Celestia Forums

After thinking about this alot and after all the sudden bashing-flameing of my addons on the ML, I have decided to not release the larger, more complex addons that were forthcoming.
I don't know what or why it started, but so be it.
I will still post in the forums when I finish one, but you willl have to contact me to get it.
Thanks,
Tim
ie-

The Wolf 359 is actually still a wip, sorry. Almost done though.
Thanks,
Tim

I love your addons. Can you send them to me please??

Add me to your list as well, if you would....

...John...

Tim?

Why do you give a big, flaming, wap what people think. It
makes you happy to create them, and it certainly makes many other people
happy to download and use them, so why do you care what a few people think?

You are good at making them, so continue.
To your critics, just go

I just echo Bob's sentiments

Bob definitely has the right of it! Besides, my view of the ML is that it is a place to store our add-ons, not a place to try and release the most glorious add-ons ever. The better the add-on, the better in general, of course. I left a comment on a recent add-on, but I'll echo the sentiments here, if not exactly:

Criticism of the meat and bones of the add-on, such as how the stars they are around, is both a sign of ignorance concerning the add-on, and disengenuous on the critic's part. Clearly they do not understand that the location of the add-on is determined by the Trek episode, not you the author. And if they would bother to look up some of this information, they might gain a clue. If anything, they should be criticizing the writer of the episode, and of course that means they should go to some Trek forum and start their little tantrums *there*.

Quite Frankly, I see the comments as next to useless. I once thought that they would be helpful, but people *never* post helpful criticism, which should contain ideas or pointers to help you improve. They only bitch about things, which I suppose is epidemic in almost any internet setting, unfortunately. Saying an add-on is "tacky", for instance, doesn't do squat. How is it tacky? What needs to be improved? What could be changed? But then, I've learned that, when on the Internet, people can type just enough to show their ugly sides. Often times, after that, they suddenly can't type anything further.

Anyway, I'm up way early, and I need to get back to sleep. My final thought (to coin a phrase) is this: Keep supplying add-ons to the Motherlode, and keep those of us who like them, and believe that you are truly trying to make a good product, happy. As for the critics who can't seem to do anything helpful, and only complain just to see how spiteful they can sound: screw 'em. Once they manage to make something, we'll talk. But until then, let them bloviate all they want... no one who matters is listening.

...John, who gets waaaay too verbose when he's half asleep!...

Dollan wrote:Quite Frankly, I see the comments as next to useless. I once thought that they would be helpful, but people *never* post helpful criticism, which should contain ideas or pointers to help you improve. They only bitch about things, which I suppose is epidemic in almost any internet setting, unfortunately. Saying an add-on is "tacky", for instance, doesn't do squat. How is it tacky? What needs to be improved? What could be changed? But then, I've learned that, when on the Internet, people can type just enough to show their ugly sides. Often times, after that, they suddenly can't type anything further.

This is primarily MY fault John...
I have the responsibility of approving comments, so I COULD stop these
types of comments if need be. I haven't really done this yet because I
was trying to be fair to everyone, but I have probably missed the mark here.

Please let me know about it...
Should I BAN comments which criticize an add-on? I hadn't thought so, but
the arguments concerning Star Trek territories had begun to reach idiotic
proportions in my opinion.

EDIT:
And remember that these things are supposed to be for FUN. Aren't they?
Again, let me know what you want to see there.
Thanks, Brain-Dead

BobHegwood wrote:This is primarily MY fault John...
I have the responsibility of approving comments, so I COULD stop these
types of comments if need be. I haven't really done this yet because I
was trying to be fair to everyone, but I have probably missed the mark here.

Please let me know about it...
Should I BAN comments which criticize an add-on? I hadn't thought so, but
the arguments concerning Star Trek territories had begun to reach idiotic
proportions in my opinion.

EDIT:
And remember that these things are supposed to be for FUN. Aren't they?
Again, let me know what you want to see there.
Thanks, Brain-Dead

Bob... I really don't think it is your fault, or anyone's. The truth is, people should have better common sense, and a better sense of netiquette. Hell, they should have a better sense of everyday manners. Most of them know that all comments will go through, because most sites DO try to be fair and give everyone a voice. And they also know that comment sections rarely allow debates. I think you've done an excellent job, and I know you've worried about just this issue (I'm subscribed to the Motherlode mailing list, but for whatever reason I cannot post TO the list). For my part, I would prefer that you worry more about the add-ons, and whether they are mechanically able to be posted to the site, rather than worrying about what some little kid is pounding out on his computer.

Like I said before, I used to think that these comment sections were a good idea. I knew there would be the occasional post that was nothing more than troll fodder. But I didn't expect there to be so much of it, especially considering the generally mature audience that Celestia supports and enjoys. In light of THAT, the comments section is almost useless now. The only posts *I* would personally allow are those which criticize the add-ons, and do so constructively. Even offer a pointer or two. Some of us, as creators, may still not like those types of comments, but that is where *WE* have to suck it up. Comments like, "A complete waste of time", etc., offer nothing. Comments like, "Poor textures; perhaps the author should use such and such a program", etc. are good.

Of course, positive reviews are always nice, too! None of us should ever *expect* such posts, but that just makes it all the ncier when we do get one.

I would also not allow anonymous posts; good or bad, if a person cannot take the time to offer something and take responsibility for it, then it is worthless.

Again, I think you've done a wonderful job at a most difficult task. Keep it up! And Fungun should continue to offer his work, and ignore the morons who can't post anything helpful. It IS supposed to be fun... and I ALWAYS enjoy what Celestia has to offer.

...John...
but no, you've done an excellent job, really.

Dollan wrote:Comments like, "A complete waste of time", etc., offer nothing. Comments like, "Poor textures; perhaps the author should use such and such a program", etc. are good.

To this statement, I completely agree.

Dollan wrote:Of course, positive reviews are always nice, too! None of us should ever *expect* such posts, but that just makes it all the ncier when we do get one.

I would also not allow anonymous posts; good or bad, if a person cannot take the time to offer something and take responsibility for it, then it is worthless.

This statement describes almost perfectly my own feelings. I believe that anonymous statements should NOT be allowed too.

Dollan wrote:Again, I think you've done a wonderful job at a most difficult task. Keep it up! And Fungun should continue to offer his work, and ignore the morons who can't post anything helpful. It IS supposed to be fun... and I ALWAYS enjoy what Celestia has to offer.

...John...
but no, you've done an excellent job, really.

Thanks for the moral support, but I have to disagree here. I was still learning, but now I need to draw the line
in a better way. Will continue to do so now. Many thanks for your helpful comments, and we'll see if we can
make the system better now.

Again, many thanks for your thoughts here. Will implement your suggestion immediately.

Don't let mean people stop you from sharing your add-ons. Don't forget those of us who do enjoy them.

"The inhabited planets are too cold or too hot." what, what????
If you think that makes or breaks an addon, then that's not good.

Re: Planetary temperature around binary stars
by ajtribick » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:06 pm

From what I've been able to tell, this issue is a "won't fix" one for the time being: the Celestia temperature model for planets is fairly dubious anyway (for a start, the albedo property appears to be treated as the Bond albedo, whereas in the renderer it is the visual albedo), even for just the 1 star. I believe Chris has mentioned that he is considering removing the temperature display entirely.
ajtribick

"Sometimes (like Risa) the planets are on orbit physically impossible.
Perhaps, fungun hasn't big knwoledge in mechanical astronomy and needs help for this."
I put them where Star Trek says they should be, maybe you should write the writers of Star Trek and let them know.
PLus use this calc to figure habitable planets-
http://www.bumply.com/astro.html

Tim

J.T.K,

Don't forget that Celestia's temperature calculation is wrong -- it's strictly a blackbody calculation which usually is irrelevant for planets with atmospheres.

J.T.K. wrote:I come back to tell you that fungun's systems are sometimes very eccentric.
The inhabited planets are too cold or too hot.
Sometimes (like Risa) the planets are on orbit physically impossible.
Perhaps, fungun hasn't big knwoledge in mechanical astronomy and needs help for this.

However, fungun create wonderful models and they are good quality .
Go on fungun !

Fungun is right, and I made this point before: the add-ons are created in accordance with how they are portrayed on Star Trek... real world physics has nothing to do with it. You might as well start complaining that the starships pictured are patently impossible, even though they are Star Trek cannon. Critiques like this are worse than useless, really. Now, if Fungun were making a system from scratch, then pointers on the mechanical astronomy side of things would mean something.

...John...

J.T.K. wrote:I come back to tell you that fungun's systems are sometimes very eccentric.
The inhabited planets are too cold or too hot.
Sometimes (like Risa) the planets are on orbit physically impossible.
Perhaps, fungun hasn't big knwoledge in mechanical astronomy and needs help for this.

However, fungun create wonderful models and they are good quality .
Go on fungun !

Keep in mind Star Trek is science fiction.

Yes, but the planet only orbits one of them, not all of them.
From Memory-Alpha

"Originally a dismal, rain-soaked, and geologically unstable jungle planet plagued by violent earthquakes, the native Risans transformed their world with a technologically sophisticated weather control network that provided nearly constantly desirable weather, and seismic regulators to eliminate the geological instability for optimum tourist comfort. (TNG: "The Mind's Eye"; DS9: "Let He Who Is Without Sin...")
Known for its beautiful tropical resorts and abundance of pristine beaches, Risa was a popular tourist destination since at least the 22nd century. (ENT: "Two Days and Two Nights") "

Maybe because it passes close to the other star once in awhile.
Also from Memory-Alpha-

The non-canon Star Trek: Star Charts put Risa around the binary star Epsilon Ceti located 88 light years from Sol in the constellation Cetus ("Whale").

From Memory-Beta

Epsilon Ceti was a trinary star system containing three F class stars. The system is situated in the Beta Quadrant, relatively near Mazar, Paraaga, Castor, and FGC-983, in a sector on the Alpha/Beta Quadrant boarder. The system contained at least two planets, in orbit of the B star, the second of which was the popular tourist destination, Risa. The system was also adjacent to a major space lane, running out of Beta Rigel. (ST reference: Star Charts)

And

Star Charts places Epsilon Ceti between 40 and 50 lightyears out from Earth relative to the galactic plane; as the charts are a two dimensional representation of three dimensional space this still gives leeway to the real world location of Epsilon Ceti, which is 88 lightyears from Earth[1]. Star Charts also appears to mark the system in the same sector as the Briar Patch, which Star Trek: Insurrection gives as Sector 441, however, similarly, due to the two-dimensional nature of the Star Charts, the two locations may only be in the same stack of sectors rather than the same sector.

So in most opinions Star Charts is not always right, close but...
So you can go at it but what is printed and written about, or you can be all scientific like.
Or you can just use the addons , not sweat the small stuff and have fun

I just don't pop these out at random, I read, gather what info is out there, and decide what represents that info the best.

Tim

Well , you will have to figure the mass, absmag, temperature, visual luminosity, and bolometric luminosity, of all the stars combined to get a realistic life zone measurement. Not to mention all the gravity involved to get stable orbits.

Makes my head hurt thinking about it.
My way is much easier.

Tim

The ML will list an addon updated if the screen shots change or even I think if a new comment is added.
It doesn't mean the addon itself has been updated. Confuseing I know.
The screen shots of those maps you put on there have been deleted, so the ML says it has been updated.
The updates I sent are waiting for approval.

Tim

I did fix the J-25 system stc file.

990082 "J 25"
{
RA 199.7295
Dec -23.172
Distance 7133
SpectralType "F5V-IV"
AbsMag 2.66
Texture "errai_b.jpg"
}

Using Gam Hya as a guide. It is in the right direction, according to the Star Charts map.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhWpR8QVrtY

Tim

J.T.K. wrote:Yes Reiko, I agree with you, Star Trek is science fiction.
However universe laws are the same in all universe !

Are you okay to replace USS Enterprise by a magic carpet ?
No, so for me and others, it's the same for systems addons properties.

The Enterprise is a magic carpet seeing as warp drive is science fiction. There have been planets in Star Trek that seem to defy the laws of physics as we know them. One example is the system Picard was studying in a holographic display during a first season episode, maybe second season. It showed a planet whose orbit would suddenly shift 45 degrees relative to the rest of its orbit. Then there was a bazaar planet in Voyager that spun so fast, that years on the surface would pass in seconds relative to the rest of the universe. I would be surprised if any scientist who regularly watches Star Trek says there is a great deal of scientific accuracy in the shows.

As for the maps and star locations. They are completely open to interpretation since Star Trek has never been consistent about how fast warp drive really is. In the original show the Enterprise has been known to cross distances of 900 light years in a matter of hours. In The Next Generation the Enterprise would take years to travel 7000 light years. In the show Enterprise it is revealed that a trip of 50 light years at maximum warp (warp 5) takes about three months which is consistent with the speed chart published in the Star Trek encyclopedia. However, Enterprise ignored that speed chart in the very first episode by saying it was 4 days from Earth to the klingon home world at warp 5. That would place Qo'noS closer to Earth than Alpha Centauri is.

Keep in mind there is nothing official about the Star Trek Star charts book. That book is based on a fan created map found here.
http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/Atlas.htm

Then you have a map that was actually seen in a show. http://www.stdimension.org/Cartography/ ... p_mw3d.gif

Star trek is my favorite science fiction but I learned long ago not to expect consistency or scientific accuracy.