Hi. I have installed 1.3.1pre4 and have just noticed that the default FOV seems to be 18 degrees, not 45 degrees as it used to be. Is this what it is now supposed to be, or did I inadventently do something to some file somewhere while trying to incorporate 1.3.1pre4 and cel:urls into my Celestia directories?
If Chris has chosen 18 degrees, it seems a bit too much. I keep forcing it back to 45 degrees. Is there a way to permanently adjust it to a higher number, so 35 degrees?
If I've messed up a file somewhere, which one is it? I'll try to undo the damage.
HELP
Frank
Is the default FOV in 1.3.1 now 19 degrees?
- t00fri
- Developer
- Posts: 8772
- Joined: 29.03.2002
- Age: 22
- With us: 22 years 7 months
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Re: Is the default FOV in 1.3.1 now 19 degrees?
fsgregs wrote:Hi. I have installed 1.3.1pre4 and have just noticed that the default FOV seems to be 18 degrees, not 45 degrees as it used to be. Is this what it is now supposed to be, or did I inadventently do something to some file somewhere while trying to incorporate 1.3.1pre4 and cel:urls into my Celestia directories?
If Chris has chosen 18 degrees, it seems a bit too much. I keep forcing it back to 45 degrees. Is there a way to permanently adjust it to a higher number, so 35 degrees?
If I've messed up a file somewhere, which one is it? I'll try to undo the damage.
HELP
Frank
The new FOV is all fine. First of all, it was /Christophe/ not Chris who modified the definition of the default FOV, in order to get rid of a nasty bug in the multi-view setup that I noted some time ago.
Now the default FOV is not set to 45 degrees throughout, but it is rather /calculated/
FOV = 2 x arctan(height / DPI / 2 / DistanceToScreen) / zoom
from the read out DPI and a hardcoded 400 mm distance of the user to the screen. Note that the FOV is calculated from the /height/ not the width of the window! zoom is a zoom factor that may be varied by dragging SHIFT mouse1 as usual.
Bye Fridger
PS: why don't you install *pre5 instead of *pre4??
(but note *pre5 only contains the executable!)
http://www.celestiaproject.net/~claurel/celest ... e5-exe.zip
-
- Posts: 862
- Joined: 07.04.2003
- With us: 21 years 7 months
- Location: Born in Argentina
- Contact:
whats is new in the *pre5??
---------X---------
EL XENTENARIO
1905-2005
My page:
http://www.urielpelado.com.ar
My Gallery:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/gallery/view_al ... y-Universe
EL XENTENARIO
1905-2005
My page:
http://www.urielpelado.com.ar
My Gallery:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/gallery/view_al ... y-Universe
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4211
- Joined: 28.01.2002
- With us: 22 years 9 months
- Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
As Fridger stated, Christophe modified the field of view so that it's computed based on the window size, monitor resolution, and distance from viewer to screen. This generally results in a much smaller field of view than the former default of 45 degrees. In general, I think Celestia's handling of FOV is much more sensible now, particularly with multiple views. If you do want to override the default field of view--which I admit can be too narrow with a small window--add a line like this to your start.cel:
--Chris
Code: Select all
set { name "FOV" value 35.0 }
--Chris
-
- Posts: 862
- Joined: 07.04.2003
- With us: 21 years 7 months
- Location: Born in Argentina
- Contact:
What was the "nasty bug" with the old FOV??
---------X---------
EL XENTENARIO
1905-2005
My page:
http://www.urielpelado.com.ar
My Gallery:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/gallery/view_al ... y-Universe
EL XENTENARIO
1905-2005
My page:
http://www.urielpelado.com.ar
My Gallery:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/gallery/view_al ... y-Universe
- t00fri
- Developer
- Posts: 8772
- Joined: 29.03.2002
- Age: 22
- With us: 22 years 7 months
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
ElPelado wrote:What was the "nasty bug" with the old FOV??
Under /horizontal/ multi-view subdivisions, always the original /fixed FOV/ (e.g. 45 degs) was mapped into /each/ available subwindow. So making one of the subwindows smaller and smaller led to a strong increase of the density of stars and their sizes, since the FOV did not change. Under vertical subdivisions, this incorrect behaviour did not occur. The problem was, of course related to the fact that the FOV always involves conceptionally the /vertical/ window sizes.
Now, when the vertical size of a subwindow decreases, its associated FOV is /calculated/ to become correspondingly smaller as it should be...
Bye Fridger