Celestia Forums

I want to stress once again that the CML was made by "Alphap1us"
to provide a platform for everybody who wants to share addons.

Before the CML, all addons were scattered around the world wide web
and everybody complained about that formerly fact.
And now a few people always are complaining about the CML.
What a wonderful motivation for all of the volunteers on the CML
who are spending (wasting ?) their spare time to keep it running.

What I want to say is that the CML is not only for the specialists
(though they are welcome of course) but for all non-specialists also.
Celestia too is for everybody, not only for the physicists and scientists.
Or did I understand the intention of Celestia wrong?

It is easy for David Copperfiled to say "What a bullshit" when he would
see a magician on an ordinary wedding party. He don't say such things but
he says: "You are good. Go on and improve your skills. Do you want some
helping instruction by me?".
He would surely not spread complaints about beginners...

So I can't see any reason why some people always are shooting to the CML.
The CML only provides what other people want to share.
Not more and not less.
And I don't see that it should be the task of the volunteers to decide what
is good and what is not so good (except real crap that is rejected since a
few years).

Since Bob is examining the addons now (he has got the time to do this time
consuming task), some older addons were deleted already or will be deleted
in the future.

But will this stop the complaints about the CML?


Adirondack

But will this stop the complaints about the CML?

Of course not, since the real problem of the ML was not addressed.

The most frequent complaint about the ML actually tends to come from Newbies, who feel lost among the wide range of add-on offers of "debatable" quality and functionality. After experiencing frequently that the add-ons they downloaded (partly during a long time) don't work properly with the /current/ version of Celestia or that the textures are of low quality or even incorrect, the frustration rises high. As experience showed, many texture contributors at ML don't know what a central meridian is, let alone how it has to be correctly placed for proper alignment in celestia. Another important issue is the frequent lack of references to original data sources from which the add-on was made.

This attitude contributes STRONGLY to spreading IGNORANCE. Also NON-scientists have a right to know what the origin of a particular add-on texture is.

Sharing is great, but sharing crap is "slightly" less great

Bye Fridger

Well, a comment or to from the OTHER guy trying to help here...

I think, Ulrich, that the main problem we have with the criticism has
to do with IDENTIFYING what is real vs what is fictional. This really
IS a difficult task for someone who has no scientific background, but it
is also very difficult because even the "approved" scientific textures
and other add-ons contain varying amounts of fiction.

The cloud maps for Venus are a good example. I trashed one texture
because it was COMPLETELY fictional. Or rather, I should say that we
placed it in a fictional category. However, the remaining Venus cloud
map is ALSO a fictional representation of the planet's cloud cover.

The reason it remains where it is, is because this add-on contains a
clear statement which describes how the map was generated by
NASA and Seal.

How then SHOULD we categorize the add-ons? I am making my
best attempts to place the stuff where I think it should go, and
would very much appreciate ANY insight into realism from the
more educated of you here in the Celestia community.

If you have an insight which I do NOT have concerning a
particular add-on, please feel free to send me an e-mail, PM, or
whatever you wish. I am freely open to suggestions, so lemme
have it.

Please be patient with us though. This effort is a LOT of work, and
Ulrich deserves nothing but praise for his CONTINUING efforts to
keep this valuable free resource alive when others have clearly
abandoned the project.

Thanks, Brain-Dead

It has always been my impression that the CML is purely a repository for add-ons. While some basic organization is fine, of course (and I haven't had cause to complain as it has always seemed VERY straight forward to me), learning about how to manipulate files, how to install them, and so forth should be squarly on the shoulders of those searching and downloading. You don't go to a library to learn how to read. Neither do you go to the CML to learn how to run Celestia and properly use it. This forum, and Selden's excellent pages, are more than up to the task for that.

Frankly, considering the complaints that those who volunteer their time at the CML put up with, the vast majority of which are beyond their control anyway, I'm surprised that they haven't tossed it out in pure disgust.

That being said, I DO have one suggestion: as a part of the upload process, in the initial questionaire, it would be very helpful for everyone if they were asked what version of Celestia was used to make the add-on.

...John...

Dollan wrote:You don't go to a library to learn how to read.

Yes, and if in a library you don't know what books to look for, what books are good and which are bad, your visit will end in plenty of frustration.

Frankly, considering the complaints that those who volunteer their time at the CML put up with, the vast majority of which are beyond their control anyway, I'm surprised that they haven't tossed it out in pure disgust.

Don't forget that the bad maintaining of add-ons in the ML relative to the current Celestia code has led to many hours of bug hunting as well for the devs, myself included! The typical scenario is that people tacitly had loaded crappy add-ons from ML without telling in their bug reports about Celestia.... I will be glad to report about a few keen examples if you are interested

In general, it should be obvious that the critique of the ML situation in in NO WAY a criticism of the people who have volunteered to maintain it! It is rather a critique of tha basic setup. I can easily cut together for you plenty of complaints by newbies who felt lost in the vast amount of stuff at ML, not knowing what to select for download. In the forum we have a substantial amount of pleas by users of various experience levels that lists with WORTHWHILE software from the ML should be circulated, since they felt at a complete loss....

Bye Fridger

t00fri wrote:The most frequent complaint about the ML actually tends to come from Newbies

Hm, I have the impression that the most frequent complaint about the CML actually
tends to come from you. Nevertheless I don't want to discuss this impression.

dollan wrote:You don't go to a library to learn how to read.
Neither do you go to the CML to learn how to run Celestia and properly use it.

That's the point.

As far as I can see, this thread will become an endless
discussion and I will not continue to take part in this thread.


Adirondack

Adirondack wrote:

t00fri wrote:The most frequent complaint about the ML actually tends to come from Newbies

Hm, I have the impression that the most frequent complaint about the CML actually tends to come from you.
Adirondack

Not at all. Since I do not use it myself, I don't really complain unless it costs my time hunting for Celestia bugs that turn out to be due to malfunctions of unscreened ML add-ons. I confess that in the course of the revival of the ML discussion in this thread, some old things came up again from my side.

I certainly would not want to put any of my own work there, since the ML does not assure high-quality standards. The lack of high-quality screening and a working peer-review scheme at ML is not a criticism, it's a fact. One initiative from our side into the right direction was the creation of CelestialMatters... It's up to users to decide for quantity or quality.

Bye Fridger

Actually I think the main problem is not with CML, but rather with Celestia.

The way addons are handled by Celestia is rather crude to say the least... They are no more than bunches of files thrown together in a directory with no meta data whatsoever. Adding to that the fact that addons tend to break from one version to another...

I think we would gain a lot in useability and compatibility by using a deb or rpm like format which would include meta data like:
- name
- version
- date
- author
- license
- description
- manifest
- compatible celestia versions
- screenshots
- depends-on
- provides

It would then be easy for Celestia to warn the user of incompatibilities or missing dependencies. Of course there would still be the possibility for the addon author to provide invalid information, but it would still be better than no information at all.

t00fri wrote:
I certainly would not want to put any of my own work there, since the ML does not assure high-quality standards. The lack of high-quality screening and a working peer-review scheme at ML is not a criticism, it's a fact. One initiative from our side into the right direction was the creation of CelestialMatters... It's up to users to decide for quantity or quality.

Bye Fridger

I for one, do really appreciate the effort you guys have put into the
CM site also. If I want a realistic texture, I go looking there first.
Again, I THANK you guys for this marvelous resource.

That being said, however, the Motherlode does serve a useful
and valuable purpose to those in the world who do NOT have
such high critical standards. If a guy just wishes to explore the
Universe, it should not matter all that much that a particular
planet does not have accuracy down to the square foot.

It SHOULD be readily apparent when particular textures and
features do include fictitious data though, and this is what we
are trying to do thus far. Some of your own (not yours personally)
CM textures feature some fictitious information too, so it looks
to me as if we're all in the same boat here.

I will admit, however, that your CM textures are much more
critically examined, and this fact IS appreciated by myself and
others I'm sure.

Finally, let me quote an old and famous saying from America's
past history:

Can't we all just get along?

Thanks, Brain-Dead

Adirondack wrote:
As far as I can see, this thread will become an endless
discussion and I will not continue to take part in this thread.


Adirondack

I agree. My only further comments are in regards to my fervent hopes that the CML remains, and that people continue to upload their creations to it. Heck, if I ever get any free time again, beyond a couple hours here and there, I may start uploading systems again.

...John...

Adirondack wrote:I want to stress once again that the CML was made by "Alphap1us"
to provide a platform for everybody who wants to share addons

Well, actually it was made by him, me, Don Goyette and Harald, with a lot of help from many others, first of all you!

I don??t think anybody at the time imagined it would become so filled to the brim with useless stuff. We tried at first to implement a sort of quality control, but could never agree on the method and shape of it, so it never happened.

It was certainly not meant to be a place for anyone to upload anything, the effort was initially to collect what existed all over the web and make it accessible from a simple location...Then, of course, to provide hosting for everybody that needed it in working with Celestia add-ons. The trouble is that once it got going, it seems it became an incentive to upload anything any amateur wanted to display, and some people has no self-critique at all, they just upload because it is possible, not because they need to...

Of course, some make great work too. But since we get all kinds, that work just drowns in noise. That was *not* planned!

Actually, there was a *lot* of discussion in the spring of 2004 on how to make a quality control, mostly centering on some kind of approval system. Too bad we never got it done.

Well, learning from that caused Celestial Matters to come along

I am not saying the ML should not be for everybody, because that *is* the intention behind it, i am just saying that people use it indiscriminately, people don??t censor themselves. Either they don??t know how, or they don??t care - and THAT is the ML problem.

- rthorvald

I am a newbie to Celestia , and fairly new to computers . Reading through all the posts in this thread it occurred to me- why not have a section of add ons recommended for people like myself who are just starting out . They would not have to be especially accurate just easy to use . For example the Voyager 1&2 add on just needs you to copy the whole file into extras to get it working . ( a brilliant add on by the way ) . With experience new guys could move on to something more complex at their own pace . Just an idea .

Goonster wrote:They would not have to be especially accurate just easy to use . For example the Voyager 1&2 add on just needs you to copy the whole file into extras to get it working . ( a brilliant add on by the way ) . With experience new guys could move on to something more complex at their own pace . Just an idea .

Any add-on that is properly constructed and maintained is simple to use. To get such a list, all that is needed is quality control and proper testing before the author uploads the material.

- rthorvald

rthorvald wrote:Any add-on that is properly constructed and maintained is simple to use. To get such a list, all that is needed is quality control and proper testing before the author uploads the material.

- rthorvald

Thus our current problem... We have people upset by the fact that
their add-ons are being deleted, and we have people upset by the
fact that an add-on has been created. I don't know how we can win
here. Those beers are starting to sound VERY good about now.

BobHegwood wrote:Thus our current problem... We have people upset by the fact that
their add-ons are being deleted, and we have people upset by the
fact that an add-on has been created. I don't know how we can win
here. Those beers are starting to sound VERY good about now.

I know I was going to drop out of this thread, but I think that I can offer constructive solutions, or at least items to think about.

The Motherlode should be, in my opinion, a simple repository for add-ons. I think that what you folks are looking for, otherwise, are add-ons which have some sort of "official" Celestia status. For instance, there are several Voyager add-ons out there, ranging from stand-alone models, to slapped-together ssc's, to the extremely accurate add-ons which accurately display the Voyager craft, their positions, and their past journeys (was that done by Cham? I can't recall off-hand). It should be a simple matter to seperate such add-ons accordingly, and label them as such. In nearly all cases, it is pretty easy to identify how good an add-on is from the information provided.

If the Motherlode is turning into something where only really, really good things are being offered, then leave the poor ones on-line, just don't provide a link to them on the site. When I first started uploading to the ML, all I was ever given was a link to my own directory. If people want to share their add-ons with friends, this should be sufficient (this was actually the case with my ArcBuilder add-ons; in that case, the ML has been an invaluable tool for my ArcBuilder forum, and in the fleshing out of star systems and the information that goes with them). Let the "public" add-ons be reserved for those that are of a better quality.

Frankly, I don't see why there has to be such controversy over this. It really is like arguing over the contents of a library. Books are never banned from such a place, they are simply properly catalogued. The Motherlode shoiuld be no different.

And yes, there are times when people are stymied when they enter into a library, and panic and start asking for help because they can't figure things out. That is still not the fault of the library; the burden of knowledge of use ALWAYS falls on the user. If they know enough about Celestia to find the Motherlode and start downloading, then they should know well enough that the forum is the place to figure out their problems, and from the forum they can easily locate other excellent sources of aid, such as Selden's pages.

...John...

Dollan wrote:The Motherlode should be, in my opinion, a simple repository for add-ons. I think that what you folks are looking for, otherwise, are add-ons which have some sort of "official" Celestia status. For instance, there are several Voyager add-ons out there, ranging from stand-alone models, to slapped-together ssc's, to the extremely accurate add-ons which accurately display the Voyager craft, their positions, and their past journeys (was that done by Cham? I can't recall off-hand). It should be a simple matter to seperate such add-ons accordingly, and label them as such. In nearly all cases, it is pretty easy to identify how good an add-on is from the information provided.

If the Motherlode is turning into something where only really, really good things are being offered, then leave the poor ones on-line, just don't provide a link to them on the site. When I first started uploading to the ML, all I was ever given was a link to my own directory. If people want to share their add-ons with friends, this should be sufficient (this was actually the case with my ArcBuilder add-ons; in that case, the ML has been an invaluable tool for my ArcBuilder forum, and in the fleshing out of star systems and the information that goes with them). Let the "public" add-ons be reserved for those that are of a better quality.

...John...

Well I personally think that ANY add-on which is clearly defined as
realistic or fictional should be allowed. The primary problem I'm
seeing when going through these things is that there is no
consistency to what you download. In my opinion, we need a
standard set of rules which should be applied BEFORE we accept
an add-on. If I may...

1. Any add-on needs to include a ReadMe file which clearly defines
exactly HOW the add-on should be installed.
2. Any add-on needs to be clearly labeled as fictional or realistic.
3. If the add-on relies on any other add-on, that information
should also be included within the ReadMe file.
4. An SSC file should always be included with an add-on, unless
of course, it doesn't need one.
5. The add-on should work under the last two major releases of
Celestia. There will be various situations where this idea won't
work, but it's better than having add-ons which no longer work
with ANY version of Celestia.

Just some preliminary opinions, but from what I've seen so far,
these simple rules have never been followed except for a very few
creators.

I see SSC files which do nothing except leave me wondering
"What the hell is this all about?" Please remember that a large
percentage of the people who download things from the site are
vastly inexperienced with our favorite program. They need a user-
friendly atmosphere and an SSC which "might" work if you know
how to change it simply will not work anymore.

Them's my initial thoughts on this topic, so take it from here.

Thanks, Brain-Dead

BobHegwood wrote:
1. Any add-on needs to include a ReadMe file which clearly defines
exactly HOW the add-on should be installed.
2. Any add-on needs to be clearly labeled as fictional or realistic.
3. If the add-on relies on any other add-on, that information
should also be included within the ReadMe file.
4. An SSC file should always be included with an add-on, unless
of course, it doesn't need one.
5. The add-on should work under the last two major releases of
Celestia. There will be various situations where this idea won't
work, but it's better than having add-ons which no longer work
with ANY version of Celestia.

Just some preliminary opinions, but from what I've seen so far,
these simple rules have never been followed except for a very few
creators.

Them's my initial thoughts on this topic, so take it from here.

Thanks, Brain-Dead

I concur with most of Bob's points above.
Except number 5, I think if it is clearly stated that an addon only works with the latest version (of course giving the then actual version number), then this should be good enough.
To number 3 I would add that it should be stated on the CML page also very clearly that another addon is needed. So you wouldn't be annoyed after downloading and installing that you need another one.

Having said that now my 2 cents to the quality discussion.

Since Bob is doing the laborous task of cleaning up an earmarking all the stuff on the CML if it is fictious and realistic, I think this would be a good point in time to create some sort of "official" high resolution, scientifically correct label for textures (and models).

By that I mean that the texture gurus that know what they are doing and what is realistic could do a peer review of only high resolution maps (perhaps one presented by Bob as accurate) and then rated it. And I'd say for the beginning only one texture per planet.
This way a folder for high quality textures (models) could be made up on the CML and everyone would have an easy access AND we would have at least an "official" high resolution package.

AND I would propose that only addons are added to this after some (at least 50?) poeple have told Bob that this addon is good enough for the "official", that he contacts the review group for review.

Don't know if this is feasible, but it is an idea.

Regards and a Merry Christmas,

Guckytos

Guckytos wrote:
I concur with most of Bob's points above.
Except number 5, I think if it is clearly stated that an addon only works with the latest version (of course giving the then actual version number), then this should be good enough.
To number 3 I would add that it should be stated on the CML page also very clearly that another addon is needed. So you wouldn't be annoyed after downloading and installing that you need another one.

Guckytos

I totally agree with your assessment of my comments. I am trying to
make certain that number 3 is being handled as you described and I
really would welcome any peer review as you have stated. However,
this may also be a very time-consuming process, and I can tell you
that Ulrich gets yelled at almost daily when an add-on hasn't
been added to the ML within 24 hours.

So, maybe a little more patience would be called for in a review
process, but it would work for me.

Thanks, Bob

BobHegwood wrote:
1. Any add-on needs to include a ReadMe file which clearly defines
exactly HOW the add-on should be installed.

Agreed, very much so. I will admit, I have forgotten a readme file on several of my older add-ons, but thanks to requests (some of them more demanding than others:)) I try to make certain that I include them. At any rate, a readme with those specific contents should indeed be a requirment. Without it, the add-on should be rejected, with the reasoning sent to the author. They can always resubmit....

2. Any add-on needs to be clearly labeled as fictional or realistic.

I would have them labeled even more specifically. Realistic, in that it is an add-on of Cassini (as an example). Scientifically accurate, in that the add-n accurately displays the craft, its flight path, etc. As for fictional, I'd like to see them seperated to a smaller degree than they are. For instance, there is a subsection for my ArcBuilders stuff, and Orion's Arm. Why not do the same for, say, Stargate or Star Trek add-ons? And, of course, there is always room for the ubiquitous Miscellaneous section!

Of course, I am a very anal person when it comes to categorizing

3. If the add-on relies on any other add-on, that information
should also be included within the ReadMe file.

That should be a part of the requirments for point #1, yes.

4. An SSC file should always be included with an add-on, unless
of course, it doesn't need one.

I would actually like to see a section just for models. Most people should know how to add them into Celestia without a provided ssc file, and if they don't then they should really be studying some other resources before they start downloading in earnest. The reason why I would like to see just models is because there are many out there which have been added to various add-ons indiscriminantly, but which, as far as I know, never had their own integrated add-on. Plus, there are many free license models out there in 3DS, not meant for Celestia, but which are often used in it.

5. The add-on should work under the last two major releases of
Celestia. There will be various situations where this idea won't
work, but it's better than having add-ons which no longer work
with ANY version of Celestia.

As a part of the readme requirments, there should be a listing of what version the add-on was constructed under.

Anyway, very good thoughts, Bob. And I hope I'm being helpful as well!!

...John...

I have been a Celestia user and contributor for five years, and I for one am concerned about the editing that is arbitrarily going on in the motherlode. I agree with several comments that we should be very careful on how, and by whom, the ML is "purged" of what some folks (but maybe not all folks) consider an "inaccurate" model or texture.

For example, there are 11 texture add-ons on the ML for Mars. Some of them are similiar, while one of them (Praesepe's shaded Mars) has accurate surfaces but a different tint (it is less red) than the others.

Years ago, we went around on the forum about the "true" color of Mars, and this texture was rated highly as perhaps the most accurate color. It is the one I use personally and in the educational activities. Now, I just learned that a forum member requested of Bob that it be deleted. Fortunately, it has not yet been discarded.

I agree that 11 textures for Mars is a bit difficult to understand by a Celestia ML visitor looking for a texture, but who decides if a texture or add-on is "accurate" or "inaccurate"? Who chooses to call something "fictional" or "real". Deleting this texture, in my informed opinion, would be a big mistake.

Another example is the Voyager spacecraft add-on. There is only one on ML, the one done by Jack Higgins. It is a lower-res model that may or may not be ideally accurate, but it is available to everyone and it runs fine on all systems. It is not the same detail as the one done by ElChristou, but that add-on is NOT on the motherlode. To find it, a Celestia user would have to be a forum member and just happen to locate the link to the CelestiaMatters website.

In fact, the most accurate textures for our solar system (according to Fridger) are the ones he does himself. Unfortunately, some of his best ones are not made available to any of us as downloads on any website, let alone the ML. He keeps them to himself.

Please tread lightly here in what we delete or not from ML. I agree with Urlich that this should not be an arbitrary effort undertaken by Bob and a few folks who send him emails. Rather, I would support a panel of forum members to examine the ML add-ons one by one, and either identify them as (1) the most accurate, or (2) move some add-ons to a different folder. Deleting an add-on that someone worked hard on should be done very infrequently or not at all.

I for one have time and would be happy to serve on such a panel. I suggest at least 10 folks.

Frank