t00fri wrote:I think this is a VERY clear and amazing signal by the world's space science community that Celestia has won it's place right there!
This speaks for itself and naturally devaluates many of Malenfant's above arguments.
It really doesn't. I'm sure they'll find it very interesting and will go home and tinker with the program if they're not doing so already... but the fact remains that Celestia cannot be used to perform scientific analysis of data, and does not incorporate or account for gravity
. The people Chris is talking to are probably interested in the program from the perspective of showing where their satellites are above Earth, but Celestia is useless for astrodynmaical research because it cannot accurate simulate on its own how the orbits of things evolve in time - you have to precalculate that and enter those orbits via STC or SSC files.
That's all I'm saying here. Celestia isn't a scientific analysis tool - it's a scientific visualisation
tool. I'm not saying that scientists aren't important to listen to, but this forum has a lot more people who use the program for educational purposes than professional scientists. I really can't see anyone adding capabilities that will improve scientific analysis in Celestia (which is at most very basic) - but I can certainly see people adding capabilities that would enhance it as an educational and visualisation tool. Like your generalised galaxy database, or multiple wavelengths, or multiple star orbits and so on.
What started this all was your comment that you may just not bother reading this board because you weren't so much interested in the education side and didn't feel you should go out of your way to read posts about it. That irked me somewhat (quel surprise
) and I think it's an unwise position to take, given the number of people here who DO use the program for educational purposes - if developers just say "whatever, I can't be bothered to read comments by educators about how to improve Celestia from that perspective" then nothing will be improved to make it an even better educational tool.
The point was rather that Celestia is designed as a general accurate visualization framework rather than as a specialized tool for a particular purpose, like e.g. educational applications!
I don't honestly see the difference at all. Nobody's arguing that Celestia should become specifically an educational tool, to the point that you can't do anything else with it. Frankly I don't even see how it's possible to specialise it so much that all it's useful for is education. But I think educators will have suggestions for the development of the program that developers can respond to, and I don't think those suggestions would in any way degrade Celestia's capacity to do other things - and I certainly don't think they should be ignored either. This isn't an either/or situation.
I am however midly disturbed by the fact that while we're bickering over details and talking past here (as usual), an actual thread I've started about the educational uses of Celestia on this very board remains largely ignored, having had 69 views and only one response. Where is everyone?