New Celestia-1.4.0pre-FT1.1 Version for Download

General discussion about Celestia that doesn't fit into other forums.
hank
Developer
Posts: 645
Joined: 03.02.2002
With us: 22 years 9 months
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Post #261by hank » 21.10.2005, 14:40

t00fri wrote:The automag scheme was implemented already very long ago. At that time we did not yet /compute/ the FoV in terms of the users distance from the screen and the window size (<-> resolution), as we do now. That's why automag is (still) normalized to a fixed FoV of 45 degrees rather than a monitor-dependent value.
That's what I had guessed. What you did made sense at the time.

t00fri wrote:Apart from that, let me add that the FoV variation has an /exponentially large range/ via SHIFT+Mouse L, for example, while it is /in practice/ very small in terms of varying the window size. Why should we want to modify the latter anyway?
I'm not sure I undertsand your question here. The user modifies the window size using the window manager or by toggling full screen mode.

t00fri wrote:In fact, I don't really understand what exactly you are advocating. Do you want the flash output modified?

Like when pushing [ and ]:

Instead of

Auto magnitude limit at 45 degrees: 7.0

rather

Magnitude limit at magnification 1: 7.0
Perhaps instead:

Auto magnitude limit at current magnification: 12.0

since users generally adjust the magnitude limit because they want to see more or fewer stars at the current magnification, and this would inform them what current (adjusted) magnitude limit is. But the flash message isn't my concern so much as the fact that I think the auto magnitude limit should be adjusted based on the magnification rather than the FoV.

t00fri wrote:We preferred to use FoV instead of magnification, since we are /actually/ decreasing or increasing the FoV. Nowadays, I would prefer to normalize the AutoMag limiting magnitude on the /default/ FoV (whatever that is), rather than 45 degrees.

When zooming you are /actually/ decreasing or increasing the FoV, but as you've pointed out, you're also /actually/ increasing or decreasing the magnification. And I'm not sure what the /default/ FoV means.

- Hank

ElChristou
Developer
Posts: 3776
Joined: 04.02.2005
With us: 19 years 9 months

Post #262by ElChristou » 21.10.2005, 15:30

Hank, have a look at your PM please...
Image

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #263by t00fri » 21.10.2005, 16:20

hank wrote:
t00fri wrote:Apart from that, let me add that the FoV variation has an /exponentially large range/ via SHIFT+Mouse L, for example, while it is /in practice/ very small in terms of varying the window size. Why should we want to modify the latter anyway?
I'm not sure I undertsand your question here. The user modifies the window size using the window manager or by toggling full screen mode.
I meant that /in practice/ the main FoV changes come from SHIFT+Mouse L movements and NOT from variations of the window size that most people would rarely touch anyway.
t00fri wrote:In fact, I don't really understand what exactly you are advocating. Do you want the flash output modified?

Like when pushing [ and ]:

Instead of

Auto magnitude limit at 45 degrees: 7.0

rather

Magnitude limit at magnification 1: 7.0
Perhaps instead:

Auto magnitude limit at current magnification: 12.0

That ("current magnification") would be simply incorrect!

The point is that in the automag scheme on adjusts the limiting magnitude at the /reference FoV/ and NOT at the current one. This again has to do with the functional form of the automag correction etc...

It should be obvious that the basic automag requirement

Code: Select all

number of stars/square FoV ~ constant

cannot be easily satisfied for a large range of variations in limiting magnitude at the /current FoV/! It's all not THAT simple if you think about it a little more...
since users generally adjust the magnitude limit because they want to see more or fewer stars at the current magnification, and this would inform them what current (adjusted) magnitude limit is. But the flash message isn't my concern so much as the fact that I think the auto magnitude limit should be adjusted based on the magnification rather than the FoV.

Here I disagree.

It's the FOV that is changed and nothing else. I think it is rarely a bad idea to name things with their correct name!

Magnification would be a derived quantity and only corresponds 1:1 to FOV, if at the same time the focal aperture remains constant!

In particular, when talking about magnification, we need to refer to an optical device that magnifies while keeping the focal aperture constant at the same time! Such as a telescope or binoculars, for example.

Conceptionally, this specification is entirely unnecessary at this point, since all we do is change the variable 'fov'.

Believe me, quite a lot of thinking went into that before I coded the automag. Also there was plenty of joint discussion among the developers at the time.



t00fri wrote:We preferred to use FoV instead of magnification, since we are /actually/ decreasing or increasing the FoV. Nowadays, I would prefer to normalize the AutoMag limiting magnitude on the /default/ FoV (whatever that is), rather than 45 degrees.
When zooming you are /actually/ decreasing or increasing the FoV, but as you've pointed out, you're also /actually/ increasing or decreasing the magnification. And I'm not sure what the /default/ FoV means.


I pointed out that you may imagine that some kind of magnifications is changed, but that it is the FOV that is actually varied.

Since you apparently misunderstood at which FOV the limiting magnitude is adjusted (the starting one = default, NOT the current one!) the use of default should be clear by now: the default FOV is the FOV that is computed at startup of Celestia from the distance of the user to the monitor and the size of the window. It is typically not far from 45 degrees.

So the old flash text is still correct, since we actually normalize the limiting magnitude at 45 degrees. Still today...You will find the variable FOV =45.0f easily in the code ;-)


Bye Fridger

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #264by Boux » 22.10.2005, 16:45

Hi, all!
I have compiled Toti's bmp2pts tool under Linux and created my own SBc type of Galaxy.
Now, I understand t00fri's pain.
It is really time-consuming to adjust both the source picture and the parameters and relaunch Celestia in between.

Here is the first result of my attempts.
Comments and critics are welcome :wink:

http://jmmi.club.fr/celestia/m100.png
Last edited by Boux on 22.10.2005, 19:16, edited 1 time in total.

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #265by Cham » 22.10.2005, 17:01

Very NICE !

Boux, can you make this template available ?

But is this really a type SBc galaxy ?
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #266by t00fri » 22.10.2005, 17:07

Hey Boux ;-)

don't worry, remember my parable above: about
playing 5 balls with 2 hands at a wall...after plenty
of training you will suddenly realize that you somehow can
do it, but you don't really know why and how it works ;-)

Remember, that you got to adjust the brightness/contrast
in the input .bmp image such that you get about 5000
points for <threshold> ~0.6! The <randmomness> should
be 0.025..0.035.

A good pre-exercise is to make a fat circle or a fat cross on
a 128x128 .bmp image with GIMP, say, and convert that.
You can learn this way what the brightness and the
<threshold> have to be like to get 5000 points.


Good luck!


Bye Fridger

PS: I had to make your galaxy brighter to see something:
This is apparently the "artists view" of our Milky Way shown
on some NASA site. I dont think such a galaxy exists in
nature ;-)

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #267by Boux » 22.10.2005, 18:14

t00fri wrote:Hey Boux ;-)

...
PS: I had to make your galaxy brighter to see something:
This is apparently the "artists view" of our Milky Way shown
on some NASA site. I dont think such a galaxy exists in
nature ;-)


Well spotted t00fri!
The bmp is derived from this Nasa artist's view of the Milky Way indeed.
Here is the /heavily tweaked/ picture:

Image

I used it an an exercise. Next, I will try to create a generic SBc from scratch (when I have some time).

For your information and for others who want to do some homework:
- to compile under Linux, the command which worked on my gcc 4.0.1 system is:
gcc -O2 bmp2pts.cpp -o bmp2pts.bin -lm -lstdc++
- the command line to get the *.pts template for the posted bmp picture is:
./bmp2pts.bin 128_milky_2.bmp 0.040 0.03

Anyway, for the time being, it looks good on my setup.
I need not to crank up my display's settings to view it comfortably.
What do you mean with "I had to make your galaxy brighter to see something"?
But overall, you are right, it's a real pain to get something usable :wink:

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #268by Boux » 22.10.2005, 18:37

Cham wrote:Very NICE !

Boux, can you make this template available ?

But is this really a type SBc galaxy ?


Hi, thanks, you can grab the template from here (right click and save):
http://jmmi.club.fr/celestia/SBc.pts

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #269by Cham » 22.10.2005, 19:03

Boux,

thanks for the template. I just tried it 5 min ago. It's very beautifull. However, its arms looks a bit unrealistic (I recognise too the NASA artistic interpretation of the Milky Way). The model is a bit too dark, especially as seen from the edges. However, it could be a great alternative for some galaxies, if we prefer some customisation.

If there was a tool made for OS X, I would be very interested to try to do some models too. Hank ? Dirkpitt ?
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #270by Boux » 22.10.2005, 19:24

OK, new try:
http://jmmi.club.fr/celestia/m100_2.png

New template:
http://jmmi.club.fr/celestia/SBc.pts

Don't understand. It's pretty bright here 8O
Last edited by Boux on 23.10.2005, 13:14, edited 1 time in total.

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #271by Cham » 22.10.2005, 19:50

This one is very nice too, but it's still too dark. I have to increase the brightness to see something like on your picture.

Also, I think the arms are a bit too long.

Maybe we could start a collection of "custom" templates.
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #272by Boux » 22.10.2005, 19:56

Really weird, indeed 8O
It is very bright here, almost too much, exactly like the screenshot.

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #273by Cham » 22.10.2005, 20:03

When I start Celestia FT 1.1, the galaxies are all faint, dark, but all visible. To get something like you, on your picture, I have to crank up the brightness to almost 100% or so.

Your last SBc template is almost there. Can you make the arms a bit shorter ?
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #274by t00fri » 22.10.2005, 20:05

Guys,

dont forget to correctly normalize your templates! Otherwise they are unusable for actual displays.

The galaxy shape should practically touch the 128x128 border. The shape (in face-on view) should be ~ circular and any bars (SB*) should be located precisely /horizontal/ in the image. The maximum brightness should be about the same in all templates (~1.0).

Bye Fridger

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #275by Cham » 22.10.2005, 20:10

By the way, with Celestia FT 1.1, can you asign a custom template to a particular galaxy ? What is the code line for this ?
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #276by t00fri » 22.10.2005, 20:12

Cham wrote:By the way, with Celestia FT 1.1, can you asign a custom template to a particular galaxy ? What is the code line for this ?


Not yet. In the next version it will be in.

Boux
Posts: 435
Joined: 25.08.2004
With us: 20 years 2 months
Location: Brittany, close to the Ocean

Post #277by Boux » 22.10.2005, 20:16

OK guys.
I will do some more tweaks tomorrow, normalize and re-work the thing.
I have to go back to social life right now :D

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #278by Cham » 22.10.2005, 20:21

Here's what I get.

After starting Celestia 1.1, this is the appearence of M 100 with the last template from Boux :
[img]http://nho.ohn.free.fr/celestia/Cham/Divers/0%.jpg[/img]

A gain of 25% brightness gives this :
[img]http://nho.ohn.free.fr/celestia/Cham/Divers/25%.jpg[/img]

Gain of 50% brighntess :
[img]http://nho.ohn.free.fr/celestia/Cham/Divers/50%.jpg[/img]

Gain of 100% brightness :
[img]http://nho.ohn.free.fr/celestia/Cham/Divers/100%.jpg[/img]
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

Avatar
Topic author
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #279by t00fri » 22.10.2005, 23:59

Here is another approach to template making:

entirely "synthetic" designer templates, one might call them ;-)

The SBb .bmp and SBc.bmp inputs were generated with GIMP from this simple 128x128 starting "circle"

Image

by using suitable GIMP tools. E.g. for SBb.bmp , the normalized input result then looks like this

Image

It's hard to believe that this thing gives something usable....

Here is the corresponding SBb and SBc output of bmp2pts
with <threshold> = 0.75 and <randomness> =0.025:
Image

Bye Fridger
Last edited by t00fri on 23.10.2005, 00:25, edited 1 time in total.

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 2 months

Post #280by Malenfant » 23.10.2005, 00:05

doesn't look bad at all...


Return to “Celestia Users”