A magazine for all Space Softwares ! !

[t00fri]

For Fridger :

It's difficult to follow you : "ADD ONS doesn't characterize in no clear way the pourpose of CELESTIA .... but we are very to have them. "Apart from the most
sophisticated-level orbits ..... but we work with ESA & 9 universities".

There is an other thread in the forum named something like "need help with educational CELESTIA", I saw it yesterday. Are you going to make one more
time the sketch of "no sir ... I simulate" ? ?

In the magazine CELESTIA is presented in the EDUCATIONAL & ASTRONOMY section, I hadn't added "astronomy" in my initial post to make it shorter. I couldn't
imagine you add a problem with teaching. This is important you know, there are universities working with CELESTIA

I'll stop this discussion now, since it's getting absurd.

What I badly critized is your 1-word initial characterization of Celestia and Orbiter.

educational -- Celestia
simulation -- Orbiter.

My criticism does NOT imply of course that Celestia is NOT an excellent tool for educational purposes as well. But in it's design and in numerous applications it is satifying all criteria of scientific level visualization software with highest standards in astronomical accuracy and scientific documentation of it's database. It is therefore utterly misleading to trade it under the single attribute "educational". Your 1-word characterization of Orbiter as "simulation" is similarly inappropriate.

Being a Senior Scientist/ Prof. in Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, I do know what "scientific level" in Astrophysics means, don't you think so?

Fridger

[cats_bulletin]

I just realized why you were unhappy ! !

This is because I wrote CELESTIA just above ORBITER and that I wrote "simulation" ORBITER and not for CELESTIA ......

As I said I did "short", that's all.

On my side I worked on two families of space launchers, participated to the ROSETTA comet mission, and currently
work on solar system exploration vehicles.

Have a nice WE.
Thread closed

[ElChristou]

... Have a nice WE.
Thread closed

Before, could I have at least a response to my above interrogation, please?

[cats_bulletin]

Yes, sure ....

Calculations, the real one, for space mission purposes are made with dedicated sw & computers. They do
the job perfectly but have no graphic modules. As a consequence profesionals appreciate elements coming
from CELESTIA or ORBITER. Sometimes a big part of the sw, sometimes smaller parts. In other words highly
accurate data (trajectory often) are injected in graphic interfaces (CELESTIA or others) and the result is just
great !

[ElChristou]

Yes, sure ....

Calculations, the real one, for space mission purposes are made with dedicated sw & computers. They do
the job perfectly but have no graphic modules. As a consequence profesionals appreciate elements coming
from CELESTIA or ORBITER. Sometimes a big part of the sw, sometimes smaller parts. In other words highly
accurate data (trajectory often) are injected in graphic interfaces (CELESTIA or others) and the result is just
great !

So if I understand right, the agency you work in use freesoft and other Opensource projects and so save a few bucks avoiding paying people to do what they need. Fine. Now, as this kind of project are based on voluntarism and share, what do your agency do for the people who help them? For example here we can do really accurate 3D models but we lose a hell of time trying to find out the documents necessary to do the job. And eventually if we don't find the needed info, we are forced do some interpretation work that may end with errors... See what I mean? So, in your agency, who can we contact to get some help at this level?

[cats_bulletin]

If you need astronomical data I just can't answer, this is not at al mmy field. If you look for info on space launchers just
type on google the name of your launcher family and "user manual". They are almost all available on the web.

[selden]

Cats,

I believe El Christou is referring to the availability of 3D model meshes of various spacecraft.

A few projects, like Cassini, have made model meshes of their spacecraft available to the public, but most projects do not. Creating models of spacecraft for Celestia or Orbiter from photographs can be error prone and tedious, especially when only a few photographs are available.

Quite often projects have videos on their Web sites which include 3D animations. It would be very helpful if they could be persuaded to provide the models they used, too. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that many such videos have been created by commercial contractors who retain personal copyright to models that they created themselves, which usually would prevent their reuse by others.

Sometimes the software used to design the spacecraft hardware can be persuaded to export the 3D design in a format that can be translated for use with visualization programs. Such an exported format might be a viable alternative.

[cats_bulletin]

You are just right SELDEN ! Copyright explains why professional CAD models are not available
on the web. Spacecraft manufacturers just can't dispatch on the web their CAD models for
international competitivity reasons. CGI societies have also few interest to communicate
CGIs they sell. No solutions ? Maybe not. ESA & NASA create "press kit" fairly easy to find on
the web, they give main dimensions of spacecraft to make models. It's not fantastic, but that helps.

[ElChristou]

You are just right SELDEN ! Copyright explains why professional CAD models are not available
on the web. Spacecraft manufacturers just can't dispatch on the web their CAD models for
international competitivity reasons. CGI societies have also few interest to communicate
CGIs they sell. No solutions ? Maybe not. ESA & NASA create "press kit" fairly easy to find on
the web, they give main dimensions of spacecraft to make models. It's not fantastic, but that helps.

The models used for anim and such are not CAD models; these ones are industrial property and for sure won't be shared! Such models would need enormous calculation power to render 24 FPS and that would be pure lost for such final result.
The point is that Selden is probably right saying that at some time contractors have been payed to do low res models. That's sounds stupid as many people out there would do the job for free for the benefit of all (the agency and the users of softs such Celestia or Orbiter + all people interested in CGI)...

[cats_bulletin]

CPU @ SPACE space softwares free mag has its web site open ! !

http://multiverseweb.com

Cheers !

[t00fri]

CPU @ SPACE space softwares free mag has its web site open ! !

http://multiverseweb.com

Cheers !

In the Intro for Celestia you incorrectly write "... developed by Chris Laurel". This formulation of yours is highly unfair towards the Celestia development team which is not even mentioned by names.

The names of all co-authors of Celestia you find in the Celestia Wiki or the Help menu entry of the program or in the README.

Chris has CREATED Celestia in 2001, he is the lead developer, but a LOT of important development has been done by individual members of the team. You can also judge from the Copyright that is owned not by Chris but by the "Celestia Development Team".

Celestia is also NOT "freeware", but subject to a well-defined GPL2 license. You should not mix up "free of charge" with the term "freeware".

Please try being more correct about such things when going public!

Fridger

[cats_bulletin]

Things that will be included in the 1.2 issue pretty soon.

[rthorvald]

A comment on your magazine itself, not the content:
You have a good screen layout and readability, and i see you have put thought into your design. However, you do need proofreading; i guess english isn?t your native language? Anyway, get someone to do that for you, and you will lift the magazine up.

You might feel that is nitpicking, but it really is not - it makes all the difference.

- rthorvald

PS: as i am sure you know, nobody can proofread their own text.

[cats_bulletin]

Being a little bit hard head it took me some times to understand that we needed a real site to dispatch the
magazine. In the end it has been done, there no other solution. You are not the first one to suggest improvement
in the localization of the magazine, as a consequence I fear ....... that you are just right ! As a consequence too
.... it will be done. Writing will be improved as soon as possible and as much as possible.

A good thing is that our web site sw maker is much more effective than planned, the result is that a lot more
content will be proposed sooner than expected. I will take a margin, let's say that by next friday the site will be much
better. Have a look at that time.

Thanks for the remarks, they are very useful !

Cheers - CATS Team