JackHiggins wrote:Just a thought- but wouldn't you be better off with an xyz file for hyper/parabolic orbits?
Seems a hell of a lot of work to derive an xyz that isn't particularly informative to look at, when you could make a simple orbit definition.
The hyperbolic approximation for the above comet (which I prefer because it doesn't create a closed orbit) is:
Code: Select all
"C/1748 H1 Hallerstein" "Sol"
{
Class "comet"
Texture "asteroid.jpg"
Mesh "asteroid.cms"
Radius 20
EllipticalOrbit
{
Period 770793998 # [q/(e-1)]^1.5
PericenterDistance 0.84067
Eccentricity 1.000001
Inclination 94.535
AscendingNode 236.381
ArgOfPericenter 17.828
MeanAnomaly 0.0
Epoch 2359622.8
}
}
Isn't that more compact, informative, and easier to derive from the original parameters?
Admittedly, the concept of a "Period" for a hyperbolic orbit is distinctly dodgy - what you have to substitute is the inverse of the mean motion. It would make more sense if Celestia accepted a MeanMotion parameter as an alternative to the Period (just as it accepts a PericenterDistance instead of a SemiMajorAxis). This would also solve the problem with parabolic orbits - you can't enter an infinite Period, but you could set MeanMotion equal to zero.
Grant