Motherlode Peer Group Review

[Tuefish]

Spring cleaning in january!
I like this idea, and will give as much input as I can.

[SkyScraper]

The reason I hesitate is that I can add the necessary code for those
who do NOT know how to create the SSC files, and I can also
explain the installations. Should I do this, or simply DELETE the
offending add-ons?

I like the ideea of deleting old and outdated addons but if the textures are aligned corectly and the model is good i dont see
any reason to delete them.

If you dont have the approval to modify the addon by it's creator you could place a patch just beneath the download link thet
can contain any missing data and could be updated anytime by an administrator.
Like this


It's just a thought.

[John Van Vliet]

yes i know i do believe they are from 2004
i am in the process of rezipping new files with all the needed .ssc, .ctx, README

[Fightspit]

I notice that the "64K Jestr Earth Mark" in Earth surface map section is not realistic because it is not based from the BMNG but a previous Blue Marble (42k):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... _2002.html

Before the release of the BMNG, I have got it and I didn't know it is an 'upscaling' of the 42K Blue Marble.
Later I decided to create a 64K and 128K when the BMNG (84k) has been available in October 2005 and the 128K it is not 'true' as t00fri mentionned few time ago .

After your request to delete the earth textures I created, I have been agree because I thnik it is important to have the best addons in Motherlode and deleted the others 'junk' addons and now I use the fantastic 64K base + spec + last-cartrite-wartermask with the FTextool (thanks again t00fri ).

Bob, I think you can keep the 32K but not the 64K because of my explanation above.

Here the links of the two '64K' version (JPG and DDS):

http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catal ... ddon_id=59
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catal ... ddon_id=60

What do you think ?

[BobHegwood]

First of all, and at John's request I have deleted the offending VT's
listed above. Thanks very much John. Again, I could have added
everything a newbie needed to use the files, but this would have
taken quite a while, and I really should NOT be modifying old files
so that they work.

Hence, they are now GONE.

Concerning Fightspit's add-ons, I'll go have a look and report back.

Thanks, Bob

[BobHegwood]

I notice that the "64K Jestr Earth Mark" in Earth surface map section is not realistic because it is not based from the BMNG but a previous Blue Marble (42k):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... _2002.html

Bob, I think you can keep the 32K but not the 64K because of my explanation above.

Here the links of the two '64K' version (JPG and DDS):

http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catal ... ddon_id=59
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/catal ... ddon_id=60

What do you think ?

I left these VT's on the site because they were the ONLY Blue
Marble textures which were MODIFIED by Jestr so that they DID
include missing data from the North Pole. I don't know HOW the
data was arrived at, but it was included (unlike the other VT's
which WERE deleted.)

Since we have a scarcity of Earth VT's, I still think that these
should be left alone. Now, if someone wishes to add a more
accurate 64K, 32K Earth VT, please feel free to do so.

Thanks, Bob

[BobHegwood]

If you dont have the approval to modify the addon by it's creator you could place a patch just beneath the download link thet
can contain any missing data and could be updated anytime by an administrator.
It's just a thought.

SkyScraper,

I have been trying very hard to keep add-ons with problems
by adding helpful instructions for newbies in the add-on details
which are available by clicking on the magnifying glasses. I have done
this for a good number of older add-ons in order to make it perfectly
clear just HOW the add-on SHOULD be installed or modified for the
best effect.

Go have a look at what I've done so far, and you'll see what I
mean.

Thanks, Bob

[BobHegwood]

Just FYI...

At Fenerit's request, I have deleted his Earth and Mars Core
representations from the SolarSystem category. Apparently, he's
working on new versions for upload.

Thanks, Bob

[BobHegwood]

Latest candidate for deletion is HERE.
This is McWgog's 512-byte Mimas Bump Map and 512-byte Mimas
surface texture.
Do we really need to keep these add-ons around when much better,
and higher-resolution images are available by the boatload?

Comments?

[Adirondack]

Do we really need to keep these add-ons around when much better, and higher-resolution images are available by the boatload?

No, we do not really need to keep this old stuff. Kick it away!

Adirondack

[Johaen]

This is McWgog's 256-byte Mimas Bump Map and 512-byte Mimas surface texture.
Do we really need to keep these add-ons around when much better,
and higher-resolution images are available by the boatload?

Comments?

One could argue that since (unless I'm very blind) this seems to be the only bumpmap pf Mimas on the Motherlode, then maybe it should be kept. I'm not going to debate the accuracy of it, but it at least creates a nice looking shaded effect, especially when using the included unshaded base texture.

[BobHegwood]

Appreciate the reply, but do we still even need Bump Maps?

Serious question here. I thought that Normal Maps covered this
procedure since 1.4.1?

Other comments?

Thanks, Bob

[Johaen]

Appreciate the reply, but do we still even need Bump Maps?

Serious question here. I thought that Normal Maps covered this
procedure since 1.4.1?

Are there any Mimas normal maps on the Motherlode?

[chris]

Appreciate the reply, but do we still even need Bump Maps?

Serious question here. I thought that Normal Maps covered this
procedure since 1.4.1?

Other comments?

Thanks, Bob

For reasons discussed in detail elsewhere on the forum, normal maps are to be preferred over bump maps. That doesn't mean that bump maps should be automatically rejected, but a planet bump map that's only 256x128 (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 256 byte) is useless. You need more resolution to capture variations in surface height over the surface of a planet. Mimas is one of the few bodies where there's a feature (Herschel crater) large enough and with enough relief relative to the overall size of the moon that you'll see some trace of it in such a small bump map. But, it won't look pretty . . .

--Chris

[BobHegwood]

That doesn't mean that bump maps should be automatically rejected, but a planet bump map that's only 256x128 (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 256 byte) is useless.
--Chris

That is exactly what I meant. Thanks for the confirmation.

EDIT: I screwed up here... The maps are BOTH 512x256 in
resolution, and I'll go ahead and leave them on the ML since no one
else cares to comment.

Thanks, Brain-Dead

[cpotting]

Bob,

I just happened to be reading through this thread when my brother came over and asked me what I was doing. I explained the idea of the Motherlode and the problems (which addons are "good", which ones stillwork, etc.). I showed him the Motherlode site and ran him through the basics of how things are stored and retrieved.

He had a few suggestions that I thought I would pass along:

1) The current ratings for each addon would be expanded. Essentially, users should be able add ratings for the addon for each version of Celestia. This would allow an addon that may have been rated Excellent when it was introduced in version X to be stay Excellentfor version X, but only be rated good 2 years later when everyone is using version Y.

2) When a new version of Celestia is introduced, all current addons begin with an initial rating of "unrated" or "untested" or somesuch.

3) When a user logs on to the Motherlode, they would have the ability to apply a simple set of filters to the list of addons to be shown: a version of Celestia and a rating. Only addons that have been rated at the indicated level or better for the indicated version or later would be displayed. Of course the user would have the option to select ALL for either filter.

4) For each addon displayed, a small textual or graphic histogram would indicate the percentage of users who have rated the addon as bad, not so good, etc.

The general idea is to push as much work to the users as possible. Users would decide which addons are best suited for each version, in a similar way to the way the Wikipedia entries are policed by the people who create them.

It would be very easy for new users (or those not knowledgeable about a particular area - like textures) to see what others think about each of the addons and to see that what was an absolutely fabulous Mars texture from last year is now considered so-so (it may be because of advances in Celestia and graphic cards or because a better addon came out - the user really wouldn't care - they would just see which addon is rated best for this version of Celestia).

Additionally, over time, users will either stop using antiquated or poor addons and they will either have just poor ratings or no rating for later versions - these can then be easily found and made candidates for deletion.

My brother had many other ideas, and actually, his suggestions were much more intricate (involving user reviews for each addon with ratings giving to the review - like IMDB does). We talked about making it too complex and came to an agreement that the above seems like it would involve the fewest and simplest changes for the most benefit. Things like the histograms can apparently be done using free Google web applications rather than adding extensive coding to the website. I'm not a web expert, but my brother assures me that it is all doable.

We also thought it would be good to add an additional drop-down selection to the upload page where the creator can indicate if the addon is "purely scientifically accurate", "contains interpolations or assumptions" or "fictional" - additional gradings could be added (I think only 3 are needed).

Anyway - I thought I would pass this on. In my opinion, these changes would go a long way into turning the Motherlode into my idea of the perfect Motherlode.

[BobHegwood]

Clive,

I very much appreciate the suggestions you listed, but they do ME
absolutely no good. Ulrich and/or Harald would have to implement
your suggestions as I simply do what I do, and do NOT have the
ability to modify the Motherlode's coding.

Nor do I ever wish to.

I'm just doing the grunt work because that's the only thing I'm any
good at.

Thanks very much for your thoughts though. Ulrich reads these posts
so he may respond.

Take care, Brain-Dead

[BobHegwood]

Reason for proposed deletion. Read the comments and notice the
"Not So Good" rating. Also, these are HUGELY taxing files when
installed in Celestia. Please be aware too, that Arlene Ducao has a number
of other asteroid files in this category which will remain where they
are.

Comments?

EDIT: Arlene has given her okay to delete this
add-on from the ML, so it will no longer be available now.

[abramson]

Latest deletion candidate is located HERE

It's true that such massive rendering of asteroids is very taxing for Celestia, at least with current machines. It may be dissappointing for beginers, also.

Much better than this would be a script to extract, from mpcorb.dat, asteroids according to criteria. It's fantastic to see only the trojans, for example. I did it years ago but my script was not good enough. I believe that somebody else made a celx able to convert orbit parameters into .ssc files.

I wish I had time for this, it mustn't be difficult at all. I'm sure all the documentation is somewhere in Selden's website.

This said, if the data are correct, shouldn't it be left there, with a GOOD warning? Now, checking that for correctness...

Guillermo

[selden]

I wish I had time for this, it mustn't be difficult at all. I'm sure all the documentation is somewhere in Selden's website.

I've never tried to document how to translate from the format used by mpcorb.dat. It is straight forward, I seem to recall. I did it only once when I was trying to reproduce the orbital relationships claimed for the various asteroid families. Since my initial attempts did not show the expected family relationships, I decided I must be doing something wrong, but pressure from other projects kept me from spending more time on it.