t00fri wrote:of course, I would tremendously enjoy a sophisticated 3D terrain display. Yet, after all this work that led to a most accurate incorporation of the movements of celestial bodies (remember hundreds of terms in VSOP87 ...) and all the rest, I'd consider it a bad mistake to mix in 3d landscape fiction, even if it may be switched off with a button.
The point is that with Celestia getting increasingly known in the world, it also stands more and more for a great and unique concept: the blending of state of the art precision simulation with exciting 3d graphics! As soon as one starts violating this basic philosophy even slightly, Celestia will start loosing its reputation (no matter whether things can be switched off or not!).
Yes, I would also download somebody's 3d landscape code for reasons of curiosity. But sure enough, I would loose interest in Celestia very soon after...
So far the Celestia code has nowhere become inconsequent as to its inherent philosophy of accuracy in simulation. Should we really want to give it up like this??
For similar reasons, I have always been against a default integration of rendered galaxies & nebulae into the core distribution. Despite great individual success (Rass'), we have not managed so far to come across a mass production algorithm that would allow to render not one, or two or perhaps 10 but all 10000 members of the NGC catalogue! Also we are seriously missing 3d information in that case, which sabotages again the intrinsic Celestia philosophy.
So like in some very famous paintings, I think it is often the superior compromise to only sketch/outline the faces of people instead of painting them explicitly but badly!
Bye Fridger
*sigh*...
Firstly, your claim that it would harm Celestia's reputation is nothing short of absolute rubbish. You've claimed this sort of wild thing against a few suggestions, and frankly, I wish you would try to be more objective.
Secondly, you've apparently forgotten that we've already violated the basic philosophy you so fervently defend, in the standard distribution - unknown portions of planet/moon textures (what's on the other side of your Mercury texture Fridger!
), meshes for cometary nuclei & asteroids whose actual appearace is unknown, there are probably also some other instances that I can't recall right now (I can't remember whether any extrasolar planets are in the standard distribution).
Obviously "some" fiction really is OK, but then perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by your unwillingness to let simple facts get in the way of what sounds like nothing more than proselytizing. I suggest that you compose a clearer and more specific counter-argument before you start blundering about. And please, spare us the clumsy metaphors!
Cheers,
Paul
