Re: [guide-user] Guide 10.0

Funny and interesting comment.

You are correct: if the sky program REALLY wants to introduce realistic backgrounds, then smokestacks, barking dogs, curious neighbors calling the police, streetlights and suspicious characters walking the streets would be the ideal subjects for a modern sky program.

When I observe, I am trying to get away from all of that, so hopefully Guide will stay as it is.

------------
Dr. Clay

Arkansas Sky Observatories
http://www.arksky.org/
ASO Petit Jean Mountain /MPC H41
ASO Petit Jean Mountain South /MPC H45
ASO West Conway /MPC H43
.......serving astronomy since 1971
____________________

----- Original Message -----
From: sirbagalot212-uncertainty@...
To: guide-user@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [guide-user] Guide 10.0

The last thing I want to see in Guide is a 'realistic' representation of the sky. My sky is rubbish. A realistic sky would be bright orange and usually cloudy.

Let other programs follow the aesthetic route. I frankly find it annoying when stars are represented as fuzzy discs, sometimes even twinkling. I want crisp, clear, first-rate uranography, and that's what Guide gives me. There are plenty of programs that show twinkly stars. If you want that, use one of them.

I have a book, "Planetary Nebulae and How to Observe Them", by Martin Griffiths. It's a great book, but the finder charts in it were produced with a well-known sky charting program which represents the stars as big blobs with fuzzy edges. They are dreadful. The author would have done a great deal better if he had used charts prepared by Guide.

Any attempt to make Guide's charts look more 'realistic' would be to the detriment of all users of the program.

Clear skies and huge apertures to you all,

Patrick