A magazine for all Space Softwares ! !

[cats_bulletin]

A new media only dedicated to space related sw is born : CPU @ SPACE.
It will treat of every type of sw :
- educational : as CELESTIA
- simulation : as ORBITER
- professional sw enterprises & agencies
- PC space combat games : I-WARs, WING COMMANDERs etc...

It's free and directly sent to your mailbox. It will become progressively
available through partner websites.

N°1 dispatch starts tomorrow Jan. 30th. Want to receive it ? ?
Want to join C@S team to write articles ? ?

Enroll by sending your mail address at : catsenroll@gmail.com

C@S TEAM

[rthorvald]

Enroll by sending your mail address at : catsenroll@gmail.com

Only idiots sends their contact info to an unknown entity advertising anything. You should put up a website for people to look at instead.

- rthorvald

[t00fri]

It will treat of every type of sw :
- educational : as CELESTIA
- simulation : as ORBITER

Obviously you don't even know what Celestia is doing and tagetting at...

Fridger

[cats_bulletin]

I use CELESTIA at work as a general support tool. Some colleagues use it for more specific purposes (trajectory
and space missions planning).

You see, I know it not so badly

[t00fri]

I use CELESTIA at work as a general support tool. Some colleagues use it for more specific purposes (trajectory
and space missions planning).

You see, I know it not so badly

So why do you attribute above Celestia to "education" and Orbiter to "simulation". That doesn' t qualiyfy you very much, I am afraid

Fridger

[cats_bulletin]

NASA uses CELESTIA for EDUCATIONAL programs, ESA for trajectory purposes, other agencies for
more or less the same things. But the basic classification of CELESTIA is "educationnal" or "astronomy",
both being highly respectable activities ! !

[t00fri]

NASA uses CELESTIA for EDUCATIONAL programs, ESA for trajectory purposes, other agencies for
more or less the same things. But the basic classification of CELESTIA is "educationnal" or "astronomy",
both being highly respectable activities ! !

Are you telling me what Celestia is about?

We are MAKING Celestia! So we should know what it's for... Of course, by design it has a large spectrum of possible applications. But it is in NO way less 'simulation' than Orbiter.

How about having a look at Celestia's MAIN page:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/celestia/

Welcome to Celestia
... The free space simulation that lets you explore our universe in three dimensions.

f.

[cats_bulletin]

Its depends what you mean by "simulation". If you think of "solar system simulation" for CELESTIA" the d?finition is perfectly right.
Though CELESTIA includes "vehicle" features ORBITER is globally more developped in this field. CELESTIA fans developped fantastic planetary
environments, ORBITER fans produced terrific space launchers 3D meshes. Their ARIANE 5 models are just great !
You for sure MAKE CELESTIA ..... but can't see what US users do with it ......

[bdm]

Hmm. He's lucky he's not posting in a forum that I moderate. I delete anything that looks like spam on sight and perm-ban the offender. No exceptions.

He's especially lucky not to be posting spam on my forum today, as I've been weathering a fierce heatwave now for three days and I'm feeling a bit cranky.

[rthorvald]

ORBITER fans produced terrific space launchers 3D meshes. Their ARIANE 5 models are just great !
You for sure MAKE CELESTIA ..... but can't see what US users do with it ......

Yes, the primitive modelling efforts around here - like this one:
http://forum.celestialmatters.org/viewtopic.php?t=290

And these are no better: http://www.celestialmatters.org/?q=node/13

What?s that about US users, are other users doing something different with the Celestia simulator? I hadn?t noticed that.

- rthorvald

[cats_bulletin]

Hi, I did a comparison of add ons proposed by CELESTIA & ORBITER :

- ORBITER : proposes a unique choice of space launchers ..... which quality varies from the
best to the worst. Spacecraft are numerous but quality varies even more.
Interesting ground infrastructures are proposed. Planetary environment is not
comparable to CELESTIA.
- CELESTIA : proposes unique planetary environments. Spacecraft are well represented and of
very high quality. Launchers are much less present. Ground infrastructures ?

In the space agency I work for "launcher peoples" extract elements of ORBITER for their needs.
On their side "spacecraft peoples" use CELESTIA. But in both cases these sw or their extracted
elements have to be modified to comply with professional needs. This is the reason why we
consider them as "graphic generators" (that we appreciate alot) but not "simulators".

[cats_bulletin]

I've been weathering a fierce heatwave now for three days and I'm feeling a bit cranky.

Cool bruce .... cooool ..... ! Open the fridge, have a beer and some rest !

[BobHegwood]

Hmm. He's lucky he's not posting in a forum that I moderate. I delete anything that looks like spam on sight and perm-ban the offender. No exceptions.

He's especially lucky not to be posting spam on my forum today, as I've been weathering a fierce heatwave now for three days and I'm feeling a bit cranky.

I'm with you...
By the way, I'm stuck in my home now with 14-inches of snow outside.

Thanks, Brain-Dead

[t00fri]

Hi, I did a comparison of add ons proposed by CELESTIA & ORBITER :

- ORBITER : proposes a unique choice of space launchers ..... which quality varies from the
best to the worst. Spacecraft are numerous but quality varies even more.
Interesting ground infrastructures are proposed. Planetary environment is not
comparable to CELESTIA.
- CELESTIA : proposes unique planetary environments. Spacecraft are well represented and of
very high quality. Launchers are much less present. Ground infrastructures ?

In the space agency I work for "launcher peoples" extract elements of ORBITER for their needs.
On their side "spacecraft peoples" use CELESTIA. But in both cases these sw or their extracted
elements have to be modified to comply with professional needs. This is the reason why we
consider them as "graphic generators" (that we appreciate alot) but not "simulators".

Firstly, add-ons are NOT part of the official Celestia distribution and thus are entirely reflecting the gusto of specific users. The maintaining of add-ons is also completely in the users' responsability. As a longstanding Celestia developer and co-author, I have virtually never even looked into add-ons, except for debugging purposes.

Since the scope of the official Celestia distribution is defined by it's developers (along with user feedback of course), ADD-ONS characterize in no clear way the purpose of Celestia.

We are VERY happy to see, however, how rich and diverse the spectrum of add-ons done by users has become meanwhile! This reflects the high degree of modularity in Celestia's design.

But in both cases these sw or their extracted elements have to be modified to comply with professional needs. This is the reason why we consider them as "graphic generators" (that we appreciate alot) but not "simulators".

That is also nonsense!

Celestia has a well working SPICE interface and apart from that uses among the most sophisticated professional-level orbits. A huge number of deep space objects (galaxies, globular clusters, binary orbits...) is implemented in complete compatibility of our database with SIMBAD and other professional resources.

There is an active ongoing collaboration with a big international ESA + 9 Universities project (Space Trajectory Analysis (STA))
http://sta.estec.esa.int/Space_Trajecto ... About.html
and regular presentations on international respective conferences.

Finally, whatever you are now pulling out of your pocket, it does not alter the fact that your initial "one word" characterization of Celestia versus Orbiter is simply incorrect and most of all misleading.

Fridger

[LordFerret]

Celestia and Orbiter are two different animals, there is no comparison between them. Orbiter at best is "interesting", but I like plain old FlightSimulator better to be honest with you. On the other hand, Celestia is simply "fascinating!"... it has given me a whole new perspective of the universe I live in.

My 2-cents.

[Reiko]

The only thing orbital has over celestia is that you can actually fly ships around but you can't fly out of the solar system even with fictional addons that have "hyperdive"
Celestia is not meant to be a flight simulator so you can't really compare the two.

[cats_bulletin]

For Fridger :

It's difficult to follow you : "ADD ONS doesn't characterize in no clear way the pourpose of CELESTIA .... but we are very to have them. "Apart from the most
sophisticated-level orbits ..... but we work with ESA & 9 universities".

There is an other thread in the forum named something like "need help with educational CELESTIA", I saw it yesterday. Are you going to make one more
time the sketch of "no sir ... I simulate" ? ?

In the magazine CELESTIA is presented in the EDUCATIONAL & ASTRONOMY section, I hadn't added "astronomy" in my initial post to make it shorter. I couldn't
imagine you add a problem with teaching. This is important you know, there are universities working with CELESTIA

[Reiko]

For Fridger :

It's difficult to follow you : "ADD ONS doesn't characterize in no clear way the pourpose of CELESTIA .... but we are very to have them. "Apart from the most
sophisticated-level orbits ..... but we work with ESA & 9 universities".

There is an other thread in the forum named something like "need help with educational CELESTIA", I saw it yesterday. Are you going to make one more
time the sketch of "no sir ... I simulate" ? ?

In the magazine CELESTIA is presented in the EDUCATIONAL & ASTRONOMY section, I hadn't added "astronomy" in my initial post to make it shorter. I couldn't
imagine you add a problem with teaching. This is important you know, there are universities working with CELESTIA

You must be referring to celestia 151 ED. It's a custom version of celestia designed to use educational activities. It's not the official celestia.

[rthorvald]

For Fridger :
It's difficult to follow you : "ADD ONS doesn't characterize in no clear way the pourpose of CELESTIA .... but we are very to have them. "Apart from the most sophisticated-level orbits ..... but we work with ESA & 9 universities".

What Fridger meant is that the Celestia app and its various add-ons are entirely separate worlds. The developer team aren?t producing Add-Ons, but are concerned with developing a space simulator. If you download the official release, that is exactly what you get - no more, no less.

There is a rather large community of people producing all manner of add-ons for Celestia, some are pure simulations of real spaceflight missions, some are scifi, some are more detailed replacements for real objects present in the official distribution. The nature of the app makes it possible to do all kinds of fun things with it. But they are all personal customisations of Celestia.

There is an other thread in the forum named something like "need help with educational CELESTIA", I saw it yesterday. Are you going to make one more time the sketch of "no sir ... I simulate" ? ?

The Educational Celestia has nothing to do with the official Celestia release; it is the work of one person, Frank, who is not on the dev team, but are promoting his own, customized edition of Celestia outside it. Hey, it?s open source...

imagine you add a problem with teaching. This is important you know, there are universities working with CELESTIA

I cannot imagine anyone here has a problem with that. Rather the opposite.

- rthorvald

[ElChristou]

...In the space agency I work for "launcher peoples" extract elements of ORBITER for their needs.
On their side "spacecraft peoples" use CELESTIA. But in both cases these sw or their extracted
elements have to be modified to comply with professional needs. This is the reason why we
consider them as "graphic generators" (that we appreciate alot) but not "simulators".

I don't understand well; do you mean some guys from former space agency are plundering the works of a few hobbyist for their need?