OK, after exploring intensively the possibilities of Mitaka during the
last several hours and writing most provocative mails
about its "triumph over Celestia"...let me get serious
Here are my /personal/ (serious) consclusions:
--Yes I do think Mitaka has considerable potential, since
it's design target is to render the Universe from our
backyard to it's presently known limits
necessarily Mitaka's creators are devoting more active
thoughts to rendering Cosmology
than we do.
That I find great, obviously!
--I think, if we compare the capabilities of Mitaka 1.0 with
Celestia's first appearance in public (Celestia 1.1 or so)
Mitaka's performance is most remarkable.
-- I do particularly like the real time topographic
rendering that is certainly related to what Worldwind does.
--On the other hand, Celestia does have a number of
strong aspects, that I am of course aware of!
So our favorite program is still alive and pretty well...
(despite my nasty provocations
--Altogether, I think Celestia is more versatile in many
respects. Navigating AND selecting objects in space is
way superior and notably more intuitive. Also Celestia's data
base is far more advanced. I could not find out yet how
easy it is to use custom textures/data with Mitaka.
Presently, the base texture for Earth is still BlueMarble
1st generation rather than BMNG, for example.
-- The rendering of Mitaka's MilkyWay looks great, but I
strongly doubt that such a rendering concept could handle
10000+ galaxies with acceptable performance.
Nevertheless, I think the sudden appearance of Mitaka
with its surprising degree of maturity should be taken as a
warning. We should definitely invest more time for
actively planning ahead! Addressing little improvements
here and there for better fractions of a year is not enough
on the long run. I strongly feel that Celestia needs kind of
a task force of knowledgeable people exploring new
visualization challenges for the near future in concrete