Good addons vs. bad addons

[SkyScraper]

I've been having some problems with some addons, some of the texture addons place the textures incorectly, and some of the rocks orbiting Saturn are a little mistplaced by comparing them with the ones allready in Celestia.
I am asking if someone with more knowledge in the subject can make a list of some fairly reliable addons from the Celestia Motherlode.
THX in advance.

EDIT
And maybe specify what the problem is with the bad addons

[Cham]

EDIT
And maybe specify what the problem is with the bad addons

The problem with bad addons is that they are ... bad.





Sorry. Couldn't resist

[BobHegwood]

If you're looking for models, then anything by Jestr is gonna be
worth downloading. I should warn you, however, that not all of
these add-ons are scientifically accurate. You simply have to make
that decision based on your own research and instincts.

Cham and ElChristou have also created some really scientifically
ACCURATE add-ons, and almost anything you download from these
two guys is gonna be worth fiddling with for a while. I say that
because they use MAC's I believe, and some of the add-ons can be a
real challenge to unpack and straighten out for use on a Windows
platform.

Bob Hundley, BH, has also created some very nice and realistic
add-ons for Celestia.

If you really want scientific accuracy though, go to the Celestial
Matters site for Dr. Schrempp's real textures. Good stuff.

There are also many other good authors on the MotherLode, but
I'm afraid that I simply can't list them all by name. Heck, just
spend some time downloading what looks interesting, and then
see what the thing does...

That's how I've managed to learn some things about planetary
science and realism. <shrug>

Have fun too. That's what this is all about unless you're Dr.
Schrempp! Sorry Doc, couldn't resist.

Thanks, Brain-Dead Bob

[t00fri]

Hey, hey Bob,

I have German beer, what other fun did you have in mind?

I have written so often already about my views concerning add-ons, the Motherlode and all that. I'll simply stay quiet this time... But it should be clearl that such a list is virtually impossible to make. Also it would be unfair towards our industrious add-on creators if some would suddenly find their names on a "black list"!

Add-ons and their required upgrading wrto the latest Celestia code are the private responsibility of their CREATORS and NOT of the dev team.

Bye Fridger

[BobHegwood]

Hey, hey Bob,

I have German beer, what other fun did you have in mind?

I have written so often already about my views concerning add-ons, the Motherlode and all that. I'll simply stay quiet this time... But it should be clearl that such a list is virtually impossible to make. Also it would be unfair towards our industrious add-on creators if some would suddenly find their names on a "black list"!

Add-ons and their required upgrading wrto the latest Celestia code are the private responsibility of their CREATORS and NOT of the dev team.

Bye Fridger

Good Doctor,

I COMPLETELY agree with you concerning the realism of add-ons,
and I know that most of them are not completely scientifically
accurate. However, given the choice of adding a presentation of
a pulsar, for example, which is only 90% accurate versus adding
NOTHING to cover the subject just doesn't make any sense.

I try to select the best material I can find by soliciting comments
from esteemed scientists such as yourself, and by researching
the material available on the internet. One also runs into the
problem of what's accurate on the internet. As demonstrated in
purgatory recently, some materials which are presented as
scientifically accurate are simply "hogwash" for lack of a better
term.

I still think that one should set one's limits based on their OWN
tastes, and this is exactly what I do.

Hell, we're all different here, so I just try to enjoy the whole
experience. You seem to take non-scientific add-ons personally.
This is to be expected given your background, but if I wish to add
a completely fictitious black hole add-on because it looks cool,
then what's wrong with that? Besides, science still has a ways to
go in order to satisfy EVERY demand. Yes?

Don't know what you drink in Hamburg, but have TWO of them
on me.

[t00fri]

Bob,

I don't think we are having too different points of view here. Actually, I suppose you misunderstood me.

I would be narrow-minded if I did only enjoy add-ons of "true scientific standard". Not at all. If someone suspends an artistically well-done monster in the galactic plane ...very well! For example, the things that Runar does I enjoy tremendously! But note this stuff is really GOOOOD artistically. What I can't stand, however, are add-ons that try to create an impression of scientific rigor, yet are far from it.

My critique about add-ons is on a completely different layer. Often, their creators would do very well to practice first and e.g. learn some elements of image manipulation etc. before submitting their poorly rendered add-ons to the Motherlode. At CM we always peer-review each others pages before publication without exception. That rule we apply to all of us.

Another problematic issue is that often add-on creators tend to loose interest and don't care about proper upgrading of the add-ons to the actual version of Celestia. This creates lots of unnecessary debugging work for the devs and is frustrating for other users.

etc.

Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

...Cham and ElChristou have also created some really scientifically
ACCURATE add-ons, and almost anything you download from these
two guys is gonna be worth fiddling with for a while. I say that
because they use MAC's I believe, and some of the add-ons can be a
real challenge to unpack and straighten out for use on a Windows
platform.

Bob if you met some trouble with my stuff, please report it else it won't be fix...

[BobHegwood]

Bob if you met some trouble with my stuff, please report it else it won't be fix...

It's not just YOUR stuff, Christophe... It's anything I get packed from
a MAC user. Remember too, that I'm using Vista and its built-in
zip file extraction routines. These are very nice by the way. One can
simply click on the zip file to view the contents, and then can even
double-click on a jpg image or ssc file to view the contents and even
save them from the inside of the zip file.

My problems occur because I keep getting "duplicate" file folders as
I try to extract the MAC zip files. After I respond to approximately
three different error messages though, I usually get to the Windows
meat of the matter. These error messages CAN number in
excess of 50, but Vista also gives you the ability to treat similar
situations via the same response, so it's not as bad as it sounds.

By the way, I VERY much appreciate the fact that you guys, -
Cham included - make the effort to provide us Windows Bozos
with the access to your work.

MUCH appreciation from this end my friends.

[chris]

Bob if you met some trouble with my stuff, please report it else it won't be fix...

My problems occur because I keep getting "duplicate" file folders as
I try to extract the MAC zip files. After I respond to approximately
three different error messages though, I usually get to the Windows
meat of the matter. These error messages CAN number in
excess of 50, but Vista also gives you the ability to treat similar
situations via the same response, so it's not as bad as it sounds.

I have the same problem when I use add-ons created on the Mac on my Windows machines. There are some hidden files that get included in the zip file which cause problems for the built-in Windows zip reader. It would be good to filter these out.

--Chris

[BobHegwood]

Bob,

I don't think we are having too different points of view here. Actually, I suppose you misunderstood me.

What I can't stand, however, are add-ons that try to create an impression of scientific rigor, yet are far from it.

Here I completely agree with you sir...

Having NO skill in creating add-ons myself though, I appreciate any
good attempt at making one. As long as the add-on maker makes it
very clear that either the add-on is - or is not - based on fact, then
I'm happy. On the other hand, one's common sense should play a
part in the selection process too. I DO appreciate it when you
make it clear that a particular add-on is NOT based in reality, but
even a poor attempt at creating one deserves some
encouragement. Just my opinion.

Take care, Brain-Dead

[rthorvald]

I have the same problem when I use add-ons created on the Mac on my Windows machines. There are some hidden files that get included in the zip file which cause problems for the built-in Windows zip reader. It would be good to filter these out.

It seems this happens if one zips it with the mac default zip utility.
Using dropstuff / zip (from StuffIt) one can set a preference to omit all mac-spesific content.

- rthorvald

[cartrite]

I have the same problem when I use add-ons created on the Mac on my Windows machines. There are some hidden files that get included in the zip file which cause problems for the built-in Windows zip reader. It would be good to filter these out.

The way I try to weed these files out is open the file I'm about to zip and activate the hidden files option. Most of the time I see a .thumb or .directory or something like that. Anyhow, I delete these files and leave the directory. Then zip it before reopening. After the folder is opened again the files are back. With my Linux system, I'm able to open the zip file in read only without unzipping. If view hidden is on then I can check to make sure there are no .files in the archive. Sometimes I forget to do this though. Maybe this should be added to a "Make sure you do this before publishing an addon" page somewhere.
cartrite

[ElChristou]

Ok guys, wasn't aware of this stuff; when I get the time I'll try to repack all my stuff...

[SkyScraper]

OK guys so bad addond was not such a good term to use, how about accurate vs. not so accurate?
That whold not put any addon creator on a blacklist just becouse the addon is outdated.
I think anybody who is downloading the addon shuld know how accurate it is.
I got here the Jupiter and moons page from Motherlode simply save the image and tipe in front of the addon the percent of accuracy that you think.

[rthorvald]

OK guys so bad addond was not such a good term to use, how about accurate vs. not so accurate?
That whold not put any addon creator on a blacklist just becouse the addon is outdated.
I think anybody who is downloading the addon shuld know how accurate it is.
I got here the Jupiter and moons page from Motherlode simply save the image and tipe in front of the addon the percent of accuracy that you think

Skyscraper,
that would require somebody to download and test each add-on. In some cases superficially, in others very meticulously - and that person would need a whole lot of scientific background, or at least a rigorous way of going about it and a lot of patience and curiosity... Because most of those add-ons comes with too little documentation to do it in any other way.

There is certainly an open spot on the Motherlode team for anybody that is willing to do that job!

- rthorvald

[Adirondack]

Well, when you click on the magnifying glass of each add-on, you have the possibility to leave a comment
about the add-on (e.g. accurate add-on, not accurate add-on, bad texture, good texture and so on).

Adirondack

[BobHegwood]

Well, when you click on the magnifying glass of each add-on, you have the possibility to leave a comment
about the add-on (e.g. accurate add-on, not accurate add-on, bad texture, good texture and so on).

Adirondack

Hey now that's a GREAT idea Ulrich...

I guess that I didn't realize that the feature was available on the
MotherLode. Is this all done anonymously? In my opinion - it should
be done with a verifiable e-mail address? Comments from one's peers
always seem to improve the quality of an add-on.

I know, I know... more work, but the verifiable e-mail part should be
fairly easy. Yes?

Thanks, Bob