--- Bill wrote:

> I've added in a little bit of "pseudo-realism", but almost
> entirely in the interest of function.

Not really arguing with that, and understanding that Guide isn't meant to be a photo-realistic simulation of reality. The guiding (pun not intended) design principle of an application like Guide should be to convay information of the physical universe in a coherent, understandable and accessible manner. It doesn't count against if it also happen to come out visually appealing or even beautiful.

The opposing ends of the design spectrum are photo-realism and über-abstraction, and different bits of information can be at either end or in between. I think that overall Guide achieves a good balance.

Of course, there's still some things that are too close to the abstraction end of the spectrum for my taste. I'd really like to have, for example: Presentation of asteroids, and artificial and natural satellites as "stars". A better system for presenting variable stars. Dust tails of comets modeled more realistically.

Guide has just passed it's 20th anniversary - a belated congratulation from a satisfied user since version 1! The user interface still show the legacy of an IT environment rendered obsolete many a-moons ago. More specifically, IMO, menu organization, dialogs and outputs are often confusing and visually and functionally out-dated.

For what it's worth,
Jari