Ideas for next version of Celestia

[NecroBones]

I was thinking, for the next version of celestia that comes out, why not have a better way to organize the star systems. So I came up with a great idea. I drew it into a picture so it's easier to understand. Click here to see it http://www.geocities.com/billbob884/index.html

Normally I'd say that's a good idea, except that the star catalog contains over 100,000 stars. In terms of how this would work under windows, recent versions of the OS are pretty good about having scrolling pop-ups, but older versions attempted to show everything at once. I don't think the Win GUI is really designed to handle thousands of selectable options. You'd never be able to find what you want anyway with so many stars in the list. You really need a complete list (not just the 500 nearest or brightest or whatever) in a scrolling window (not a popup) with a variety of sort methods (including name), or a search function.

[Ortolan]

How about an advanced search function. ie:
Distance is ( )less than ( )greater than [_____] light years
Show stars that are [ ]single [ ]binary [ ]multiple
Show [ ]supergiants [ ]giants [ ]main sequence [ ]dwarfs [ ]pulsars [ ]black holes
Star system has planets [ ]yes [ ]no
Limit results to [_____] *maximum of 1000
Order results by:
( ) Distance ( ) Star Size ( ) Alphabetical
[ SEARCH ]

NB: ( ) = radio selection [ ] = checkbox [_____] = text field

[billybob884]

Thats actually a really good idea, a lot better than mine. You should tell chris about that one.

Mike M.

[TVTExtreme4]

Yeah, That is a great idea. Hopefully chris will be able to do that in 1.2.6 or whatever is after 1.2.5 I think it is a little late to do it in 1.2.5

[TVTExtreme4]

Here, I have made some "improvements".
-------------------------------------------------

Distance is greater than [_____], but less than [_____] light years.

Show only stars that are [ ]single [ ]binary [ ]multiple

Limit Results To: [ ]supergiants [ ]giants [ ]dwarfs [ ]pulsars [ ]black holes

Only show stars that have planets. [ ]yes [ ]no

Limit list to [_____] results. *maximum of 100

Put results in the following order: ( ) Distance from Current Location ( )Size ( ) Alphabetical ( ) Brightness

[ SEARCH ]

Key: ( ) = radio selection [ ] = checkbox [_____] = text field

[billybob884]

Here, I have made some "improvements".
-------------------------------------------------

Distance is greater than [_____], but less than [_____] light years.

Show only stars that are [ ]single [ ]binary [ ]multiple

Limit Results To: [ ]supergiants [ ]giants [ ]dwarfs [ ]pulsars [ ]black holes

Only show stars that have planets. [ ]yes [ ]no

Limit list to [_____] results. *maximum of 100

Put results in the following order: ( ) Distance from Current Location ( )Size ( ) Alphabetical ( ) Brightness

[ SEARCH ]

Key: ( ) = radio selection [ ] = checkbox [_____] = text field

The limit results should also have an '[ ] = all' option
The maximum limit sould be a lot higher like 10,000
And there should be a search for planets, so in the end it should look like this:

Star Search

Distance Is:
Greater Than [_____], But Less Than [_____] ( ) Light years ( ) A.U. ( ) Radii

Show stars that are:
[ ] Single [ ] Binary [ ] Multiple [ ] Any Type

Show:
[ ] Supergiants [ ] Giants [ ] Main Sequence [ ] Dwarfs [ ] Pulsars [ ] Black Holes [ ] All

Star System Has Planets:
( ) Yes ( ) No

Limit Results To:
[_____] *maximum of 10,000

Order Results By:
( ) Distance ( ) Star Size ( ) Alphabetical ( ) Number Of Planets

[ SEARCH ]

Planet Search

Size:
from[____] to [____]

Type:
[ ] Gas Giant, [ ] Binary, [ ] (etc...), [ ] All

Year Length:
from[____] to [____]

Day Length:
from[____] to [____]

Distance Is:
Greater Than [_____], But Less Than [_____] ( ) Light years ( ) A.U. ( ) Radii

Planet Has Moons:
( ) Yes ( ) No

Planet Has Satelites:
( ) Yes ( ) No

Limit Results To:
[_____] *maximum of 10,000

Order Results By:
( ) Distance ( ) Planet Size ( ) Alphabetical ( ) Number Of Moons ( ) Number Of Satelites

[ SEARCH ]

[billybob884]

Another idea I had is there should be an option that will tell you were you are in like long. & lat. something like that


Mike M.

[Snafuun]

Very good ideas billybob.

I often use Celestia, it's a great tool.

Hope the siteowner is watching, cause I have another idea.


Why not give a distinct feature/skin to each type of star accordingly:

Main squence:
1. O
2. B
3. A
4. F
5. G
6. K
7. M
8. Red Giants
9. Red Supergiants
10. White dwarfs
11. Brown dwarfs

A total of 11 new 'star skins', which would greatly enhance the graphical interface and gain much in order of pedagogical value to the system. No more confusing Antares with Barnard's Star, if you see what I mean.

And by the way, just heard that the number of exoplanets now have risen to above 100. Would be great if these new objects as of a certain date could be included in an update.

Comments from forum members invited.

[Snafuun]

Sorry, numbers 8-11 are of course of the main sequence. Simply forgot to put in a seperating headline there.

[billybob884]

Why not give a distinct feature/skin to each type of star accordingly:

Main squence:
1. O
2. B
3. A
4. F
5. G
6. K
7. M
8. Red Giants
9. Red Supergiants
10. White dwarfs
11. Brown dwarfs

A total of 11 new 'star skins', which would greatly enhance the graphical interface and gain much in order of pedagogical value to the system. No more confusing Antares with Barnard's Star, if you see what I mean.

Thats a good idea, and shouldnt be too hard because there arre already like 5 different star textures, right?


Mike M.

[chris]

Why not give a distinct feature/skin to each type of star accordingly:

Main squence:
1. O
2. B
3. A
4. F
5. G
6. K
7. M
8. Red Giants
9. Red Supergiants
10. White dwarfs
11. Brown dwarfs

A total of 11 new 'star skins', which would greatly enhance the graphical interface and gain much in order of pedagogical value to the system. No more confusing Antares with Barnard's Star, if you see what I mean.

Thats a good idea, and shouldnt be too hard because there arre already like 5 different star textures, right?

It would be simple to do . . . but is it really worth it? To a nearby (~ 1 au distant) observer, pretty much all stars would look like blazing bright featureless discs, probably with some variation in hue depending on temperature. Observed through a filter, there might be some more interesting differences . . . Convection occurs throughout the interior of late M stars and not at all in O and B stars. This would presumably make the surfaces of the stars look very different (again, through a filter), but don't know exactly what features you could expect to see.

--Chris

[Snafuun]

Billybob: "Thats a good idea, and shouldnt be too hard because there arre already like 5 different star textures, right?"

- Thanks. Are there?


chris: "It would be simple to do . . . but is it really worth it? To a nearby (~ 1 au distant) observer, pretty much all stars would look like blazing bright featureless discs, probably with some variation in hue depending on temperature."

- Hm, in artwork you routinely see a lot of difference between stars but maybe that's just poetic license without any foundation in reality?


"Observed through a filter, there might be some more interesting differences . . ."

- Let's suggest that filters are standard issue on our starships!


"Convection occurs throughout the interior of late M stars and not at all in O and B stars. This would presumably make the surfaces of the stars look very different (again, through a filter)..."

- Yes, yes, yes.


"...but don't know exactly what features you could expect to see."

- Neither do I. At least not at this stage. Just thought that red supergiants probably woud have quite low density outer gas layers with discernable hot center area, compared to MS M-stars which would be compact little rascals. That lower range MS M-stars would just not glow with a dimmer light but have kind of more dark streaks on their surfaces (even though I just suggested only one skin for all MS M-stars). That there ought to be a substantial difference in the impression of a white A star compared to a white dwarf like Kapteyn's Star, although to be honest I really don't know in what way.
I do understand however that if most stars look quite alike, then there is little reason for the proposed modifications. Besides, perhaps we simply don't know what different stars actually look like on a closer inspection (filters provided) despite Hubble etc. If we recall, nobody has gone there yet.

[Darkmiss]

One small thing I would like to see changed is,
If you have any names showing. they dont show through the plannets and objects that are infront.

because I had a real nice veiw of Jupiter the other day.
and when I spun around the plannet, I had a mass of green names
showing through the plannet, spoiled it a bit.

I know i can turn them off, but i like to have plannets a spacecraft names on