Post #18by Spaceman Spiff » 07.03.2004, 20:28
Going back to what Don. Edwards was saying, I think such art can contribute to Celestia's development in giving guidance, even setting targets or standards, as to what Celestia's output should look like. It's what I'd like to do, but can't yet: illustrate what things should look like, and explain why.
People with an eye for realism and accuracy combined with a talent for art and a knowledge of science can create compelling images of real or hypothetical places about the universe. Paintings by Chesley Bonestell and William K Hartmann are fine examples of this: not only were they stunning to look at, they were 'accurate' as far as we knew. As the code and configurations for later versions of Celestia converge on higher astronomical accuracy and more visual realism, other people who want to create fantasy settings can take more confidence that all phenomena and elements within them are portrayed in a way constrained to that realism and not a direct artefact of their inputs.
I know that people who aren't very much into the technical details of astronomy wonder just why some others keep on about that this or that being "just not right", or saying "it wouldn't be like that". The reason is that for those of us who know more and more about astronomy and spot inaccuracies more easily than others, we desire more strongly to actually see for ourselves what it would really look like, and are more starved of satisfaction through our own fussiness. We filter out the 'fantastical' and are left with few acceptable portrayals to thrill us.
I'm sure there are some who have sat through science fiction movies and noted that the special effects showed something that can't be and it spoiled it for them. A classic for me was the remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (with Donald Sutherland), where a gas giant planet was shown hanging over an alien world with a gibbous phase facing away from the star that should have been illuminating it. It bothered me, and it bothered me more that it didn't matter to most people. Yet after astronomy buffs plugged away at Hollywood, we now have more regular observance of planet phases regarding local starlight, and I am happier.
Yet, we now have people noting a desire for Celestia to show realistic landscapes, horizons and vistas when on planetary surfaces. The work of Don. Edwards could help lead the way, not in coding, but in aesthetics. Whether you want to tour the universe to explore what's really there, whether you want to generate stunning images, whether you want to make movies, our desires are for something that produces images in abundance that are accurate and realistic in both astronomical and visual terms when given plausible* user inputs. Even so, Celestia presently goes a long way towards fulfilling those desires.
* Compleat fantasists should still be able to have their way by inputting 'implausible' (ahem) inputs, or even re-coding open source. There's space for us all.
Spiff.
-
, Wow, just my $.02, but those pics are beautiful, I just set #1 as my wallpaper 
