6019987fc416a4a4721fe6177e70e067b7db65b1
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|