No, certainly advanced graphics should not be dropped, but should be used for advanced effects and possibilities. But there ARE people using it to drive scopes, and for them the advanced VR stuff may seem irrelevant. For me during daytime, advanced graphics is relevant, but much more so, correct algorithms and reliable object positions, i.e., the non-graphical part. My scope has no computer port, so I cannot even comment on the quality and applicability of the telecope control plugin, I had just thought it's an important feature for the developer of this plugin. (If I had a suitable scope, I would rather use my netbook for its better battery life and lesser weight, and most likely also other/true observation planning software.)
A fact is the large user base working with cheap (1.4-compatible only) hardware, when better hardware is too expensive, and the immense creativity and unique possibilities in usage scenarios of Stellarium. Only yesterday I attended a presentation of incredible timelapse night movies, and the creator recommended Stellarium besides a commercial program. Elsewhere I have seen an ethno-astronomical movie made with a custom skyculture. Of course, it would be possible to declare some version 0.14-ultimate-for-OpenGL1.x and go elite with OpenGL3.2+ (when dropping old/cheap hardware, do it thoroughly...) after that, losing all non-NVIdia/ATI users and all troubles with Intel drivers. The question will be, does that make sense, and what to expect from OpenGL3+? Do you have any usage statistics of users' hardware? Sure, it would help a lot if a new astronomer-and-OpenGL-with-Qt-expert with lots of time and energy could join. If I knew one, I would have asked him already... I just wonder, how many of the "missing lines here, bad character display there" bugs are from post-2010, describe separate issues, are single-vendor-related and still reproducible, and cannot be solved with a 2011-driver update? Many bug reports may be still open just because the reporters did not set them "closed/answered/solved". G. On Di, 21.02.2012, 16:26, Reaves, Timothy wrote: > Stellarium is not geared towards people with cheap Atom based laptops that > want to use it 'scope-side. That there are people in that category that use it is not overly relevant. If Stellarium wants to change to be geared > towards those users, then remove the advanced stuff. > Stellarium is not intended to merely be a telescope control program. Most > people, myself included, that are really using computers 'scope-side, are > using things like SkySafari, which do a much better job of telescope control. Or they are using things like AstroPlanner, where they can actually plan an observing session. > > -- DI Dr Georg Zotti VIAS-Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science University of Vienna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list Stellarium-pubdevel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel
