15b8f2dff33f610d543b2cd677556e6662981cbe
10
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  SenrokaiandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d1aa22ed61 |
Frame a giant so its disc sits inside the ring its neighbours are named on
The system view names a star's neighbours on a ring at 0.74 of the view's tighter half-extent, whatever the star. A giant was framed to fill the frame, 2.4 radii out, which the three-radius closest approach then overrode, so it settled at 3 radii with its disc projecting to 0.758 of the half-extent: in the app, Betelgeuse's disc was 379 px on a 1 000 px view against the 370 px ring, and HD 39374 and HD 38118 were printed on it at about 1.3:1 contrast. The star's term in the framing distance now places its silhouette, asin(R / d), at half the tighter half-extent, which puts the camera 4.4 radii out on a 50° view. Measured on :4302 at 1600 by 1000: Betelgeuse settles at 13.9 AU (closest approach 9.5) with a 250 px disc and Antares at 14.1 AU; the nearest corner of any neighbour's name is 292 px from the centre, so none is on either disc (it was two and one of them before). Closing in to the closest approach can still bring the disc over the names; that is the viewer's choice, not the arrival's. This also gives the star's term a job: at 2.4 radii it never exceeded the closest approach, so dropping it changed nothing (the previous commit's one surviving control). Controls, each failing its named test: the star left out of the framing (1 of 788 failed), the star framed to fill the frame (2 of 788), and the disc taken as flat (1 of 788). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
SenrokaiandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7213f987c4 |
Draw every star at its own radius, measured where the archive has one and derived otherwise
The system view drew the Sun at its own radius and every other star at 0.45 of its innermost orbit, capped at 0.2 AU: a size chosen so the star would not swallow its planets, not the star's. Proxima Centauri was drawn at 2.8 solar radii, eighteen times its own, and every star without planets at 43. starSurfaceOf (body-view-model.ts) now gives each star a radius and a temperature. A planet host takes the archive's st_rad and st_teff from its planets' rows: 4 439 hosts are drawn at a measured radius, 22 at a derived one. Every other star's is derived: its temperature off Pecaut & Mamajek's dwarf sequence at its colour (the same table the spectral estimate reads, or at the colour its type implies where it has none), its luminosity from its absolute magnitude and the bolometric correction luminositySolar already applies, and R = sqrt(L) / (T / 5772 K)^2. Against the archive's own st_rad for the 1 447 catalogue hosts that have one, the derived radius is within 0.018 dex at the median, 0.071 dex at the 90th percentile, and within a factor of 1.5 for 97.1 %. Sirius comes out 1.79 solar radii (1.711 published, Liebert et al. 2005), Wolf 359 0.117, Betelgeuse 584, the Sun exactly 1. A star with no band has only the ETL's stand-in magnitude, and gets no derived radius: PSR J1719-1438 came out 2.3 solar radii from it, wider than its planet's orbit. With the stars that have neither a colour nor a type, that leaves 3 077 of 455 608 stars (274 of 4 735 hosts) with no radius; they are drawn at the Sun's, and their card gives none. The card says which it is: "Radius 0.141 solar radii" for a published one, "~0.10 solar radii, from colour and brightness" for a derived one, two figures because colour does not give three. A giant drawn at its size can be wider than its system, so systemFramingDistanceAu also makes room for the star, and the controls' closest approach is now three of the star's radii where that is more than the old 0.05 AU. 23 211 stars are drawn wider than 3.6 solar radii, which put 0.05 AU inside three of their radii, and a zoom would have carried the camera through the surface of the largest. The Sun keeps 0.05 AU. starMarkerRadiusAu and the renderer's innermost axis, which only it read, are gone. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
SenrokaiandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c38a42cbcb |
Fix what the review of this branch found, starting with the pick rule it only claimed
The off-screen rule for clicks was described in
|
||
|
SenrokaiandClaude Opus 5
|
3f0abf8717 |
Draw the system at true scale, drop the halo, and refuse to enter what is off screen
Three changes to what the system view claims, all of them the same claim: that the sizes on screen mean something. **The halo is gone.** It was a sprite sized against the arrival frame — 1.12 AU for the Sun — so it stayed that wide as the camera closed in and ended up a flat gradient filling the screen, over the photograph it was meant to dress. It existed to keep the star visible at a framing that holds the whole system, which is now handled in pixels instead. **Bodies are drawn at their own radius.** The old marker size was exaggerated and scaled to the system span, and clamped: Jupiter and Ganymede both ran past the ceiling and were drawn at one radius, so every moon orbited inside its planet, and Phobos and Triton sat entirely within Mars and Neptune. True scale needs no rule against that — physics already puts a moon outside the planet it orbits. What it costs is visibility at the arrival framing, where every body is sub-pixel, so the scene floors each marker at 3 px on screen and holds a moon to half its planet's drawn size. Measured in the Sun's system: at arrival, planets 3 px and moons 1.5 px, against 3 px for everything before; at Jupiter, the planet 10.8 px at scale 1 with the Galilean moons on their orbits outside it. The Sun is drawn at its own radius too. Every other star keeps a size derived from its innermost orbit, because no stellar radius reaches the app — Gaia's `radius_gspphot` is the obvious next fetch. **A click cannot enter a system that is not on screen.** The picker tested depth but not the frame, and a star's hit area is its drawn size plus a slop, so a click in the last pixels of the view could fly into a system outside it, with nothing on screen to explain where it had gone. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016jxMkwA2rbicdGxHosecYi |
||
|
Claude
|
029162ff52 |
Lower the star halo floor so the inner orbits stay legible
The floor that stopped the Sun disappearing reached past Venus and up to Earth, covering the two orbits it most needed to leave alone. Halved, from 3.5% of the framed radius to 2%. The halo's visual radius is half its extent, so that puts its edge at 1% of the framed radius, and the orbits it has to clear sit at their own fraction of the same radius: in the solar system, framed to hold Pluto, Venus is at 1.3% and Earth at 1.8%. Both are now outside it, and the star still reads at about nine pixels across on a typical window. Mercury, at 0.7%, is still inside — and would be at any halo large enough to see, since its orbit is only three pixels wide at that range. That is now a pinned test rather than an oversight. The floor was only ever the lower bound; the tests now state the upper one too, in the terms the trade is actually made in — pixels on screen for visibility, AU against real orbits for clearance. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G |
||
|
Claude
|
be19d9cbcc |
Keep the star visible at the distance that frames its system
Framing the whole system pushed the camera far enough back that the star at the centre became a speck — about a pixel across for the Sun. The cause is a constraint that cannot be tuned away. A star is sized against its system's innermost orbit, because it must never swallow its closest planet, while the camera is placed to frame the outermost ring. In the solar system those differ by a factor of a hundred: at the distance that fits Pluto in view, a disc that stays clear of Mercury is a pixel across. No radius satisfies both, because the information genuinely does not fit on one screen at that zoom. So the disc stays honest to the orbits and the halo carries the visibility. Light is not a surface: a glow that reaches past the innermost orbit says the star is bright, not that it is large. Its extent is still a multiple of the star — so a compact system keeps exactly the corona it had — but floored against the framed radius, which is what the wide systems needed. The disc grows a little too: it may now reach 45% of the innermost orbit rather than 35%, which still leaves clear space between the star's limb and the closest orbit. Also makes createGlowSprite take the extent it will draw rather than a radius and a multiplier. The two were only ever multiplied together, and how large a star's halo should be is not a property of the star — it depends on how its system is framed, which is a decision that belongs with the framing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G |
||
|
Claude
|
6019987fc4 |
Frame the system view from the camera it actually has
The grid overflowed the frame in 368 of the 371 systems the datasets contain — median fill 1.11, and the outermost ring cut off by the viewport edge in almost every one. Two compounding causes. The framing distance was a fixed multiple of the outermost orbit, tuned by eye against a 55-degree field of view; the engine's camera is 50. And it framed the outermost *orbit*, while the widest thing actually drawn is the grid's outer ring, which by construction always sits beyond it. Neither is fixable by adjusting the multiple, because a multiple is the wrong shape of answer: what has to fit is a radius on screen, and how much radius a given distance buys depends entirely on the lens. So the distance now comes from the camera's own vertical field of view and aspect — picking whichever screen axis is the tighter one, so a portrait window backs off further rather than clipping — applied to the grid's outer ring with an explicit margin around it. The ceiling goes up with it. Eighty AU could not frame the solar system out to Pluto once the real field of view was accounted for; that needs 120 on a landscape display and 140 on a portrait one. Only companions hundreds of AU out reach the new ceiling, and those still arrive framed on their inner region. Measured across every system in the data, at three window shapes: the overflow count drops from 368 to 2, the fill settles at exactly 0.89 — the margin, uniformly — and the outer ring still encloses the outermost orbit everywhere, so neither invariant was traded for the other. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G |
||
|
Claude
|
a84e2d3a69 |
Put a reference grid under the system view
A system was a handful of ellipses floating in the dark. You could see that one orbit was bigger than another, but not how big, and not that a planet sat above or below the plane the others share. Adds the same plane-and-tether reading aid the outer scales got: a polar grid in the system's own reference plane, with a drop line from each body onto it. Ring radii snap to a 1-2-5 ladder rather than dividing the system evenly, because the point is to put a number on a distance — 5, 10, 15 AU can be read at a glance and 4.34, 8.68, 13.02 cannot. That holds across the four orders of magnitude real systems span: the solar system gets 5 AU rings, TRAPPIST-1 gets 0.01 AU ones. The outermost ring encloses the outermost orbit rather than falling just inside it. The rings are dashed. Solid ones would sit in the same plane as the orbit ellipses, which are themselves rings, and at a glance a reference circle and a circular orbit are the same picture. Dashes are cut by dropping whole segments rather than by a dashed material: the ring is already built from independent segment pairs, so a material's dash pattern would restart at every one. Drawing the grid exposed a framing bug it made unmissable. The camera settled along one fixed direction derived from the ecliptic, which is face-on only for the one system whose elements are ecliptic. Every exoplanet system — measured against the plane of the sky, perpendicular to the line of sight to its own host star — was being presented nearly edge-on, a smear of overlapping ellipses. The settle direction is now taken relative to whichever plane the system was measured in, so all of them read as discs. The solar system is unmoved, which a test pins. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G |
||
|
Claude
|
2293585940 |
Put orbits and stars in the same reference frame
The app's two sources disagree about which frame they are in, and nothing reconciled them. HYG star positions are equatorial J2000 — that is what raDecDistanceToXyz produces and what the galaxy view renders directly. Orbital elements come from JPL Horizons, whose default reference plane for element output is the ecliptic, and the ETL never overrides it. The two are tilted 23.4 degrees apart, so the orbits sat that far off the sky they are drawn against. Confirmed rather than assumed, from both ends: the Horizons request in lib/horizons.ts sets no REF_PLANE, and the resulting solar-system inclinations are 0 to 17 degrees with Earth exactly 0.00 — which is only true of the ecliptic, since Earth's orbit defines it. eclipticToEquatorial now rotates orbit positions into the scene frame, so a direction means the same thing in the galaxy view and the system view. The rotation is about the vernal-equinox axis, which both frames share. That exposed a presentation problem the old code had been hiding. The renderer mapped the propagator's z straight onto the scene's vertical, which silently redefined the frame but did make systems render flat. In a properly equatorial scene, orbital planes lie 23.4 degrees off the scene's own axes, so a system would be presented edge-on. Rather than rotate the world back into a comfortable pose — which would only put the orbits at odds with the sky again — the camera now settles relative to the orbital plane: a three-quarter view about 37 degrees off the ecliptic normal. The arrival still begins along the approach direction and swings round as it settles, so the transition stays continuous, and the framing is now the same every time rather than inherited from wherever the camera happened to be. Tests: 247 passing, up from 237. The frame tests are the discriminating kind — Earth's orbit must lie perpendicular to the ecliptic pole rather than to the scene's vertical, and must reach 23.4 degrees of declination a quarter orbit on, where it used to read zero. Verified in a browser against Sol and Gl 357. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G |
||
|
Claude
|
f2c77fb5ad |
Scale the system view to the system it is showing
Star size, planet marker size and camera distance were all fixed constants in
AU, tuned against the solar system's 30 AU span. Real systems span four orders
of magnitude, and the fixed values served only the wide end. Measured across the
370 systems that draw planets:
- 170 had their innermost orbit inside the 0.2 AU star sphere, and for 107 of
those every orbit was inside it, so the system rendered as a lone sphere.
- 193 were framed from the 3 AU distance floor — for TRAPPIST-1 that is 48x
the width of the entire system, reducing it to a cluster of specks.
- Planet markers were effectively a flat 0.09 AU, since almost every body
clamps to the maximum. Inside Gl 357's 0.204 AU system that is wider than
the orbits themselves: one planet swallowed the whole view.
All three are now derived from the system's own measurements. The star is a
fraction of the innermost orbit, so it can never reach the closest one. The
camera is a multiple of the outermost orbit, so everything fits. Markers scale
with the span against the solar system as the reference, so the constants that
were tuned by eye keep their meaning. Because star, markers and camera all
scale together, a compact system now looks like a wide one — same apparent star,
same legible spread of orbits.
Gl 357 is the case that motivated this. It gained three planets in the previous
commit and still rendered as a bare star, because all three orbits were inside
the star sphere. It now shows its star and all three orbits.
The renderer measures the span before building anything, since markers are sized
against it as they are created, which also removes the reduce over tracked
bodies that used to compute it afterwards. The star sphere is rebuilt per system
rather than shared, so its geometry is now disposed on each transition.
Sol is deliberately unchanged: its innermost orbit is Mercury at 0.387 AU, so
the star lands just under the old fixed radius, and the reference span makes the
marker scale factor 1. Verified side by side.
Tests: 206 passing, up from 199. Verified in a real browser against both ends of
the range — Gl 357 at 0.2 AU and Sol at 30 AU.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WaySiNst4HhDXBHnMy8p5G
|