Noob asking questions and making suggestions

[Jorge]

There aren't noobs like there used to be. Now they come in, don't RTFM, and start asking questions ans making suggestions right away. Disgusting.

OK, out of jokes, I did try to read the *** manual, but there doesn't seem to be one, and I did spend a few hour here in the forum trying to come up with answers to my questions, but the forum is so big that every search I did came ou with a huge list of hits, and I simply didn't have time to read it all. I did read some stuff, answered a few questions by myself, but a few still remail. If there were already answered, I apologise.

OK, I'm a noob, but hopefully a smart noob. So I think I got this program pretty much figured out. However, here are the issues that remain. I'm running version 1.3.2, in case you're wandering.

1) STC file doesn't load
One of the things I tried was to find extrasolar planets. But is seems that some of the objects these objects orbit are not included in Celestia's default star catalogue. I know that there is a extrasolar.stc file, which supposedly serves as an addon to this default catalogue, but I can't go to any of the systems described in that file. I even made a test using a totally invented star, and the result was the same.

Here I read that "new" stars in Celestia must use fake Hipparcos numbers, and checking that file I see no Hipparcos numbers there. Could that be the cause of the problem? Also, what numbers are fake?

2) Some textures don't load and other misc issues with textures
OK, my current graphics card is a piece of boar's manure, so this is probably all due to card insufficiency (hopefully a new card is coming soon) but I'm putting this here anyway.

Sometimes I've noticed that some textures simply don't load when they are part of addons and placed in the addon's textures folder. However, if I copy or move them to the main textures folder they suddenly appear. It's as if Celestia does not go sniff every possible folder inside EXTRAS but only some. Weird enough.

But it gets weirder: some textures are rendered seamlessly. Other textures, however, show a thin black line from pole to pole. Interestingly enough, this doesn't happen where the two ends of the texture were supposed to meet. One good example: Earth. The thin black line sort of marks the Greewich meridian.

3) Are the previews fully functional?
Well, it's it. When I downloaded Celestia I though about downloading the latest pre-release, but I thought that it was probably just a working release, filled with bugs and unstable, so I shose 1.3.2. Later, however, when I went to Motherlode check out some goodies, I noticed that some addons require version 1.4, which apparently means that most people are using one of the prevs. What gives?

4) Feature request: a fictional class
I love fictional planets and other objects, but I also love all the good old solid science that forms the base for all of this. This combination of fact and fiction is what makes Celestia so great. However, there some problems arise from this combination. For instance, since I write SF if find it very useful to be able to create whole planetary systems out there, but when a real planet is present I prefer building my fictional system around the real thing. And sometimes it's just needed to be able to scrap all the fiction and look just at the fact. This has been implemented with textures, with lok textures, but I'd like it to see it implemented with all the other objects as well. A checkbox in the "RENDER > VIEW OPTIONS" menu, with the options "ONLY FICTION / ONLY REALITY / BOTH" would be much appreciated. And I suppose that the programming necessary would just mean the adaptation of the routines that are used to display clouds, orbits, and all that stuff. Fictional worlds would be defined the same way planets, asteroids and other objects are: through a category or a class in the SSC file. The same for stars and their STCs.

Hum... and I got this feeling that I'm forgetting something. I'll return to this topic if I remember.

Meanwhile, cheers
Jorge

[selden]

There aren't noobs like there used to be. Now they come in, don't RTFM, and start asking questions ans making suggestions right away. Disgusting.

I assume you're talking about yourself
You should include emoticons (smilies) when you're being sarcastic or poking fun. I started to get somewhat upset until I read further.

OK, out of jokes, I did try to read the *** manual, but there doesn't seem to be one,

There's a user manual on the Celestia Web site's documentation page and on the MotherLode's documentation page, too:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/celestia/documentation/
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/documentation/

If you haven't already done so, you might also take a look at
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celest ... intro.html
(It's mentioned on the Addons page of Shatters:
http://216.231.48.101/celestia/addons.html )

and I did spend a few hour here in the forum trying to come up with answers to my questions, but the forum is so big that every search I did came ou with a huge list of hits, and I simply didn't have time to read it all. I did read some stuff, answered a few questions by myself, but a few still remail. If there were already answered, I apologise.

OK, I'm a noob, but hopefully a smart noob. So I think I got this program pretty much figured out. However, here are the issues that remain. I'm running version 1.3.2, in case you're wandering.

1) STC file doesn't load
One of the things I tried was to find extrasolar planets. But is seems that some of the objects these objects orbit are not included in Celestia's default star catalogue. I know that there is a extrasolar.stc file, which supposedly serves as an addon to this default catalogue, but I can't go to any of the systems described in that file. I even made a test using a totally invented star, and the result was the same.

Here I read that "new" stars in Celestia must use fake Hipparcos numbers, and checking that file I see no Hipparcos numbers there. Could that be the cause of the problem? Also, what numbers are fake?

The star catalogs included with v1.3.2 are incomplete. The catalog of extrasolar planets references several stars that are not listed in v1.3.2's catalogs of stars. In particular, v1.3.2 does not include extrasolar.stc (the additional star catalog), only extrasolar.ssc (the planet catalog).

Where did you get the copy of extrasolar.stc that you mention?
You have to use a version of extrasolar.stc that's compatible with v1.3.2.
The newest versions require Celestia v1.4.0pre6. They make use of features that are not available in v1.3.2.

The version of extrasolar.stc that's compatible with v1.3.2 is at
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celest ... stars.html
Follow the links there to other Celestia improvements provided by Grant Hutchison. He's the author of the most recent extrasolar.stc and .ssc catalogs, too.

2) Some textures don't load and other misc issues with textures
OK, my current graphics card is a piece of boar's manure, so this is probably all due to card insufficiency (hopefully a new card is coming soon) but I'm putting this here anyway.

Sometimes I've noticed that some textures simply don't load when they are part of addons and placed in the addon's textures folder. However, if I copy or move them to the main textures folder they suddenly appear. It's as if Celestia does not go sniff every possible folder inside EXTRAS but only some. Weird enough.

You'll have to be more explicit. Which Addons? Which textures folders? I haven't seen that particular problem unless they really weren't in the right folders under /extras/.

But it gets weirder: some textures are rendered seamlessly. Other textures, however, show a thin black line from pole to pole. Interestingly enough, this doesn't happen where the two ends of the texture were supposed to meet. One good example: Earth. The thin black line sort of marks the Greewich meridian.

Is this the one that comes with Celstia or an Addon texture? Which one? It sounds to me like you're describing an Addon map that wasn't created very carefully. 0 degrees of longitude (the prime meridian) should be in the middle of the texture. Black seams usually happen at the edges where the author didn't trim them properly. As a result, they normally show up at 180 degrees.

3) Are the previews fully functional?
Well, it's it. When I downloaded Celestia I though about downloading the latest pre-release, but I thought that it was probably just a working release, filled with bugs and unstable, so I shose 1.3.2. Later, however, when I went to Motherlode check out some goodies, I noticed that some addons require version 1.4, which apparently means that most people are using one of the prevs. What gives?

v1.4.0pre6 is very stable. (The latest CVS code isn't.) Most of pre6's bugs are in its new features. They aren't quite finished.

Does this help?

[Jorge]

There's a user manual on the Celestia Web site's documentation page and on the MotherLode's documentation page, too:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/celestia/documentation/
http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/documentation/

If you haven't already done so, you might also take a look at
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celest ... intro.html
(It's mentioned on the Addons page of Shatters:
http://216.231.48.101/celestia/addons.html )

Well, yeah. I was perhaps too harsh on Celestia's documentation. But the fact is that I wouldn't call those documents "manual". They are either basic outlines of what the program can do or brief tutorials. Nothing that would give answers to the questions one gets once all the basics are understood.

It's nothing characteristic to Celestia, it's a common flaw in this kind of project: documentation is way behind the programs themselves.

The star catalogs included with v1.3.2 are incomplete. The catalog of extrasolar planets references several stars that are not listed in v1.3.2's catalogs of stars. In particular, v1.3.2 does not include extrasolar.stc (the additional star catalog), only extrasolar.ssc (the planet catalog).

Where did you get the copy of extrasolar.stc that you mention?

That was the very first thing I downloaded from the Motherlode, right after installing the software itself. I'm afraid I don't remember anymore the exact steps I took. Anyway, the file came without any reference to being specific of 1.4. The only comment it includes, other than small data on star data is this:

# Stars which are not included in the Hipparcos catalog, but are
# orbited by extrasolar planets. (The planets are defined in the file
# "extrasolar.ssc".)
#
# Additionally, some companion stars and orbits for named binary stars
# with extrasolar planets.

The version specs may be in the motherlode, but if they are I missed them.

You'll have to be more explicit. Which Addons? Which textures folders? I haven't seen that particular problem unless they really weren't in the right folders under /extras/.

Well, this happened, for instance, with the Stargate_Bane addon. Despite the directory structure of the addon being right, all the textures failed to display until I copied them to the main textures folder, together with Celestia's defaults.

(This addon is also problematic because of the ring around the giant planet (that's a swarm, I believe, although I still didn't understand how it's defined), which slows it very much, but that's due to the limitations of my computer, I guess.)

But it gets weirder: some textures are rendered seamlessly. Other textures, however, show a thin black line from pole to pole. Interestingly enough, this doesn't happen where the two ends of the texture were supposed to meet. One good example: Earth. The thin black line sort of marks the Greewich meridian.

Is this the one that comes with Celstia or an Addon texture?

It's the one that comes with Celestia.

Which one? It sounds to me like you're describing an Addon map that wasn't created very carefully. 0 degrees of longitude (the prime meridian) should be in the middle of the texture. Black seams usually happen at the edges where the author didn't trim them properly. As a result, they normally show up at 180 degrees.

I know. That's why I found it weird.

Anyway, as I said I attribute this bizarre behaviour to a very bad graphics card and hope that once I get my new Radeon card it'll go away.

v1.4.0pre6 is very stable. (The latest CVS code isn't.) Most of pre6's bugs are in its new features. They aren't quite finished.

Does this help?

Yeah. Thanks.

[Jorge]

Just remembered what I was forgetting yesterday:

5) Feature request: changeable non-stellar names

My english is quite allright, typos notwithstanding, but I'd really like to be able to "fly" Celestia in my own language. As things are now, I can rename the planets, but that means changing a lot of files, and core Celestia files at that, and the possibility that some addons cease to function. If I rename the Earth to Terra, for instance, the opening videostream stops at the Sun. So it would really be nice if there would be some method of attributing alternative names to non-stellar objects in the same lines that multiple designations have been given to stars.

[selden]

Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of extrasolar.stc on the Motherlode. The only ones I'm aware of are on SourceForge in the Celestia development area, and they're all for 1.4.

If you haven't already, you should download the most recent drivers for your card from the Web site of its manufacturer. Alternatively, you can disable hardware acceleration entirely. Microsoft's software OpenGL is rather slow and lacking in features, but it's relatively bug free. That should help eliminate the seam problems if they're related to your graphics card.

ATI's Radeon cards are not the best choice for Celestia. Nvidia cards tend to have fewer problems in their OpenGL code. ATI tends to be better in DirectX.

[Jorge]

If you haven't already, you should download the most recent drivers for your card from the Web site of its manufacturer. Alternatively, you can disable hardware acceleration entirely. Microsoft's software OpenGL is rather slow and lacking in features, but it's relatively bug free. That should help eliminate the seam problems if they're related to your graphics card.

My card is still a S3 graphics ProSavageDDR from... 2003. I really need an update. This card isn't bad, in the sense that it's reliable and doesn't give problems, but it's way too weak for these days. It doesn't even have its own memory. It's useless to try to optimize Celestia to this card (or this card to Celestia).

ATI's Radeon cards are not the best choice for Celestia. Nvidia cards tend to have fewer problems in their OpenGL code. ATI tends to be better in DirectX.

Hum...

My problem is that I have financial constraints that don't allow me to go for the best. I'll have to settle for the not so bad but cheap. And I can buy a Radeon card for 60 euros...

[selden]

You might look into the cost of the older Nvidia 5200 generation of cards. A quick Web search found them available for 50 Euros. They support all of the functions needed to show all of Celestia's eye candy, including the new multiple light-source shadows drawn by 1.4.0pre6. You'll need a Radeon 9500 or better to see them. The same Web page lists 9500 cards for 70 Euros.

[Jorge]

Not in Portugal, as far as I can tell. And ordering stuff from abroad usually implies large costs in shipping, pushing the prices up (sometimes waay up).

Anyway, what's the problem with Radeon cards? They don't diplay multiple light source shadows? If that's all, I can live with it. After all, I enjoy Celestia even with my current card...

[selden]

If you get an older Radeon card (model number less than 9500), Celestia v1.4.0 can't cast shadows from more than two light sources. With a 9000 or better, Celestia should be able to do everything else: specular reflections, bumpmap shadows and cast ring shadows onto planet surfaces. With less than a 9000, Celestia can't draw much more than you see now.

I don't have access to a system with a Radeon 9000 series card and am making these pronouncements from fading memory of comments by other people. I could be entirely wrong. It'd be nice if someone with a 9000 or 9500 could confirm what I've written.

At one time I did use a system with an ATI Rage card and later with a Radeon 7000. Their performance was relatively poor: slow and limited to "Multitexture" functionality. Multitextures (nightlights) were very, very slow on the Rage since it was done entirely in software. The 7000 was faster, but quite buggy: running Celestia caused screen lockups. The problems went away when the Rage 7000 was replaced by an Nvidia 5200 card. Hopefully ATI's drivers have improved since then.