New Celestia-1.4.0pre-FT1 (galaxies) for Testing

[ANDREA]

ANDREA, We shall release a FT1.1 (dot) release within the next days, when all these little things have been fixed. Unfortunately, we don't have yet a solution for the leftover CTRL-V crash from the CVS code that some people (not me) are getting. Bye Fridger

Thank you Fridger, I'll stay tuned.
BTW, my PC doesn't have crash using CTRL+V.
Bye

Andrea

[hank]

Hank I just recompiled the Windows code with the obvious addition,

Code: Select all

if (distance<0) distance = 0;


Everything is fine, now. The Milky Way is back in full glory also for Windows!

Thanks again for the hint.

Cheers,
Fridger

Don't mention it. I'm more than happy to help out with a little debugging after you and Toti have done all the hard work!

- Hank

[PlutonianEmpire]

We shall release a FT1.1 (dot) release within the next days, when all these little things have been fixed. Unfortunately, we don't have yet a solution for the leftover CTRL-V crash from the CVS code that some people (not me) are getting.

Bye Fridger

I noticed that when i got the first test release, i noticed that i couldn't see the specular highlights of a planet. Will i be able to see the speculars in your next release?

Do you get the same problem using Selden's executable? (it's on page 5)

Bye

Yep. no specular texture. Plus, the haze also isn't there.

On top of that, i can't get my fictional galaxy I made for myself to appear.

Code: Select all

Galaxy "Pluto Galaxy"
{
   Type "Sa"
   RA 1.00
   Dec 7.60
   Distance 800000
   Radius 50000
   AbsMag 4.06
   Axis [ 0.500 -0.800 1.00 ] # X, Y, Z, respectively
   Angle 75
}

[PlutonianEmpire]

In the new celestia from page 5, this is what i got.

[lostfisherman]

In the new celestia from page 5, this is what i got.

I got that too with the the 'page 5' version, the galaxy labels were enabled in that one, but not in FT1, as was said in the readme. This was with the new data file left in place. Of course the galaxies weren't drawn, just labeled. It could need work, it was very cluttered, could they possibly be weighted somehow? Just a thought...

[t00fri]

In the new celestia from page 5, this is what i got.

This just illustrates the large number of galaxies we now have implemented in deepsky.dsc .

In the CVS version, that unfortunately has introduced already the bugs you were complaining about, the galaxy labels were still working (and activated) that's what your image showed.

The restoration of the galaxy labels in our FT version will only come in the next release (quite soon in fact) but not yet in our bug-fix release FT1.1 within a day or so.

Bye Fridger

[selden]

Those are all the labels of the galaxies. The CVS version doesn't understand the "multiple names for one object" format, so it shows them as long names. Type an E to turn the Galaxy Labels off or on.

Did you remember to copy all of the .PTS files that are in the /models/ folder into the main directory where celestia.exe is? (Note: RightMouseButton-Select COPY, not LeftMB-Select MOVE) The CVS version of Celestia looks in the main folder for .PTS files but the FT1 version looks in the /models/ folder.

[PlutonianEmpire]

Ah. Alrighty. I eagerly await the next release!

And the no specular/no haze bug?

[PlutonianEmpire]

Those are all the labels of the galaxies. The CVS version doesn't understand the "multiple names for one object" format, so it shows them as long names. Type an E to turn the Galaxy Labels off or on.

Did you remember to copy all of the .PTS files that are in the /models/ folder into the main directory where celestia.exe is? (Note: RightMouseButton-Select COPY, not LeftMB-Select MOVE) The CVS version of Celestia looks in the main folder for .PTS files but the FT1 version looks in the /models/ folder.

D'OH! I missed that!

Doing it now...

It's working now.

Oh, and referring to some bugs i mentioned earlier...

[Toti]

We shall release a FT1.1 (dot) release within the next days, when all these little things have been fixed. Unfortunately, we don't have yet a solution for the leftover CTRL-V crash from the CVS code that some people (not me) are getting.

Bye Fridger

I noticed that when i got the first test release, i noticed that i couldn't see the specular highlights of a planet. Will i be able to see the speculars in your next release?

Do you get the same problem using Selden's executable? (it's on page 5)

Bye

Yep. no specular texture. Plus, the haze also isn't there.

On top of that, i can't get my fictional galaxy I made for myself to appear.

Code: Select all

Galaxy "Pluto Galaxy"
{
   Type "Sa"
   RA 1.00
   Dec 7.60
   Distance 800000
   Radius 50000
   AbsMag 4.06
   Axis [ 0.500 -0.800 1.00 ] # X, Y, Z, respectively
   Angle 75
}

Thanks a lot for your help.
So this isn't related to our code changes either.

The problem with your Pluto Galaxy is because the extras folders aren't enabled in this test release. This is now fixed and you'll get a fully working version soon.

Bye

[PlutonianEmpire]

We shall release a FT1.1 (dot) release within the next days, when all these little things have been fixed. Unfortunately, we don't have yet a solution for the leftover CTRL-V crash from the CVS code that some people (not me) are getting.

Bye Fridger

I noticed that when i got the first test release, i noticed that i couldn't see the specular highlights of a planet. Will i be able to see the speculars in your next release?

Do you get the same problem using Selden's executable? (it's on page 5)

Bye

Yep. no specular texture. Plus, the haze also isn't there.

On top of that, i can't get my fictional galaxy I made for myself to appear.

Code: Select all

Galaxy "Pluto Galaxy"
{
   Type "Sa"
   RA 1.00
   Dec 7.60
   Distance 800000
   Radius 50000
   AbsMag 4.06
   Axis [ 0.500 -0.800 1.00 ] # X, Y, Z, respectively
   Angle 75
}

Thanks a lot for your help.
So this isn't related to our code changes either.

The problem with your Pluto Galaxy is because the extras folders aren't enabled in this test release. This is now fixed and you'll get a fully working version soon.

Bye

Actually, I put my galaxy in the deepsky.dsc in the data folder. it appears fine now.

If the extra's folder isn't enabled, then how come i can still see all of my creations?

[Toti]

If the extra's folder isn't enabled, then how come i can still see all of my creations?

They are not enabled for deep sky objects. Other bodies' definitions work as always.

[PlutonianEmpire]

If the extra's folder isn't enabled, then how come i can still see all of my creations?

They are not enabled for deep sky objects. Other bodies' definitions work as always.

Oh.

[danielj]

In the new celestia from page 5,I have the ctrl-v bug if I try to use any render different form basic and multitexture.The companion of M51 is not visible,though.Unless it is in a different angle or position,it isn??t there.

Athlon 64 3000
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
1 GB RAM PC 3200 Kinsgston Value Dual
VGA XFX Geforce 6600 GT 128 MB PCI-E
Windows XP SP2
Forceware 71.84

[PlutonianEmpire]

In the new celestia from page 5,I have the ctrl-v bug if I try to use any render different form basic and multitexture.The companion of M51 is not visible,though.Unless it is in a different angle or position,it isn??t there.

It's there, it's just that they got the distance wrong. it's a lot closer than it should be.

[danielj]

If the companion is NGC 5195,it is a lot FARTHER than should be.I thought that NGC 5194 and NGC 5195 was interacting,as seen in the Jim??s texture

In the new celestia from page 5,I have the ctrl-v bug if I try to use any render different form basic and multitexture.The companion of M51 is not visible,though.Unless it is in a different angle or position,it isn??t there.

It's there, it's just that they got the distance wrong. it's a lot closer than it should be.

[t00fri]

....NGC 5195...
It's there, it's just that they got the distance wrong. it's a lot closer than it should be.

I thought that NGC 5194 and NGC 5195 was interacting,as seen in the Jim??s texture

Now friends,

let me explain in some detail why both your statements are untenable from a more scientific point of view:

First of all, I challenge you to check carefully all existing measurements about M 51 and NGC 5195, as summarized in Simbad.

The closest is a note about NGC 5195 from 2004, saying:

possible companion of NGC 5194

But clearly even the most hires imaging taken from EARTH is intrinsically 2d and perspective can play all sorts of deceptive games. Apparently the phtographic signatures for the two galaxies being in INTERACTION are suggestive, perhaps even probable, but NOT proven. That's why the official statement in Simbad above is sufficiently careful, despite being recent!

Next, a word about all catalog data that I prepare for Celestia: Being a professional scientist myself, with a thorough understanding of the meaning of measurement uncertainties, I shall NOWHERE impose personal prejudice. Rather my presented data have to be interpreted as unmodiified, scientifically published data, in genera,l with unavoidable and often appreciable measurement uncertainties!

Another important remark has to be made, concerning the value of the Hubble constant, which has been notoriously uncertain.

Only very recently, we have a VERY accurate value from the WMAP experiment about the cosmic microwave background radiation. That value often differs significantly from the earlier values used in the distance analyses of galaxies.

NOTE:The finally quoted distance values are DIRECTLY proportional to the value of the Hubble constant! It sets the basic distance scale.
I have used the accurate WMAP value throughout, which you have of course to fold in when you compare with other sources!

I have used in my latest deepsky.dsc about the most accurate DIRECT and independent distance measurements of M 51 and NGC 5195:

Code: Select all

M 51 (=NGC 5194):   2.89 10^7 ly  (recession velocity in CMB frame)
NGC 5195              :   2.50 10^7 ly  (SBF method, accurate!)


-------------------------------------
Now let me tell you, how these distance data MUST be interpreted.

Most optimistically, each of these two measurements has an >= 10% uncertainty attached to its center value, i.e we should better write

Code: Select all

M 51 (=NGC 5194):   (2.89 +- 0.29) 10^7 ly
NGC 5195              :   (2.50 +- 0.25 )10^7 ly

with average distance being <d> = 2.7 10^7 ly


Clearly, allowing youself to add and subtract the >= 10% uncertainty, the measured distance values are perfectly compatible with NGC 5194 and NGC 5195 being VERY close-by compagnions at an distance around 2.7 10^7 ly. But they may be also quite a bit further apart with the same probability!

Please: Neither JIM nor any of the superficial science writers that many of you often consult on the WEB, have any more solid knowledge about that issue! If there is any other SERIOUS and MORE accurate source for the distances of these two galaxies of which I am unaware, please let me know!

In any case I hope I managed to illustrate that the issue is much more complex than just stating that I got the distance WRONG or that something is "seen in JIM's texture" .

Bye Fridger

[maxim]

You don't mean negative numbers here to you?
I just proposed to (mis)use the sign as a flag for emissive/nonemissive drawn blobs - and be stripped off before handing over the value to OGL functions.

No, it's just that we are using additive blending which gives a nicer look and avoids the need to sort objects from back to front prior to render them.
Given this additive form, rendering another blob always increases brightness and never decreases it, no matter how dark it is.
There are possibly some ways to circunvent this without changing the blending function for bright blobs, being one of them to split the template into an emissive part and an absorptive one, but this could bring newer blending artifacts where the objects merge, etc.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.
But how would you avoid the problem by creating two parts for merging? There wouldn't be any depth information available. Rotating the result would look quite funny.

maxim

[cartrite]

Hi,
This is my first post.
Nice Job on this FT1
I got a AMD K7 900 mhz 512 ram geforce 5500 pci 256 ram.
I tried the FT1 version and everything worked so far in Windows and Linux. (no ctrl bug)
I was able to compile the source on Linux Suse 9.3 for KDE.
I'm having problems compiling the source for Windows.
I'm using the environment suggested in the development forum.
No problems compiling from CVS. But the tar.gz file for FT1 will not go.
At first it crashed in celutil. Then I found out that if the Makefile and Makefile.in were deleted it started compiling. All those files were deleted from the archive. Now it crashes when trying to compile celengine. It gets stuck on execution.obj. C++ dosen't give much on the cmd line. syntax error and execution.obj unexpected were mentioned as the reasons for the crash.

Any Suggestions Anyone?

cartrite

[t00fri]

Hi,
This is my first post.
Nice Job on this FT1
I got a AMD K7 900 mhz 512 ram geforce 5500 pci 256 ram.
I tried the FT1 version and everything worked so far in Windows and Linux. (no ctrl bug)
I was able to compile the source on Linux Suse 9.3 for KDE.
I'm having problems compiling the source for Windows.
I'm using the environment suggested in the development forum.
No problems compiling from CVS. But the tar.gz file for FT1 will not go.
At first it crashed in celutil. Then I found out that if the Makefile and Makefile.in were deleted it started compiling. All those files were deleted from the archive. Now it crashes when trying to compile celengine. It gets stuck on execution.obj. C++ dosen't give much on the cmd line. syntax error and execution.obj unexpected were mentioned as the reasons for the crash.

Any Suggestions Anyone?

cartrite

So I suppose you don't own VC++.net (2003)? Because then

a) It coexists peacefully with the UNIX parts. Both compile without problems as I have VERY often done

b) You can just import my project files and you are set. I have added all libs, inc, *.dlls needed to the tar.gz sources.

I have no idea what that thread says that you quoted. No time, sorry.

Bye Fridger