Hi,

I think Dr. C is right. Reduced realisticness serves the serious observer. Such an Observer doesn't take a look at objecs below 30° altitude because of an airmass above 2 where too much noise from the atmosphere affects astro- and photometric measurements. Ok, there are some objects which don't come that high like asteroids and comets but for them there are plenty of other observers to fill in for precision.

Of course one could use techniques from OpenGl to make stars jitter, or and a psf to make stars look more real. But how about elongated objects like galaxies or fuzzy one's like globular clusters and planetary nebulas?
Just for esthetical reason there is no point in messing the best program up.
I have used Guide for my observation on galaxy clusters  and now use it on observation about lensing since version 6.0 on daily bases. I planned and carried out every observation run with it the last 15 years positioning the target's view with it perfectly. For that, jittering and more "curvy" views would have been unnecessary details. The hardware resources which would be consumed by such visual effects make it hard to receive on old machinery.

Where I see some way of improvement is that one could pimp the spectral view of stars according to their color. But since that is just an impression, who needs it?

I rather like a good functional and precise program more handy than a show up. There for I do have stellarium or OpenUniverse to show planets and stuff.

cheers,
Christian


 
--
"A little learning never caused anyone's head to explode!"


"Ein wenig Lernen hat noch niemandens Kopf zum Explodieren gebracht!"

>________________________________
> From: P. Clay Sherrod <drclay@...>
>To: guide-user@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [guide-user] Representations of heaven more attractive in guide 9. For when will that be?
>
>
>
> 
>Frankly I do not want to see artificial horizons, tree and house silhouettes, etc.
>The main reason that I like Guide is that it is incredibly functional and an
>important tool for astronomers of all levels. We know where the horizons are....we
>do not need glitz to enlighten our use of a planetarium program to find our way
>around the sky.
>
>I have four observatories and every one of them use nothing but Guide for practical
>applications and research. IF I have a school group or some other interested party
>who wants to see stars coming up over the horizon on a computer I have Starry Night
>loaded on several computers just for that demonstration.
>
>But I would not trade the utilitarian practicality of Guide for anything to do with
>glamour or intrigue.
>As we say here in Arkansas...."if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
>Dr. Clay
>_____
>Arkansas Sky Observatories
>MPC H45 - Petit Jean Mountain South
>MPC H41 - Petit Jean Mountain
>MPC H43 - Conway West
>http://www.arksky.org/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bill Gray" <pluto@...>
>To: <guide-user@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [guide-user] Representations of heaven more attractive in guide 9. For
>when will that be?
>
>> On 06/25/2013 10:22 AM, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>>> I concur with Pierre. I would far rather have planetarium software that
>>> is clean and extremely functional than that which is pseudo-realistic.
>>
>> I've added in a little bit of "pseudo-realism", but almost entirely
>> in the interest of function. For example, the "realistic" sky (Display,
>> Background, Realistic) is something I use to give a quick idea as to
>> how dark the sky might be for a particular observation. The objects
>> around the horizon (Display, Background, Horizon Objects) helps
>> me avoid the blunder of thinking I'm going to see an event that will
>> actually happen below the horizon. (And if I see a rocket ship on
>> the horizon, I know I'm "observing" from the moon.)
>>
>> Some people have modified the horizon and horizon objects to show
>> what's actually seen from their observing location. This is a bit
>> of a pain (you have to figure out what the limiting altitude above
>> the horizon is for a series of points around the horizon), but it
>> can and has been done. You can then also move/add things around
>> ("there's a house to the south-southeast; put a dead tree over
>> here, and a live tree here, and a streetlight here.") This is
>> documented at the bottom of the file 'horizon.dat'.
>>
>> -- Bill
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
>> guide-user-unsubscribe@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]