Two suggestions

Guest · Post #1by **Guest** » 18.01.2005, 21:42

Hi guys.

I have 2 suggestions.

1. It looks like we need separate objects and textures for stars. Please check the link below:

http://www.physorg.com/news2721.html

2. I strongly suggest to make an official list of "the best" med-res and hi-res textures and make it sticky in the proper forum. Now it's really hard to find good textures without many downloads and tests.

John Van Vliet · Post #2by **John Van Vliet** » 19.01.2005, 10:36

we all think that ours are the best
and i should put more pics in my gallery so people can look befor downloading

Dollan · Post #3by **Dollan** » 19.01.2005, 11:06

If I'm not mistaken, Celestia (at least, the latest pre-release version) already has the capability for both of these attributes for stars. Here's a screen shot of Altair, showing its oblateness.

As for the best textures, etc., that's really a judgment call that only an individual can make, in my opinion. For instance, Don Edwards has had some of the most realistic textures, but then I've downloaded some fictional add ons that are truly spectacular in their own ways. How to decide what would be considered better?

...John...

Empty86 · Post #4by **Empty86** » 19.01.2005, 15:49

I have the latest version 1.3.2, but that star is not oblate in my Celestia. Have I missed something?

maxim · Post #5by **maxim** » 19.01.2005, 17:14

The latest is 1.4.0pre6 AFAIK.

maxim

s3nn0c · Post #6by **s3nn0c** » 19.01.2005, 22:59

I see I have to download the latest version... Great.

I understand that everybody prefers own textures, but I still think it would be useful to make a short list with the best textures in its class. Let's developers decide or let's make a few links for each type of texture. The worst case is when you have to download many textures, install them, compare, delete, search and so on. Just make beginners' life a bit easier, please :-)

Dollan · Post #7by **Dollan** » 20.01.2005, 00:03

**chuckles** If you're like most of us, you might be downloading the latest version several times in a matter of months.

As for the textures, I would reccomend goting to the Motherlode and browse around. They have thumbnails for most of the addons, which should greatly aid your decision. Otherwise, I really think that there are just too many different add ons out there to make a comprehensive list of the best.

...John...

Evil Dr Ganymede · Post #8by **Evil Dr Ganymede** » 20.01.2005, 00:45

It'd be nice to have a list of the most up-to-date nearstars, extrasolar systems, and comet/asteroid files though. I know grant used to update the nearstars and extrasolar ssc files but I have no clue what the latest versions are or where to find them...

Dollan · Post #9by **Dollan** » 20.01.2005, 01:17

I usually just go here and arrange the list by date.

...John...

alphap1us · Post #10by **alphap1us** » 20.01.2005, 06:31

The motherlode has just addded a ratings feature, but most of the add-ons have not been rated enough times to warrant displaying the ratings. If everyone starts rating things like mad, we can start to have a page that displays the best-rated add-on so you can find them quickly. Everyone please head to the motherlode and start rating all the add-ons you have used!

Cheers,
Joe

s3nn0c · Post #11by **s3nn0c** » 20.01.2005, 22:13

The whole idea behind my proposal was to make a single list of features which are available for users interested in better graphics. Something like an "official extension" or so. I know there are many good textures, but the main problem is that there are too many posts and too many textures. I know I'll find them, accidental users won't. Make their life easier.

Post #12by **t00fri** » 20.01.2005, 22:43

alphap1us wrote:The motherlode has just addded a ratings feature, but most of the add-ons have not been rated enough times to warrant displaying the ratings. If everyone starts rating things like mad, we can start to have a page that displays the best-rated add-on so you can find them quickly. Everyone please head to the motherlode and start rating all the add-ons you have used!

Cheers,
Joe

I must confess that I have rather split feelings about such rating features.

What disturbs me in general about this concept is that somewhere like 80% of the "judges" have no real competence about what they are judging. Sometimes I look at the ratings at Amazon, just for fun. People rate all sorts of things they understand NOTHING about, really. Like network switches, routers WLAN devices and what not. It is obvious from their comments that they understand nothing!

So what do people rate? Well, simplicity of installation. That's about all a novice in these matters can rate. But that's about the most superficial aspect of a sophisticated electronic gadget of which people actually expect cutting edge performance!

What can I do? Well after 5 minutes I turn around, keep my mouth shut and look away... ;-)

Any similarities to Celestia add-ons are purely accidental...

Bye Fridger

Harry · Post #13by **Harry** » 20.01.2005, 23:18

t00fri wrote:So what do people rate? Well, simplicity of installation. That's about all a novice in these matters can rate. But that's about the most superficial aspect of a sophisticated electronic gadget of which people actually expect cutting edge performance!

You are right. But is this bad? I think something like this is extremely valuable for the average user of Celestia - this rating feature is not meant for you, or most of the people who have been around for a couple of month working with Celestia (i.e. the regulars here on the forum). It's meant for those who don't (yet) have a clue, so they don't get put off because they ran into problems with installation, or because the addon looks dull (even though it may be scientifically accurate).

I personally think adding a comment is a better than to rate an addon, because then you can comment on specific shortcomings (like installation, or scientifc correctness), but let's wait and see how things will work out.

Harald

Post #14by **t00fri** » 20.01.2005, 23:24

Harry wrote:
t00fri wrote:So what do people rate? Well, simplicity of installation. That's about all a novice in these matters can rate. But that's about the most superficial aspect of a sophisticated electronic gadget of which people actually expect cutting edge performance!
You are right. But is this bad? I think something like this is extremely valuable for the average user of Celestia - this rating feature is not meant for you, or most of the people who have been around for a couple of month working with Celestia (i.e. the regulars here on the forum). It's meant for those who don't (yet) have a clue, so they don't get put off because they ran into problems with installation, or because the addon looks dull (even though it may be scientifically accurate).

I personally think adding a comment is a better than to rate an addon, because then you can comment on specific shortcomings (like installation, or scientifc correctness), but let's wait and see how things will work out.

Harald

Harald,

I did not pretend it was bad. I stated that I have "split feelings" which implies that it may well be a useful feature for some.

I am worried mainly about misleading judgements from non-experts.

Some have said before that virtually everyone can judge whether a texture is good or bad. The main argument was that from your guts you will know right away...

I definitely disagree. Let's consider a typical example:

The view of Earth in Celestia is made up by as many as 5 textures,

1) the main texture
2) the normal map
3) the specular map
4) the nightlights map
5) the cloud map

all blended together. So the task is to spot the culprit among 5 textures, if the composite impression turns out to be disappointing! It just takes the experience of people who have created Gigabytes of textures themselves to immediately know the reason for the problem.

You have to know that it's usually the normal map rather than the main texture that spoils the quality of the set! You have to know that certain formats are strictly "off limits" for normal maps if you want to see quality imaging etc....

You have to know what has to be done to prevent lots of noise in the normal map: Like starting from the original 16bit grayscale elevation maps in RAW format, serving as input to Chris great nm16 normal map generation tool.

You have to know about the problem regions of the various textures, like the antarctic ice layer for Earth, or polar regions in general.

You have to know what is the best VT size as function of the power of the CPU, the hard disk speed and/or the graphics card.

And so on...

I am afraid that most of the judgements of Motherlode's textures will not be made by our texture experts, but rather by some enthusiastic young "hotsteamers" ;-)

Bye Fridger

Dollan · Post #15by **Dollan** » 20.01.2005, 23:37

Allowing people to rate an add on, despite the "limited understanding" that they may have, is certainly not a bad thing. It provides a valuable base for someone to work with when making a decision. If a person goes only by the ratings and user comments, well then that is their perogative. If they use this system to shop around... so much the better.

...John...

s3nn0c · Post #16by **s3nn0c** » 21.01.2005, 00:51

I've just installed Celestia 1.4 and it really has the possibility to define different shapes for stars (woohoo! thx devs!). Unfortunately I still can't find any option to assign specific textures for different stars. I don't think it's a big problem to improve and the result could be interesting. We could make very detailed textures for Sun, but we could make simple but interesting textures for other stars too, like Betelgeuse (which has an amazing spot) or Regulus (which has quite visible darkening near its equator).

...or am I missing something?

Dollan · Post #17by **Dollan** » 21.01.2005, 00:56

Try this link: http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celest ... eters.html

It is a breakdown of the STC parameters recognized by the latest Celestia (thanks to Selden).

...John...

s3nn0c · Post #18by **s3nn0c** » 21.01.2005, 02:06

Great, big thanks

John Van Vliet · Post #19by **John Van Vliet** » 23.01.2005, 05:50

16 bit .raw/.imq/.img/.fits are fun ! ???

but as to raiting it is up to the persons personal preforence
what he/she likes or dislikes

i might think that one map is great but someone else wont like it
this is the dellema