EVE Technology Lab

Steve, remind me about this in August if you think it's worth me poking someone to get fixed.

Ahh.

I guess that makes sense

Steve,

Many of the .csv files you have posted on https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/dump/kronos-1.0-98534/ have a great deal of name fields surrounded in quotes. For example, this affects 16 counts of the SOLARSYSTEMNAME field in mapSolarSystems.csv.

These will not appear in Excel by default, but they will also not be trimmed by default when being imported to an SQL database.

I checked the Rubicon SDE, which still included the mapSolarSystems table, and does not surround any solar system names in quotes.

It looks like it affects all csv files with name fields, but only a subset of rows in each. Though admittedly I have not looked through all of them yet.

Update: Looks like the quotation marks are simply being applied to any name that contains whitespace.

Regards,
Nasai

P.S.: Looks like somebody renamed the planet Rens I to sdfsdgdfg in invUniqueNames , though this appears to go at least as far back as Rubicon_1.1.2_94438. See itemID 40159630

Few more found:

Rens IX (40159685) was renamed to 5555 in invUniqueNames.
Tzvi III (40187725) was renamed to HI I AM A NAMED PLANET in invUniqueNames
J102834 II (40467692) was renamed to Eyjafjallajokull II in invNames, and was added to invUniqueNames with the same ID and name, even though invUniqueNames otherwise does not map to any wormhole celestials.

Related to the wormhole system mentioned above, both invNames and mapCelestialStatistics are missing IDs 40467691, 40467693, 40467695. Each would have to be either an asteroid belt or a moon, as they are each between consecutively named planets. Perhaps these belts/moons have actually been removed from the game, and that the SDE is a reflection of that, but due to their proximity in the database to a planet that has been seemingly deliberately renamed, I have my doubts . Unfortunately, it looks like the search feature of People & Places in-game does not appear to let me look up wormhole systems, so I can't confirm either way. Time to dust off the Imicus I guess...

Just kidding, my Imicus never gets a chance to accumulate dust.

Question: I just read that there are no asteroid belts in wormhole space. Seems obvious now, but I've always gone for the anomalies... so I guess I've never bothered to check. I've found a great many missing IDs between planets in both the celestials and names tables. Were there asteroid belts in wormhole space at once point, and have since all been removed? This would explain the missing IDs in that region of invNames.

Another Update: It appears that any asteroid belts and moons in celestial statistics, who share the same planets, are in order by orbit radius when they are ordered by celestialID (in both the Kronos and Rubicon databases). However it appears that the game lists some of the belts in a different order (still alphabetically, as one would expect). For example, if one were to Show Info on the Akpivem system, Asteroid Belt 2 is listed as being closer to the planet than Asteroid Belt 1, under the planet Akpivem V in Orbital Bodies. Perhaps the naming of the asteroid belts is not meant to reflect their order by orbit radius, though this is inconsistent with the naming conventions of planets and moons.

It looks like the invNames table was updated since Rubicon to reflect this. However, invUniqueNames, when viewed in order by itemID, will list the asteroid belts in alphabetical order (causing the names to point to the wrong belts in any case where the game shows belts out-of-order by orbit radius). I am not sure if there is a bug in the game, where it might be showing belts in the wrong order or naming them improperly on the Orbital Bodies tab of the Show Info pages for systems, or if invUniqueNames is just out-of-date. I have not yet travelled to any offending belts to verify that they are truly placed at the advertised distances from their planets.

Bottom line, if you select the names for IDs 40000075 and 40000076 (and many others, but only asteroid belts) from both tables, they will disagree with each other.