Celestia Forums

Hello
What it lacks me in Celesia:
1. Bookmarks position in space/stars/planets.
2. Better stars looking (better Halo effect)
3. planet in different stars (as far we know it)
4. more galaxies we know.

I understand that creation of this would require a bit time, and work, but it was to one it was proper.


p.s. Sorry by my poor English

Toki,

1) I'm not sure what you mean. Do you know about Cel:// URLs ?
This one takes you to Europa, with Jupiter in the background.

cel://Follow/Sol:Jupiter:Europa/2004-04-20T15:17:48.60410?x=rqpfccYWtQpqDA&y=Fxf7HqWICcwB&z=EMjder20P3zt/////////w&ow=-0.614125&ox=-0.013671&oy=0.785854&oz=0.071395&select=Sol:Jupiter&fov=32.803474&ts=1.000000<d=0&rf=40839&lm=49158

I agree that it would be nice if Bookmarks had the same details as Cel:// URLs.

Also, Windows 9x systems don't recognize the keys used to write a Cel:// URL, but they work fine under XP.

2) This has been beaten to death: optical lens effects probably won't happen.
But you can change the image Celestia/textures/flare.jpg to be anything you want.

3) They already are in Celestia. See Celestia/data/exrtasolar.ssc

4) Download the galaxies Addons. They are too big to be included with Celestia. See http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/catalogs.html

I hope this helps.

It walks me about this it to was it been possible in any moment it is possible will add it scene to favourite, but in programme.
Why? lenticular effect on stars would improve realism, texture of this will not it make better .

Obviously, I forgot adding that Celestia, it is excellent, and it pleases to me very, even-Stephen my familiar who shew Celestia.


P.S. Soryy for my English, if you not understand, text above, give me the sign.

Best Regards
Marek (Poland)

LOL !

I previously believed my own English was the worst possible !






Oups, Sorry !

Anonymous wrote:Why? lenticular effect on stars would improve realism, texture of this will not it make better

Lens effects don't improve realism - your eyes are not cameras, and they don't have the multiple internal reflections that cause lens flare.
The makers of science fiction movies use lens flare effects because we're used to seeing camera artefacts when a movie camera points at a bright light, and the CG guys are trying to convince us that the movie camera was really out there, in space, looking at the stars.
But Celestia is trying to convince you that you are out there, using your own eyes. Different thing.

Grant

On the other hand you are looking always through a kind of window - be it in your spaceship or in your spacesuit. So you WILL have some kind of effects.

maxim

Why add artifacts which will distort your viewing?!

maxim wrote:On the other hand you are looking always through a kind of window - be it in your spaceship or in your spacesuit. So you WILL have some kind of effects.

I never think of myself as looking through a window, but I suppose some people do. (If you do have an imaginary Celestia spaceship, why not blow a bit more imaginary cash on some decent imaginary technology, and equip it with optically flat windows of zero refractive index?)
Anyway, the internal reflections from a simple pane of glass are both boring and annoying - just a succession of ghost images superimposed on the original, but slightly offset. Would anyone want to see such a thing?

Grant

Grant,

Of course not.

What people enjoy seeing are pretty pictures, not accurate ones. And the limitations of not-so-modern optical technology and bad SciFi movies have conditioned everyone (including myself) to enjoy the complicated trains of internal optical reflections of multi-element zoom lenses.

SF movies commit a multitude of visual sins, including the lens flare effect (Lost in Space - The movie), Asteroids that are within visual range of each other (Empire Strikes Back), and objects fading into the distance.

As Special effects technology increases, so will these visual bells and whistles.

Its ironic, since the effects are introduced to make things look more 'realistic', because the human brain is used to seeing such artifacts because we live in an environment profoundly different from the stark vacuum of space. In a way, Celestia has the effect of placing us there as Olaf Stapleton's 'Wandering Viewpoint' from his book 'Star Maker', without visual distortion.

Its just that we aren't used to it.

I think there will always be tension between the visual realists (such as Grant and Toofri), and those who want more eye-candy. Both are equally valid positions. Perhaps there is a middle ground that we can all enjoy (such as a button to switch off lens flares and distance fogging), but I'm thinking that Chris and crew have bigger fish to fry, such as Binary stars done properly...

Oh to be a programmer who could help

At least my Pulsars add-on was vaguely accurate

Cheers,

Cormoran

granthutchison wrote:I never think of myself as looking through a window,...

So you see yourself as vacuum living lifeform but you actually ARE human aren't you???

granthutchison wrote:If you do have an imaginary Celestia spaceship, why not blow a bit more imaginary cash on some decent imaginary technology, and equip it with optically flat windows of zero refractive index?

Not bad. But thinking one step further, even with the most advanced technology imaginable, why should one build expensive optically flat windows at places, where the primary purpose is robustness and hull integrity? And even if - cruising half a year inside and between solar systems at relativistic speeds, visiting stars, comets, asteriods, ... - scratches and microimpacts would surely put an end to optical flatness.



I think what people are asking is not SO much pretty pictures but what they think are realistic ones. And you ARE surrounded by optical distortions every day in your life. If you wear glasses, if you look throught windows - concentrate on it, and you will see a lot of heavy distortions every second of your life. This won't change much in space because you always are surrounded by a human living environment. So the most realistic views you can imagine anywhere would always inherit distortions.

This struggle for 'realistic looking' computer generated images (real looking views, real looking surfaces/reflections/textures) is surely not something that's special to celestia, but a common effort in computer imaginery. So the demand for it, I think, is not completely rubbish from people looking too much scifi movies.

On the other hand, what people also are asking for, are aesthetical visions of space. In reality space views would be in most times dim, dull and grey, and all those auras, nebula, galaxies and star colors are combinations of shifting emission ranges from IR, UV and luminance into human visible areas. This artifical visualization helps to experience the real richness of things happening in the universe that are far beyond the limitations of human senses (think of why we collect radio signals to hear of how a planets magnetosphere 'sounds'). So I think it's not fair to beat on people, because they ask for more realistic (or at least alternate) vision capabilities.

maxim

Grant's human (I think). I'm not. My wife says I'm a greek god.... shame its Pan. (Little furry git with horns and hooves)

Maxim makes a good point. As we are aware, reality and our perception of it are entirely different things. Most of the nebula add-ons for Celestia (while excellent) aren't what a human eye would see, with or without windows, spectacles or explosive decompression. They're either colour enhanced, or in the Infrared, or the Ultraviolet.

Again, the question is whether Celestia should show a real view of the universe, or should it match peoples (slightly unrealistic) view of what it SHOULD look like...

Cormoran

maxim wrote:

granthutchison wrote:I never think of myself as looking through a window,...

So you see yourself as vacuum living lifeform but you actually ARE human aren't you???

Personally, I am all too human, but when I use Celestia I'm a god (or at least god like) . What I like most about Celestia is the disembodied freedom it gives.

Star Trek fans - wouldn't you rather experience the universe the way Q does than the way Picard does?

Adam

maxim wrote:So you see yourself as vacuum living lifeform

I just think of Celestia as providing the sort of disembodied viewpoint that Comoran describes.

maxim wrote:But thinking one step further, even with the most advanced technology imaginable, why should one build expensive optically flat windows at places, where the primary purpose is robustness and hull integrity?

You're the one who introduced the topic of windows in the first place, so I guess I'll have to leave you to discuss that with yourself.

maxim wrote:scratches and microimpacts would surely put an end to optical flatness.

Your imaginary technology clearly isn't as advanced as mine.

maxim wrote:if you look throught windows - concentrate on it, and you will see a lot of heavy distortions every second of your life. This won't change much in space because you always are surrounded by a human living environment. So the most realistic views you can imagine anywhere would always inherit distortions.

But, as I've already said, such distortions are dull and distracting - I think Selden's right that no-one would want to see them in Celestia, but I asked the question just in case there was a rush of people demanding optical distortions, scratches and thumbprints.

maxim wrote:So I think it's not fair to beat on people, because they ask for more realistic (or at least alternate) vision capabilities.

I'm sorry you think I'm "beating on" people. All I did at the start of this thread was disagree about the "realism" of lens flare in Celestia, and explain why Chris has said he has no plans to add lens effects.
Surely we get to disagree politely with each other? (We seem to be managing it at the moment, for instance.)

Grant

granthutchison wrote:

maxim wrote:if you look throught windows - concentrate on it, and you will see a lot of heavy distortions every second of your life. This won't change much in space because you always are surrounded by a human living environment. So the most realistic views you can imagine anywhere would always inherit distortions.

But, as I've already said, such distortions are dull and distracting - I think Selden's right that no-one would want to see them in Celestia, but I asked the question just in case there was a rush of people demanding optical distortions, scratches and thumbprints.
Grant

You can do it yourself with a few sneezes, some pizza and a chisel.

granthutchison wrote:I'm sorry you think I'm "beating on" people. All I did at the start of this thread was disagree about the "realism" of lens flare in Celestia, and explain why Chris has said he has no plans to add lens effects.

The second paragraph was more common, not specially adressed to you. Sorry if it was misunderstanding. It's only that in several threads demands of people for some visual effects are replied as being 'not how it really would look like', while the author doesn't explain what he thinks is 'reality'.

I also don't think that it's chris task to add those effects. If anybody desperately want them, he is of course encouraged to code them by himself and provide the result for Celestia. But I would disagree with anyone who insists on not adding those effects to Celestia if they would be available (with an option switch of course).

maxim

Well, look at sun, there is a big Halo around her, and you looking with no lens!

Toki,

The halo is either due to suspended dust or ice particles in the air, or is an artifact of the lens you're looking through, the lens that forms the forward structure of your eye. Might even be retinal overload...

I'd think it was likely to be the first reason rather than the second or third.

Cheers,

Cormoran

Comoran,

I think Toki is referring to the halo that Celestia draws (flare.jpg). It's a counter-example to the stated desire for Celestia not to show lens eflects.

I can't tell if that's what you were writing about

Oh, Dopey me

I'll shut up



Cormoran