Celestia 1.7.0 Development will begin soon

[gironde]

Yes, it is good news that the resumption of work on Celestia 1.7

Since version 1.6.1, add-ins have appeared as L.E.T. Or L.U.T. And they made it possible to use Celestia differently.

Internal bugs have to be corrected first, I think:
- display of the names of the nebulae which makes appear a green pad above the model in extra
- the oblivion of a class galaxy in the files ssc which obliges to put them in 'nebula' so that the addons appear.

Great thanks to programmers

A French enthusiast!

[Emma1410]

Thats good news!!

[John Van Vliet]

i am assuming that qt4 and 5 will be the dev environment

there for the gtk2/ glut and kde3 code can be removed ?

[Alexell]

John Van Vliet, maybe.

[Mzbuj]

Celestia for VR, from construction side it is possible I think. Best Regards.

[HB]

I'm glad to known that Celestia development continues. My last update was a 1.6.1 build from a few years ago. In the meantime other SW developments force me to use a VS 2015 enviroment. To startup rebuilding the Celestia sources I tryed this VS2015 release.
You can guess that it isn't working smootly. So I wonder if I have to go back to the V++ compilers of 2008 or 2010?

[Alexell]

Nippeltje, I am an amateur programmer, I do not know all the details of Celestia code and work in VS, so installed VS 2008, so as not to risk it.

[Janus]

Right now I have VS 2008/2010 project/solutions working.
Making VS2010 support a 64-bit build is being a pain.

While you can import into newer versions of VS and update, it will make a mess.
It works better to copy the sln/vcprojx files to something named for the VS version, and import the renamed copy.
If you open then 'save as', VS still modifies the original.

I am currently making VS 2012/2013/2015 project/solutions.
Part of the difficulty is maintaining XP compatibility, most of the rest is 64-bit.
Once I have 64-bit working in VS2010, I will take it all forward.
I am trying to get it all working, though I admit to severe limits to my own knowledge.

For those who say to drop XP support, no thank you.
I still prefer it to 7, which I am forced to use.
Fortunately I am able to get most of the functionality back, though sadly, the control panel and some other stuff remains broken.
Without explorer++ I would be lost, and even that needed a custom build.
As for win 8/8.1, yuck!!!!!!
They are at best an intentionally broken P.O.S.

I personally do not consider 10 to even be windows.

I will be so happy when ReactOS goes beta and I can drop M$ completely.

Good luck, VS is a pain.


Janus.

[HB]

As member of the old forum (as of 2003, I think. Username HB) I'd like to contribute again with developing. One of the projects of my will be to make it possible to build Celestia with the latest available free C++ compilers. If that works than a 64bit version is more easy to make.

To get that done, proper access to the master repository, as what it was in the old day's, is important. I just want to compare the master-repository regularly with my version of files stored locally. Import the new ones and use them in my projects.

A simple path to https://github.com/CelestiaProject/Celestia isn't working well with Tortoise SVN.
I wonder if the repository on https://svn.code.sf.net/p/celestia/code/ is still useable and up to date?

I've authorization to Github, but when I try to import files than I get access errors when using that Github url.
Because the last 3 years there was not so much activity in new Celestia developments that I have pay less attention to it. So it is more than likely that I've made a mistake somewhere.

HB

Added after 2 hours 49 minutes:
To Janus

I agree with you regarding the use of Win7. That's my favourite platform too, maybe even till the end of support by MS (2020).

Unfortunately for XP, only a 32 bit version is possible. On a XP platform there's also no focus on hard- and software developments. So I guess that Celestia v1.6.1 remains as the latest release for XP-machines.
Celestia must be suitable for all Windows x86/x64 platforms (7, 8, 8.1, 10). So perhaps two versions are needed or in a combined x86/x64 version. The latter is preferable but more difficult to build. To start with that it's important to obtain the x64 windows libraries for lua, jpg, png, zlib etc.

Also I read that you're busy too with rebuilding Celestia with all kind of compiler versions. What I know so far is that VC++ 2008 express edition will rebuild the downloaded repository files from https://github.com/CelestiaProject/Celestia without any problem (32bit only of coarse)
Later versions of these express editions have sometimes modified libraries which are not backwards compatible or compile and link switches must be set differently.
Nevertheless, I just started again with my Celestia project, so I have to setup the environment first before I can go further. But one step at the time.

HB

[Janus]

To Nippeltje

I have XP in 32 & 64 bit versions, both work just fine.
VS2010 will output 64 bit programs that run on XP with no problem at all.
I have done this with explorer++ during testing to move to 7.

7 is not my favorite, 2K remains that, but XP is good as well, and just works.
I am simply able to make 7 usable.
To make 7 usable for me takes, classic shell, 7+ task bar tweaker, network activity indicator, voidtools everything, & explorer++.
Then disabling libraries, built in search & indexing, pinning, and numerous other reg tweaks to get rid of garbage like archive integration in explorer.
Even with all that, I am still unable to simply click in the middle of the desktop and have everything to do with the desktop right there together in one easy to use menu, settings remain scattered at random.
Whatever the logic is to 7, it escapes me.
To me, the entire design is a major step backwards.

The reason I am making separate versions of the sln/vsprojx files for each VS version is they make changes without telling you.
Once a newer VS touches any sln/vsprojx files, it makes changes that make going back hard.
Since not everyone will have the same VS versions, I make it easy to keep them all separate.
I have also tweaked my setup so that compiling with one versions, does not impinge on another.
Each compiler versions puts its temp files in its own tree, that way no cross contamination occurs.
Right now I have VS 2008/10/12 sln/vsprojx files & QT4/5, and each goes into its own place.
I can compile the same copy of celestia with all of those compilers, and none of them will step on each other.
Each keeps its files to itself, and the celestia exe is labelled according to what compiled it.
Right now I have

celestia-qt4.exe
celestia-qt5.exe
celestia-vs2k8.exe
celestia-vs2k10x86.exe
celestia-vs2k10x64.exe

Though the last one crashes on launch, an issue I am working on.
Getting all the support stuff compiled in 64-bit is hard.

One of things I am working on is a middle click select the nearest star, to help me navigate since selecting by clicking on them stars is hard.
I have others with things like putting the coordinates of stars in XYZ format in lightyears up, or mouse coordinates in pixels, but those are for my own use.

Janus.

[HB]

Hi Janus,

It sounds very promising with what you doing. I'm not so far yet. Anyway maybe we can help each other. But I've no experience with QT stuff. I've to confess that I have no idea what it is. I've used only Visual Studio versions since the time of Windows NT.
I think that 64b release for XP/2000 do not contribute to a better performance of Celestia on these platforms just because of the limitation of processor speed and graphic behaviour. Win2000 is indeed a very robust system but slow.

You wrote that you've disabled libraries. You mean also the VS redistributables of C++ of 2005, 2008, 2010 and so on? I think you need those. Applications often rely on these libraries.

You wrote that a middle click should select the nearest star. Do you mean the nearest visible star? The visibility of stars depends on the Magnitude setting in Celestia.

The earlier releases of Celestia uses Ascension, Declination and Light-years for the coordinates.

A good tool as aid for developing is the MS Dependency Walker. It tells you what dll or library is needed for certain functions.

Regards,

HB.

[John Van Vliet]

XP !!!!

you might as well run RH7 from 1998 or RH9 from 2001

why is this 16 year old GARBAGE a ZOMBIE!!!!!!

--- DIE --- ZOMBIE --- DIE ---


it is unsupported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

for those interested my github page builds using qtcreator5 ( qmake4) or using autotools and gcc 4.8 and png 16
https://github.com/JohnVV/MyCelestiaBuild

[HB]

Hi John,

Do the files in your Celestia build have the original file date and time stamp? Like the ones in the SF repository? (Except, of coarse, the ones which has been modified.)
Unfortunately all the files in the Github release from Alexell's repository have the same date and timestamp from a few days ago. So a major part of the history is gone.

I'm succeeded to do a checkout with the aid of Tortoise SVN of the repository https://svn.code.sf.net/p/celestia/code/. The files still have the original timestamps (means the last commit time).

HB

[Janus]

To Nippeltje

The libraries I mentioned are an M$ method organizing files in explorer, which I find abhorrent.
All DLL functions left alone.

Yes I mean nearest visible for middle click, I often find myself unable to accurately click the star I want without lots of work, very irritating.


To JVV

Is there a reason for disparaging another person's choice or preference of OS?
I have tried several variations of linux and found them unsuitable for me.
Yet I do not say bad or nasty things about any of them.
While they are improving in some ways, they do not match how I work so I do not use them.

Yes I pick on the newer versions of windows, but that is because they deliberately broke a working and proven design.
Linux has yet to have a desktop design I like or can use.
When it does, I will see how well it works for me.
Until then I wait.

Or is there some problem you have with me?

Janus?

[John Van Vliet]

it is NOT!!!!! "disparaging another person's choice"

XP-sp1,XP-sp2 ,XP-sp3 are ALL unsupported
DEAD AND BURIED ( except for the usa navy and they are spending tens of millions)

unsupported
on security fixes
NOTHING!!@!!!!!!

and is starting to have a very serous issue with libs that are NO LONGER supported
the current firefox will not even work on it


old software is NOT like a old car !!!!
there is nothing "Classic" about it
other than it is VERY VERY DANGEROUS TO EVERY ONE ON THE NET!!!!!!!

.

[Janus]

I have no intention of participating in a flame war.
So please, stop doing the equivalent of shouting by using all caps, it looks childish.

Apparently your emotions run very high on this, or apparently toward anyone who disagrees with you.

While the OS (XP) is unsupported, the UI on the newer versions of windows out of the box, is garbage.
What good is an OS to you, if the UI is unusable to you?

The UIs for Linux that I have tried are even worse for me than win7.

I am not saying that Linux is unfit for use, I am saying it does not work for me.
Without major work, neither does win7.
Starting with Vista, M$ deliberately removed numerous features, many of which I need, or simply like a lot.
Win8 and later are simply beyond salvage.

Any operating system is unsafe on the net, if the user does stupid things.
I am careful when I browse the net, and I always have been.
I take precautions, like any sane person.
My router is stateful, and provides a webpage that updates every ten seconds with current connections to the net.
IE is firewalled, by a third party firewall, which is a real one instead of that piece of fecal matter M$ made..
OE is removed, as is IIS.
Update is disabled, and I select which I want individually.
Most of my normal use software is opensource.

In short, whether 2K or XP or 7, I trim the OS to what I need, and take precautions.
Nothing directly runs from the net, everything downloads, and my firewall lets me control not only what programs run, but where they can connect to.

While you may find the random scattered UI(s) of linux usable, I do not.
I can find no logic to how any of the Linux UI(s) are arranged, so I do not use them.
I also do not get along with the logic of the Linux directory tree, which I freely admit to being confused by.
If you can find the logic, then please, feel free to use them.
Linux appears to be based exclusively on user profiles and keeping everything in one, which I find difficult to use.
I like drive letters for drives, and I rapidly tired of Linux giving me file permission errors.
Keeping track of all the groups I was supposed to do something with was far to much work, and easier for me to solve in windows.

While you may get along with the garbage UI M$ is putting out lately, I do not.
I like logic to how things are put together.
It does not matter how theoretically secure an OS is, if it is unusable to you, then it is useless.

If you wish to continue this conversation, please use private messages or email rather than venting as you have been.
It is not fitting to use this forum the way you have been.

If you are however, an example of the discourse I can look forward to on this site, then I question the need to continue here.
I have my own site, and I can go my own way.

Janus.

[Alexell]

Nippeltje, GitHub does not work with TortoiseSVN. You need to install or TortoiseGit.

[Alexell]

Today I fixed the repository on GitHub - now his address https://github.com/CelestiaProject/Celestia
Celestia User Name unfortunately was occupied, and I do not want to use my nickname in link to Celestia repository, because it is a great community project.

I also launched a task tracker, which can be set specific objectives and discuss their implementation, and so on.

[Fenerit]

XP !!!!

you might as well run RH7 from 1998 or RH9 from 2001

why is this 16 year old GARBAGE a ZOMBIE!!!!!!

--- DIE --- ZOMBIE --- DIE ---


it is unsupported!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

John,
surely you do recall the warfare of CISC vs. RISC cpu architectures and their struggle about the "portable compatibily" of scalar software and such now dead questions. At the time, at least in Europe, few people dealt with Apple computers because expensive and system-close, while PCs - being not a niche - had in M$ OSes a linear growth in functions and options following a rationale (like it or dislike it), without the need to change the hardware along the software and viceversa. All this up to Xp. Thereafter, from Vista and above, such a rationale gone onto a trashcan. Functions were dismisses from their place, options jumps elsewhere and so on: just to set apart their users, those users on whom M$ got its fortune - like Janus well pointed out and with whom I agree. All this toward a target: make all OS like a browser, net dependent, just because M$ did lost the battle concerning the IE integration within the OS; say, was this thing so important? Then it mean that the future is a whole addiction of people for the net operations, no matter what browser they will install, its interaction within the operating system will make the OS acting like such: the OS and user interaction will be of the same - cloudy - kind. This way of life did brought Apple to born again and Linux to stand. Hence an Xp user is proud that M$ no longer support such an OS and you might be happy, because it mean that many people will switch to Linux, because Xp will be their last fuc|<ing M$ operating system.

[john71]

Well, I can use virtually all my Windows software from the Windows 98 period...with little tricks...on a 64 bit Windows 10...and I like Linux too. Just saying.