New Celestia-1.4.0pre-FT1.2 Version for Download

[t00fri]

@Frank

it would be great if you could correct your URL's such that we can see what you mean...
------------------------------
@everybody

Let me ask the following: Since it is of course absolutely trivial to reduce the Milky Way brightness somewhat and to correct the bug you (Frank) spotted ( off-center vanishing add-ons), I might upload another binary 'dot' Windows release, say FT1.2.1 for further testing...

Let me know whether this would appear worthwhile.

Let me remind you that FT1.2 has almost completely been integrated by Chris into CVS and will soon be included in the official 1.4.0 version. Since I did not yet come around to add some missing FT1.2 data files to CVS, another FT1.2.1 intermediate bin version might be of some interest.

If you can agree on some of ElChristou's new templates, I might substitute some also ...

Just let me know what looks desirable.

OH,yes: please consider that my brightness adjustments in FT1.2 are based on /automag mode/ being /activated/ (toggle with CTRL+y)! If you disabled it, then at present the galaxies will for sure look too bright. We will be discussing various options of arriving at an acceptable brightness without the automag in the developers list, soon.

Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

...If you can agree on some of ElChristou's new templates, I might substitute some also...

I need a few more time to do some other ones, then I'd like to do an archive for people to test before...

BTW, bug? when I bookmark a galaxy, I get a barycentre in my bookmark list; example:

for M98 I get 94 Cet
M99 -> 94 Cet B
M88 -> PSR 1620-26
M85 -> Gliese 777
MilkyWay -> OGLE-TR-56
etc...

Someone can confirm?

[BlindedByTheLight]

ElC... Dirkpitt told me that it was a "known" bug in the bookmarking with certain objects. Known perhaps only to him and me... but known nonetheless...

[selden]

Fridger,

Of course, I always think test versions are useful.
Hopefully I'm not the only one....

[fsgregs]

ok, I reloaded the photos above from a different image hosting site. Hopefully, you can see how bright the Milky Way is on two different CRT monitors that I use.

Thanks for offering to post another test version (1.2.1) with a dimmer Milky Way default and some other fixes. That would be GREAT!!!!

I greatly look forward to downloading it ASAP.

Frank

[t00fri]

ok, I reloaded the photos above from a different image hosting site. Hopefully, you can see how bright the Milky Way is on two different CRT monitors that I use.

Thanks for offering to post another test version (1.2.1) with a dimmer Milky Way default and some other fixes. That would be GREAT!!!!

I greatly look forward to downloading it ASAP.

Frank

OK Frank, now I can see your images. Well my Milky Way is by far not so bright. But I'll try to produce a dimmer version ASAP.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Important: Were your above images taken with AUTOMAG mode ON or OFF ???
++++++++++++++++++++++++


Bye Fridger

[fsgregs]

Fridger:

The images were taken with Automag off. When I turn it on, it actually gets brighter. That may be because I prefer space filled with lots of stars, with magnitude limits set between 8.0 - 9.0. When Automag is engaged at that level, the Milky Way haze gets at least 20% brighter, which only makes it worse.

Thanks for offering to fix it.

Regards,

Frank

[t00fri]

Fridger:

The images were taken with Automag off. When I turn it on, it actually gets brighter. That may be because I prefer space filled with lots of stars, with magnitude limits set between 8.0 - 9.0. When Automag is engaged at that level, the Milky Way haze gets at least 20% brighter, which only makes it worse.

Thanks for offering to fix it.

Regards,

Frank

I knew Automag was off . After all, I spend a lot of time balancing the galaxy brightness .

The whole point about automag = ON is that the Milky Way gets much dimmer when you watch it at larger FOV corresponding to naked eye vision (60-80 degrees FOV)!

You see, the brightness problem is less simple than it might appear: on the one hand we require that galaxies look "naturally" dim for naked eye vision. On the other hand, we want this "glowing core" with lots of light when watching galxies at high zoom level. Those two requirements are rather incompatible due to the poor dynamics of rendering that monitors unfortunately have. That's why automag comes in quite crucially: it dims galaxies at large FOV and renders them bright in the center at small FOV. It's quite easy to decouple the galaxy automag from that for stars. We'll see...

Bye Fridger

PS: I am sure you realize that for consistency, setting automag limiting mag at 8-9, you do need to work with >= 2 million stars! Automag is designed to keep the star /density/ on screen ~ constant, which requires LOTS of stars if the limiting mag is high...

[fsgregs]

Fridger:

Thanks for the reply. I do use AutoMag on occasion but when used in conjunction with FT 1.2, here is the problem. When viewing Earth and Moon for example, a low FOV of 20 - 35 degrees seems to create a zoom size that seems natural and which draws the moon in a reasonable size relationship to Earth. At that FOV level, the Milky Way is WAYYYYY too bright. While it is true that using an FOV of 50 or 60 dims the haze of the galaxy, it is far too wide a view to use within the solar system.

When I activate AutoMag, galaxy brightness gets BRIGHTER!

Here is an image of Earth from my system with FOV set at 26, autoMag enabled and Magnitude limits set at 8.0 (I am using the 1M stars.dat set):




As you can see, the Milky way is HORRIBLE

Users may or may not always want to use AutoMag. For example, I have hundreds of cel:url links in my Activities that do not have AutoMag set. I cannot now go back and redo all those links. It would take me a week or more. In addition, using it has made the problem worse, not better!

PLEASE simply code FT 1.2.1 to drop the default brightness of the Milky Way about 30%, as seen from inside. Then, users can simply judge for themselves what brightness level they desire. If they wish it brighter (with or without AutoMag enabled), they can simply press the [)] key a few times and Celestia will remember the setting. Alternatively, they can set galaxy brightness via a start.cel command.

Thanks, Fridger.

Regards,

Frank

[smjjames]

should I get version 1.4? to me it looks like this fixes some issues. Although I know nothing about coding and all that, from the other posts on this thread it looks like theres still some bugs.

or is this a version used for people designing stuff?

I have version 1.3.2 btw

[ElChristou]

should I get version 1.4? to me it looks like this fixes some issues. Although I know nothing about coding and all that, from the other posts on this thread it looks like theres still some bugs.

or is this a version used for people designing stuff?

I have version 1.3.2 btw

Hello smjjames,

In fact the choice of the version greatly depend on your age; two solutions:

You are under 10, so stay with 1.3.2 and come back in approx 1 year for better version (developping this software is pretty long you know)

You are above 10, so do whatever you want, you are old enough to test and decide by yourcelf.

Hope this help.

Bye.

[smjjames]

are you trying to be insulting or something? cause I'm 22

I'm just confused about this new version.

[Malenfant]

Er, yeah, I'm not entirely sure why a user's age would have anything to do with what version of Celestia they had... very odd thing to say I think!

1.4.0 isn't fully out yet. So your choices are basically either 1.4.0pre7 (which is a vast improvement over 1.3.2) or FT1.2 (which is built on top of 1.4.0preX (pre6, I think?) and contains things like the new galaxies and binary systems that haven't been officially included in a readily available compiled executable)

So basically if you want the binaries and galaxies and are prepared to put up with a few teething problems (like the galaxy brightness thing) then FT1.2 is good for you.

If you just want a stable working version of Celestia without the fancier stuff then you'll be fine with 1.4.0pre7.

[smjjames]

ok, thanks for the info

[BlindedByTheLight]

are you trying to be insulting or something? cause I'm 22

I'm just confused about this new version.

Unless I'm mistaken, ElChristou wasn't implying anything about your age at all. He was laying out two general rules of thumb to make your question accessible to the most amount of people a la...

"IF you are under 10... then do this"

and

"IF you are over 10... then do that"

He just probably left the "if" out - which is a common miscommunication on a board where not everyone speaks the English as a first language.

Mal... I think ElChristou was just commenting that some users might be more comfortable with the more stable version - and that those users might be younger... of course, lol... I would probably have reversed his suggestions...

[t00fri]

At least with my German (odd) sense of humor I did not find ElChristou's age-based approach insulting, but in fact rather original. Perhaps it was because I once carried a French passport (a long time ago)...

But honestly, one cannot compare 1.3.2 anymore with FT1.2.

Besides our 10000+ galaxies, there are so many more additions in FT1.2 that the list would be very long! Think of binaries, orbit fixes and lots of other stuff...After all there was a very long time (>1 year) between the two releases.

If I find a little time, I plan to release a FT1.2.1 version for Windows /very soon/, including a /brightness-reduced/ Milky Way and with the bug of "vanishing decentralized add-ons" fixed. These are about the only serious flaws of FT1.2 I am aware of...


Cheers,
Fridger

[dirkpitt]

If I find a little time, I plan to release a FT1.2.1 version for Windows /very soon/, including a /brightness-reduced/ Milky Way and with the bug of "vanishing decentralized add-ons" fixed. These are about the only serious flaws of FT1.2 I am aware of...

Very cool. Incidentally, has the DSO bookmarking regression bug that I mentioned recently on the mailing list been fixed?

[ElChristou]

...are you trying to be insulting or something? cause I'm 22...

Sorry Smjjames, it was late at night here and I was really wondering about your age because your question was in fact off topic... We all know that 1.4 is not yet available, so I thought you was young enough to not take the time to read the forum before asking something (common to younger/impatient users)...

You should test by yourcelf all the versions, each one has something to offer (I think people don't do version just for fun) and as you are 22 you can even participate in debugging the last ones (by finding some malfunction of the soft, then post your comments here).

@ Malenfant, today reading my comment with a fresh eye it's true that it was just a little bit ironic, but it was nothing serious of course!

@ Steven, tx for the correction, still have to make some efforts (I use english only on the forum and still do lot of analogy with French...)

[PlutonianEmpire]

Suggestion:

I remember reading once that a long gone version of celestia once had "twinkling" stars. I was wondering, is it possible to bring that back as an option of some sort? (even though I admit it's rather unrealistic, it would probably make for some pretty eye candy)

Just curious, that's all.

[ElChristou]

Hello guys,

I would like you to download this SBb template, test it and give your opinion... If positive I will do all of them the same way.

-> SBb Template