Great to see a new plugin. Thanks to all who have contributed! I noticed a few minor English issues. I didn't want to commit changes directly in case it has impact for translation - Alex what do you think about these:
"Raised at ..." -> "Rose at ..." "Has Set at ..." -> "Set at ..." "Raises at ..." -> "Rises at ..." One further question: Once we've had a little time to show stability, how do you feel about adding this info to the normal selected object information? M On 14 August 2012 20:39, Ivan Marti-Vidal <i.martivi...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > The new revision of Observability 1.0.2 is almost ready. Thank you, > Alexander, for your revision and improvement of the code. > > In this new revision, the today's ephemeris for planets (i.e., rise, > culmination, and set) are computed with an iterative numerical approach > (just like it does with the Moon), so we get satisfactory accuracy > (especially for the inner planets). > > There are, however, a few details for which I'd appreciate to have your > opinion, before I propose merging: > > 1.- Alexander has changed the months names, making them complete (e.g., > "Sep" to "September"). In some cases (especially, e.g., when Mercury is > selected), the strings for the observable dates result to be quite lengthy, > and it can be tedious (or even impossible) to read them. I'd suggest to come > back to the most compact month nomenclature. > > 2.- The "FIXME" lines by Alexander are related to calls to the function > "std::modf", where I'm only interested in the fractional part of the number. > Hence, the integer part must also be returned by the function, but it is > never used (because I don't need it). As far as I understand, It wouldn't be > really a "bug", indeed. I could maybe make a silly use of integer part (like > using var2 in the expression "var1 += 0.0*var2") and try to avoid the > warning in the compiler, but it isn't very elegant. > > 3.- I'd suggest to change "Observable epochs" (or "Best observed from ... to > ...") by "Nights with source above horizon" (or just "Nights above > horizon"), since I think it is more descriptive of the actual information > shown. > > 4.- I'm afraid that one of the fixes by Alexander (the line "transit=false" > in the computing of the culmination time) was breaking the culmination > estimates for the Sun and Moon (since it updated the output of "transit" > from the corresponding functions for Sun and Moon). Setting "transit=false" > just at the declaration of "transit" (i.e., some lines up) solves the > problem. > > Best Wishes, > > Ivan > > > 2012/8/13 Ivan Marti-Vidal <i.martivi...@googlemail.com> >> >> Dear Alexander, >> >> Thank you very much! >> >> I will look at these changes and create a new branch. Maybe some of the >> problems you found are related to the GMT issue with the Full Moon (which is >> solved in the newest revision), and the logical issues to the selection of >> Moon and/or planets. >> >> I also realized that the Today's ephemeris for the planets need to be >> computed in a similar way as those for the Moon, if we want 1 second >> accuracy. This shouldn't take too much time to implement, since I will reuse >> the code for the Moon. >> >> Maybe today is a too short time for me to push a new version, but I'll do >> my best to have it ready asap. >> >> Best Wishes! >> >> Ivan >> >> 2012/8/13 Alexander Wolf <alex.v.w...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Hello Ivan and team. >>> >>> I merged yesterday Observability plugin into trunk and added some >>> patches to him, e.g.: >>> - fixed few issues to templates for translation >>> - improved strings for translations >>> - added missing strings for translations >>> - delete three unused variables >>> - added comments for two potential bugs >>> - resolved three logical bugs >>> >>> That changes not many but code for plugin in trunk and in plugin >>> branch is different and now - after latest commit - has small >>> conflicts. >>> >>> I think more correct will be create a new branch from trunk to add >>> improvements to Observability plugin, e.g. Observability-1.0.2 >>> >>> Ivan, I'm write two FIXME comments around potential bugs, I think you >>> need review those FIXME's and try solved it's. >>> >>> -- >>> With best regards, Alexander >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Live Security Virtual Conference >>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >>> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions >>> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware >>> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list >>> Stellarium-pubdevel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Stellarium-pubdevel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list Stellarium-pubdevel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel
