Orbits and Labels colors

Cham · Post #181by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 21:25

ElChristou wrote:(BTW, all my arguments are based on automag of course...)

In my opinion, this is a weakness. It should be independant from having AutoMagn ON or OFF. The students don't even understand the difference !

Post #182by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 21:27

Cham wrote:Having a different color for the clusters and nebulae also helps to see the spatial distribution, one versus the other.

Of course, I never say we should use the same color.
Concerning the spatial distribution, is this really relevant? I mean do we use complete catalogues? (I mean if not, the spatial distribution would be wrong...)

Post #183by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 21:31

Cham wrote:
ElChristou wrote:(BTW, all my arguments are based on automag of course...)

In my opinion, this is a weakness. It should be independant from having AutoMagn ON or OFF. The students don't even understand the difference !

Well, all the fading labels of galaxies are magnitude dependent and the rendering of the galaxies is also optimum with automag on... so why not using it?

Of course one can fill his screen with labels, but I don't see the interest (in this case whatever color we chose would make no difference, one would not able to find a particular body in the middle of hundreds of labels...)

Cham · Post #184by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 21:34

The choice should however be independant from the AutoMagn (or any other options). It should be adequate in both circumstances (AutoMagn ON and OFF).

Post #185by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 21:41

Cham wrote:The choice should however be independant from the AutoMagn (or any other options). It should be adequate in both circumstances (AutoMagn ON and OFF).

Fine, I suppose it won't really make a difference...

Cham, try out again my palette thinking on the above, don't fix yourself on the choice of colors. Go on ground and turn on DSOs and stars labels... lurck around a while and tell me it's not a + so separate without thinking in it, stars from DSOs...

Post #186by **t00fri** » 20.06.2007, 21:45

Cham wrote:The choice should however be independant from the AutoMagn (or any other options). It should be adequate in both circumstances (AutoMagn ON and OFF).

Cham,

here I disagree. I claim that on conventional monitors there is no real alternative to displaying galaxies over such a large range of mags with AUTOMAG=ON

Bye Fridger

Cham · Post #187by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 21:45

ElChristou wrote:Go on ground and turn on DSOs and stars labels... lurck around a while and tell me it's not a + so separate without thinking in it, stars from DSOs...

According to Fridger, the labels aren't supposed to be seen in daylight (bug). In the night, well, it's the same as if we're outside in space. I don't see what difference it would do.

Cham · Post #188by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 21:46

t00fri wrote:here I disagree. I claim that on conventional monitors there is no real alternative to displaying galaxies over such a large range of mags with AUTOMAG=ON

Fridger, we're not talking about the galaxies rendering. Only about their labels.

Post #189by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 21:54

Cham wrote:
ElChristou wrote:Go on ground and turn on DSOs and stars labels... lurck around a while and tell me it's not a + so separate without thinking in it, stars from DSOs...

According to Fridger, the labels aren't supposed to be seen in daylight (bug). In the night, well, it's the same as if we're outside in space. I don't see what difference it would do.

pff.. look from wherever you want, just tell me in my face :wink:

it's not a + ...

Cham · Post #190by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 21:57

I'm not sure to understand what you mean.

Yes, stars should be separated from the rest. Isn't already the case with both palettes ?

Post #191by **t00fri** » 20.06.2007, 22:03

Cham wrote:
t00fri wrote:here I disagree. I claim that on conventional monitors there is no real alternative to displaying galaxies over such a large range of mags with AUTOMAG=ON

Fridger, we're not talking about the galaxies rendering. Only about their labels.

Oh sorry,...of course, but there is no alternative to switching automag=on, because you want to display galaxies besides the galaxy labels ;-)

Bye Fridger

Cham · Post #192by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 22:08

t00fri wrote:but there is no alternative to switching automag=on, because you want to display galaxies besides the galaxy labels

Not necessarily, if you want to see the distribution on the celestial sphere, for example, or in another circumstances (correlation with another, clusters, nebulas, etc). Anyway, I don't think this is really a constraint on the choice of palette. Only readability and consistency (and absence of "agressivity on screen") count for the labels.

Post #193by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 22:17

Cham wrote:I'm not sure to understand what you mean.

Yes, stars should be separated from the rest. Isn't already the case with both palettes ?

Is my English this bad? (if it is, please tell me! (no jocking))

Ok, a pict better than 1000 words...

4 bodies. 3 are part of a group. In which case you can determinate at first sight who is the outsider, A or B?

A:

B:

Cham · Post #194by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 22:22

I don't see how this is really relevant. The galaxies are on another distance scale, so it's normal to have them shown with another color.

There is nothing "bad" in the second case.

I think you are searching for too much "coherence" here. Some would say in French "Travailler du chapeau". ;-)

Post #195by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 22:35

Cham wrote:I don't see how this is really relevant. The galaxies are on another distance scale, so it's normal to have them shown with another color.

I agree it's not relevant when looking at DSOs at large scale. Now looking from Earth I find practical to separate at first sight stars from DSOs...
Or I'm completely wrong and there is no interest in this?

Cham wrote:I think you are searching for too much "coherence" here. Some would say in French "Travailler du chapeau".

Why too much coherence? more coherence (in whatever field) is always better... or not? :oops:

Cham · Post #196by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 22:37

ElChristou wrote:Now looking from Earth I find practical to separate at first sight stars from DSOs...

I don't understand what you mean. Both palettes are making a clear distinction between the stars and the DSO.

Post #197by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 22:45

Cham wrote:...There is nothing "bad" in the second case...

Of course there is nothing wrong with A or B, wasn't the question...

(BTW, A or B?)

Post #198by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 22:52

Cham wrote:
ElChristou wrote:Now looking from Earth I find practical to separate at first sight stars from DSOs...

I don't understand what you mean. Both palettes are making a clear distinction between the stars and the DSO.

Ok, you are going to understand; let's do it step by step: first, just answer the question:

4 bodies. 3 are part of a group. In which case you can determinate at first sight who is the outsider, A or B?

A:

B:

Cham · Post #199by **Cham** » 20.06.2007, 22:56

This is irrelevant. What does that gonna prove ? Should I also take into account the spatial organisation ? Is that a QI test ? Should I separate the colors in "hot" and "cold" ? Or according to their wavelenght ? Any response is right ! Sorry this is all arbitrary and uninteresting.

Post #200by **ElChristou** » 20.06.2007, 23:18

Cham wrote:This is irrelevant.

Why?

Cham wrote:What does that gonna prove ?

Grouping DSOs gives the user a way to determinate at first sight what are stars and what are DSOs.

Cham wrote:Should I also take into account the spatial organisation?

no it's all about colors.

Cham wrote:Is that a QI test ?

No

Cham wrote:Should I separate the colors in "hot" and "cold" ?

As you want.

Cham wrote:Or according to their wavelenght ?

wavelenght are not implemented yet in Celestia, so no.

Cham wrote:Sorry this is all arbitrary and uninteresting.

Why?