Celestia Forums

The odd thing to me about a 3D space simulator is everything we see in the cosmos is represented from what we have seen from Earth, most particularly deep space objects. For example if we could really fly to a nubula and see it from all angles it certainly wouldn't look like a flat billboard facing towards Earth, lol, or going to an extrasolar planet we wouldn't see a gasgiant as their only planet like the way we see them from Earth. This being the case it may be better that instead of using a 3D simulator I should use a 2D planetarium software viewed from our Earth that uses high detailed images of the various space objects. Instead of flying to an object I would heavily use the zoom key. Although kids might like a 3D simulator because they can add imaginary solar systems to it and simulate Star Wars worlds and such.

Thanks...........

Well I have more to say than what Paul said. Some people are just not going except change. Look how long they insisted the world was flat. Well I guess it still is for some people. Hey we live in a 3D universe, actually a multi-D universe. If you choose to live in and use 2D software that is your choice. But a 2D astronomy program isn’t going to let you see what per say a constellation looks like from its back side if it indeed has one. This is what a true 3D astronomy program is for. True exploration of the universe. Not to just sit here one the Earth and zoom in on a few various deep sky objects. And how can you say what a planet around another star looks like. Planets around other stars are going to be round for the most part so where is this inaccurate. The planets portrayed in Celestia around other stars are all Gas Giants so giving them a Jupiter like texture is better than making them into white balls. Please give more thought to what you saying. Celestia is not just for kids. It is a very valuable tool for everyone and it can be very educational to boot. If Celestia wasn't a good astronomy program than why was NASA interested in using it and the ESA is using it. Just some things to mull over for the new year. Hope you find that wonderful 2D astronomy program you are looking for.

Don. Edwards

Polchei, the idea that we only see the universe in 2d just sounds wrong to me anyway. It seems to assume that we only ever have a fixed perspective, which we don't. When Voyager 2 took that amazing picture of saturn side-on to the sun, that's a view of the planet that can never be seen from the earth but it's nevertheless a perspective that WE have by looking at the picture. A camera on a space probe is a telescope too, and data is data. Humans gathered it, it's ours. If we're going to bother depicting a point of view at all with piece of software, why stay with the one got through a terrestrial telescope when we have others?
And besides, the earth moves, it isn't a static centre. Paralax measurements that allow 3d models of the layout of the nearest stars etc were all gathered terrestrially or from earth orbit - there's nothing exotic or improper about representing the data gathered and a 2d mentality about our perspective on the universe is misguided. Let's see what we know.

Anyway, for that matter, Celestia IS a 2d simulator (you're always looking at a scene on a flat screen), you just change the point of observation. What's so wierd about that? Are you against using maps and atlases of the earth because you'll never be able to look down on the world like that yourself? Celestia's an atlas of the known universe, not an amateur telescope-user's guidebook (though it could potentially serve as that as well). It shows you what the data from our limited perspective(s) tells us about large scale stucturings we can't observe directly.

of course, some people will use the program for other purposes (seeing what Ringworld would look like, etc) and all power to them. It's supposed to be fun too. Open source, multi-function, freedom and all that. It can do stuff and people find their own uses for that functionality. Lighten up.

I read Polchei's comments somewhat differently.

He's complaining that since Celestia is a 3D display program, then all the objects in it should be 3D, too. Showing deep space objects as flat billboards or almost-flat rippling surfaces is a cop-out. They should be full-blown 3D objects.

I agree.

It's too bad we know so little about the shapes of the real objects. The sides facing away from us are invisible and it isn't always obvious how their fronts are shaped.

And 3D modelling software isn't particularly easy to use, either.

Still, I think it's possible to create models that, although not perfect, will provide a reasonable approximation to what's out there.

Very often in this world you can't depend on others to produce the things you want. It's a truism: if you want it done right, do it yourself.

So, Polchei, are you going to be able to help us?

Don. Edwards wrote:Well I have more to say than what Paul said.

Yeah... Sometimes Im just a man of few words