Most wanted feature poll
-
Topic authorThierry
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 21.02.2003
- With us: 21 years 9 months
- Location: Switzerland (Geneva)
Most wanted feature poll
What do YOU think ?
-
-Shadow-
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 18.04.2003
- With us: 21 years 7 months
- Location: Warbird D'Kara - Recreational area
Probably the virtual Textures, though soon Celestia won't run on my computer anymore... I only got 384 megs of RAM and a 64 meg Graphics Card. Though Multiplayer would be awesome... Little Names floating all around the screen and a little chat box. That would be great for showing people cool places...
"Certain it is and sure: love burns, ale burns, fire burns, politics burns, but cold were life without them." - Romulan proverb
-
Occasional Lurker
Wonder why true depiction of the Solar neighbourhood isn't included in your list? Would be my most wanted feature. Celestia, although wonderful in itself, lacks several stars, especially in multiple star systems and also place a few of them at wrong locations with impossible characteristics. Some people are making great efforts to correct this by modifying the files (with the creator's blessing I might add), but the program often make only planetary 'star' textures possible as a compromise solution.
If I had a pick, I'd like to see a major overhaul of the program, at least up to about 25 light years.
Secondly, I'd like more information on the stars, like metallicity, population category and age.
If I had a pick, I'd like to see a major overhaul of the program, at least up to about 25 light years.
Secondly, I'd like more information on the stars, like metallicity, population category and age.
What do I think? I think I'm not interested in any of the things you describe.
What feature do I really want? I want dynamic detail.
1) I want to be able to specify a region of space as containing N stars of a particular population range, and Celestia will dynamically generate them only when I'm sufficiently close.
2) I want to specify a region of space as containing cold interstellar gas, and Celestia will dynamically generate dark clouds for it only when I'm sufficiently close.
3) I want to specify a galaxy has containing N spiral arms and globulars, and have Celestia dynamically generate a selection of 1) and 2) for them only when I am sufficiently close.
4) I want planetary rings to resolve into a myriad of particles when I am sufficiently close to them.
I know that these are difficult features, but even just a primitive version of 1) and 2) would be enough to make a great version of the whole Milky Way. What do you think?
Cheers,
Paul
What feature do I really want? I want dynamic detail.
1) I want to be able to specify a region of space as containing N stars of a particular population range, and Celestia will dynamically generate them only when I'm sufficiently close.
2) I want to specify a region of space as containing cold interstellar gas, and Celestia will dynamically generate dark clouds for it only when I'm sufficiently close.
3) I want to specify a galaxy has containing N spiral arms and globulars, and have Celestia dynamically generate a selection of 1) and 2) for them only when I am sufficiently close.
4) I want planetary rings to resolve into a myriad of particles when I am sufficiently close to them.
I know that these are difficult features, but even just a primitive version of 1) and 2) would be enough to make a great version of the whole Milky Way. What do you think?
Cheers,
Paul
-
Occasional Lurker
What do I think?
I think more detail like planetary rings in close up, stellar gas, nebulae and the other things you mention would be just grand, if there are practical ways to implement it. As for generating these things only when you are close enough, I think that sounds like a sound philosophy to make it happen.
But I also think that Celestia should focus on scientific content. Wouldn't you rather be able to explore the galaxy like it really is, rather than some fantasy universe?
Check out what systems would be able to bring forth intelligent life, where they are located in relation to everything else, how the sky looks from 70 Ophiuchi and Eta Cassiopeiae?
Of course one could argue that most stars missing from Celestia, are small, insignificant red dwarf M-type stars, but that's just the point. It illustrates how relatively uncommon, yellow, presumably life generating stars like Sol really are.
Starting this decade, we will be able to pin point small rocky earthlike planets around other stars with new space telescopes (ESA for instance has a number of these underway). With a solid base, a program like Celestia can be modified and enriched with new finds indefinitely.
Multi-player Celestia? Think it sounds cool. Apart from names and a chat box, there could be small textures of spaceships, beam core antimatter star ships for example, floating around in the cosmic ocean.
I think more detail like planetary rings in close up, stellar gas, nebulae and the other things you mention would be just grand, if there are practical ways to implement it. As for generating these things only when you are close enough, I think that sounds like a sound philosophy to make it happen.
But I also think that Celestia should focus on scientific content. Wouldn't you rather be able to explore the galaxy like it really is, rather than some fantasy universe?
Check out what systems would be able to bring forth intelligent life, where they are located in relation to everything else, how the sky looks from 70 Ophiuchi and Eta Cassiopeiae?
Of course one could argue that most stars missing from Celestia, are small, insignificant red dwarf M-type stars, but that's just the point. It illustrates how relatively uncommon, yellow, presumably life generating stars like Sol really are.
Starting this decade, we will be able to pin point small rocky earthlike planets around other stars with new space telescopes (ESA for instance has a number of these underway). With a solid base, a program like Celestia can be modified and enriched with new finds indefinitely.
Multi-player Celestia? Think it sounds cool. Apart from names and a chat box, there could be small textures of spaceships, beam core antimatter star ships for example, floating around in the cosmic ocean.
But I also think that Celestia should focus on scientific content. Wouldn't you rather be able to explore the galaxy like it really is, rather than some fantasy universe?
Certainly. I think, however, that the real issue is whether having no stars on the opposite side of the milky way is more accurate than generating (using the most scientifically plausible parameters available) a random selection of stars there. This issue has cropped up in various forms many times in this forum.
The answer is not straightforward, but I would say that because the difference is partly psychological, it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Therefore if randomly-generated features were included into Celestia, an option to disable them would be optimal.
Cheers,
Paul
Hello,
Well, I choose none of your options Thierry.
What I'm most interested on about celestia is primarily accuracy, next richness and then navigation abilities.
To add a feature I would like to have, I would say a new addition to the already very good array of navigation features. Besides, Follow, Sync Orbit and Chase, I would like to have a "Plot Course" feature that would work in conjunction with the already present free-style navigation.
Basically the idea was for me to be somewhere on the universe and select an object like I normally do. Say, I'm on Europa and I select Venus. Then I "Plot Course" to Venus. Next I only have to hit the "thrusters" key ('A' on windows) and I start moving on to Venus at the speed I set. I can then sit and enjoy the trip. If i'm moving too slow I may stay sitted for a few thousand years
I can see some problems with this.
1. Although insanely rare, there's always the chance of colision with some other object. This could be dealt with two ways: 1. When at a certain distance from the object set by the object radius, the autopilot would correct its course and round the object and then once again correct it's course for the final destination, or 2. Celestia simply ignores it and drives through the object. I like 1. better because it's more realistic and also because it may produce some beautifull sceneries if we start plotting our course from the right position (to round earth just outside it's atmosphere and keeping the same altitude while the sun rises to my right without having to hit any key surely sound appealing to me). Contemplation is maybe the keyword here.
2. For orbiting objects, depending on my travelling speed, the autopilot may need to calculate the time it takes to reach its destination and set its course accordingly so that it reaches the now empty space where the object will be. If I change speed at mid course, this calculation must be done again. Since the 'A' key can be pressed while the speed increases, I suggest maybe this calculation should be done only afer the key is released. This is also fun, because depending on the distance I am to the target, even a small increase/decrease of speed may produce the interesting effect of me watching the autopilot steer.
Conclusion:
It's not something I couldn't leave without. But I don't know if anyone here shares with me the thrill of travelling through space to a selected destination without hitting any key. Flying free on any interface. With the right historical charts and some not so complex calculations we could even move to a certain date/place and plot a course that would take us to near a few interesting objects on our way.
Mario
Well, I choose none of your options Thierry.
What I'm most interested on about celestia is primarily accuracy, next richness and then navigation abilities.
To add a feature I would like to have, I would say a new addition to the already very good array of navigation features. Besides, Follow, Sync Orbit and Chase, I would like to have a "Plot Course" feature that would work in conjunction with the already present free-style navigation.
Basically the idea was for me to be somewhere on the universe and select an object like I normally do. Say, I'm on Europa and I select Venus. Then I "Plot Course" to Venus. Next I only have to hit the "thrusters" key ('A' on windows) and I start moving on to Venus at the speed I set. I can then sit and enjoy the trip. If i'm moving too slow I may stay sitted for a few thousand years
I can see some problems with this.
1. Although insanely rare, there's always the chance of colision with some other object. This could be dealt with two ways: 1. When at a certain distance from the object set by the object radius, the autopilot would correct its course and round the object and then once again correct it's course for the final destination, or 2. Celestia simply ignores it and drives through the object. I like 1. better because it's more realistic and also because it may produce some beautifull sceneries if we start plotting our course from the right position (to round earth just outside it's atmosphere and keeping the same altitude while the sun rises to my right without having to hit any key surely sound appealing to me). Contemplation is maybe the keyword here.
2. For orbiting objects, depending on my travelling speed, the autopilot may need to calculate the time it takes to reach its destination and set its course accordingly so that it reaches the now empty space where the object will be. If I change speed at mid course, this calculation must be done again. Since the 'A' key can be pressed while the speed increases, I suggest maybe this calculation should be done only afer the key is released. This is also fun, because depending on the distance I am to the target, even a small increase/decrease of speed may produce the interesting effect of me watching the autopilot steer.
Conclusion:
It's not something I couldn't leave without. But I don't know if anyone here shares with me the thrill of travelling through space to a selected destination without hitting any key. Flying free on any interface. With the right historical charts and some not so complex calculations we could even move to a certain date/place and plot a course that would take us to near a few interesting objects on our way.
Mario
Mario
Some of the things that you have asked for are already possible writing cel scripts. In the feature request list in my website there are a pair of items that are similar to your request.
I agree with your idea of plot course that for me is similar to the way-point concept of fly simulators.
But personally I think that the thrusters feature is a gadget that somewhat pollutes the Celestia philosophy and introduces a lot of misunderstandigns specially in feature requests because (at least since now) the observer is not a spaceship and Celestia is not a spaceship simulator.
Bye - Paolo
Some of the things that you have asked for are already possible writing cel scripts. In the feature request list in my website there are a pair of items that are similar to your request.
I agree with your idea of plot course that for me is similar to the way-point concept of fly simulators.
But personally I think that the thrusters feature is a gadget that somewhat pollutes the Celestia philosophy and introduces a lot of misunderstandigns specially in feature requests because (at least since now) the observer is not a spaceship and Celestia is not a spaceship simulator.
Bye - Paolo
-
Guest
Paolo wrote:But personally I think that the thrusters feature is a gadget that somewhat pollutes the Celestia philosophy and introduces a lot of misunderstandigns specially in feature requests because (at least since now) the observer is not a spaceship and Celestia is not a spaceship simulator.
Yes, that why I used the term between double quotes.
Mario
-
Guest
Actually to add some food for though, Celestia reference manuals are populated with the concept of us being in (or part of a) spaceship. And the program does offer the aceleration and deceleration keys plus means to "steer". For all that matters we have control over our movement. The word "thrusters" should then, under this context, be taken loosely.
As for Cel scripts, I understand the idea. But how many of us are able to actually write Luna or Cel scripts... or want to learn.... or actually have the time to learn? As I see it, IMHO, most of the time spent using Celestia should be done inside Celestia... not on a text editor.
Furthermore on the spaceship concept... while I trust your argument as one coming from an experienced user in opposition to me (a newcommer), I do remember you are one of the users who defend the idea of a multiuser Celestia with chat and all. How exactly does this fit on your notion of purity regarding Celestia operation?
I don't think my sugegstion is that of a good one, mind you. It's just a feature I personally would like to have.
Mario
As for Cel scripts, I understand the idea. But how many of us are able to actually write Luna or Cel scripts... or want to learn.... or actually have the time to learn? As I see it, IMHO, most of the time spent using Celestia should be done inside Celestia... not on a text editor.
Furthermore on the spaceship concept... while I trust your argument as one coming from an experienced user in opposition to me (a newcommer), I do remember you are one of the users who defend the idea of a multiuser Celestia with chat and all. How exactly does this fit on your notion of purity regarding Celestia operation?
I don't think my sugegstion is that of a good one, mind you.
It's just a feature I personally would like to have.
Mario
Hi Mario
In the new Feature requests section (group 5) of my website I've completed the collection of my requests related to the observer mangement.
Lowly i think that the multiuser chat idea was originally mine
. But it was completely unchanied to the capability of moving and steering the observer. I imagined that during virtual meetings inside Celestia the observers of the various users should be managed like bodies or should be reached using something like the star or the system browser.
I don't think that your suggestion is bad, it should be another gadget that should expand the usability and get the favour of some users. But it is not one of my favorites. It's only a taste question
.
But I think that at this time mine and your requests are only dreams .
My opinion is that the most wanted feature request that the Celestia users should submit to the developers attention is the development status like described in the thread Todo/Wishlist.
That list should solve a lot of dubts and give to the users an address to have an idea of the philosophy that will guide the future of Celestia.
Bye - Paolo
In the new Feature requests section (group 5) of my website I've completed the collection of my requests related to the observer mangement.
Mario wrote:Furthermore on the spaceship concept... I do remember you are one of the users who defend the idea of a multiuser Celestia with chat and all. How exactly does this fit on your notion of purity regarding Celestia operation?
Lowly i think that the multiuser chat idea was originally mine
. But it was completely unchanied to the capability of moving and steering the observer. I imagined that during virtual meetings inside Celestia the observers of the various users should be managed like bodies or should be reached using something like the star or the system browser.Mario wrote:I don't think my suggestion is that of a good one, mind you. It's just a feature I personally would like to have.
I don't think that your suggestion is bad, it should be another gadget that should expand the usability and get the favour of some users. But it is not one of my favorites. It's only a taste question
.
But I think that at this time mine and your requests are only dreams .
My opinion is that the most wanted feature request that the Celestia users should submit to the developers attention is the development status like described in the thread Todo/Wishlist.
That list should solve a lot of dubts and give to the users an address to have an idea of the philosophy that will guide the future of Celestia.
Bye - Paolo
Paolo wrote:That list should solve a lot of dubts and give to the users an address to have an idea of the philosophy that will guide the future of Celestia.
Agreed.
I confess I'm not very cofortable abut making suggestions without having a basic knowledge of the objectives behind Celestia.
Thanks for reminding me of your website. I'll be taking a look at your features requests.
Mario
t00fri wrote:Paul,
no Encyclopedia or scientific reference book is complete, yet what it offers is (supposed to be) correct...The non-existence of information in a reference (of good reputation) also represents important information (cf. LOK masks in Celestia)
Bye Fridger
Fridger, your comparison is flawed because Celestia is not simply a mere reference model - it is a simulator. Being a simulator, the users of the simulator should be free to have certain expectations of what it will simulate - and often they are. After all, we can choose what texture we put on the far side of Mercury... what's there in your version, Fridger?
Cheers,
Paul
-
Redfish
- Posts: 185
- Joined: 22.05.2002
- With us: 22 years 6 months
- Location: Lat: 50.850 Long: 5.683 | Maastricht Netherlands
- Contact:
Well about the ficticious stars i think there is no way we'll ever be certain about those stars in the rest of our galaxy or other galaxies. We'll probably never find out a lot of things about those stars, so just make those stars up. Random like crazy. I don't mind. Ppl who claim that celestia should remain at the stage where humanity is at currently exploring the galaxy will have to wait a very very long time before they will see any of the detail they'd like.
Frankly, I love the concept of feeling I am voyaging through the universe in a spaceship. There are some who for some reason, prefer to picture the Celestia screen as a virtual camera that is sent on its way by our commands while we sit ....????? where ???? ... at some computer control in our house or office? No, I would much prefer to imagine myself personally up there in space, with that big screen as my ship's window and the journeys as a trip through the galaxy. Wouldn't you??
I don't consider it childish ... I consider it wonderful.
Frank
I don't consider it childish ... I consider it wonderful.
Frank