone happy worldbuilding days inside CelWP's new home, the Triangulum Galaxy.

fyr02 wrote:I agree that there may be logistical reasons why M31 is superior, but as a worldbuilder I don't want to have to be locked by the realms of stars that already exist. I want to create a star of any spectral type, any evolutionary stage, anywhere. And certainly M33 is more convenient in that respect.

This is not true and makes absolutely no sense, but I won't continue the argument.

(Note that M31 was first proposed in January, and M33 today...)

(Edited to strikethrough pointless arguments)

That wasn't my point but whatever...