Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

100,000 stars

workshop.chromeexperiments.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: 100,000 stars

#31

Post by daeken »

jpxxx wrote: post #22

Unfortunately, it looks wonky as hell on Chrome for Mac. Edit: I'm sorry for my misleading and value-free comment. Allow me to clarify: THIS EXPERIMENT LOOKS LIKE HOT BROKEN GARBAGE ON CHROME FOR MAC, A FACT WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST TO PERHAPS HALF OF THE HACKER NEWS READERSHIP WHO WILL MOST LIKELY EXPERIENCE THE SAME VISUAL CORRUPTION AT VARIOUS VIEW LEVELS. SOME MAY VIEW THIS AS UNFORTUNATE, AS THE INTENDED EXPERIE…

I'm guessing for your edit that you feel you're being downvoted for a negative comment about a cool demo. However, you're being downvoted for not giving any actionable information, or even a screenshot; you're not making it possible for the author to make the project better, you're just making a valueless comment (and making it worse with your edit).

Re: 100,000 stars

#32

Post by mey »

jpxxx wrote: post #22

Unfortunately, it looks wonky as hell on Chrome for Mac. Edit: I'm sorry for my misleading and value-free comment. Allow me to clarify: THIS EXPERIMENT LOOKS LIKE HOT BROKEN GARBAGE ON CHROME FOR MAC, A FACT WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST TO PERHAPS HALF OF THE HACKER NEWS READERSHIP WHO WILL MOST LIKELY EXPERIENCE THE SAME VISUAL CORRUPTION AT VARIOUS VIEW LEVELS. SOME MAY VIEW THIS AS UNFORTUNATE, AS THE INTENDED EXPERIE…

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have an Intel or nvidia chip set in your mac. See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=159275 (which references http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137303 but we can't see)

There is a security issue in the OSX drivers for certain chipsets, and AA is broken. Google Chrome has taken the step to disable AA on these systems to prevent an exploit of the OS.

Re: 100,000 stars

#33

Post by recursive »

jpxxx wrote: post #22

Unfortunately, it looks wonky as hell on Chrome for Mac. Edit: I'm sorry for my misleading and value-free comment. Allow me to clarify: THIS EXPERIMENT LOOKS LIKE HOT BROKEN GARBAGE ON CHROME FOR MAC, A FACT WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST TO PERHAPS HALF OF THE HACKER NEWS READERSHIP WHO WILL MOST LIKELY EXPERIENCE THE SAME VISUAL CORRUPTION AT VARIOUS VIEW LEVELS. SOME MAY VIEW THIS AS UNFORTUNATE, AS THE INTENDED EXPERIE…

It doesn't work at all for me in Chrome on Win XP.

Re: 100,000 stars

#34

Post by cryptoz »

taigeair wrote: post #28
equalarrow wrote: post #20

WOW, that is amazing. I'm always blown away by stuff like this, where you can actually get a sense of how small we all are and how distant even the closest neighbor stars are. I just close my eyes for a minute and think (or try to), what would it be like for those people that are finally able to reach, say, Vega (I know it's not the closest). Sure, this is not a big deal in sci-fi, but for reality, it's pretty mind b…

yeah makes us feel small.

Life on Earth has existed for about 26% of the age of the Universe. Feel any bigger?

(3.6 billion years / 13.75 billion years)

Re: 100,000 stars

#35

Post by cryptoz »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26
mey wrote: post #21

Warning: Scientific accuracy is not guaranteed. Please do not use this visualization for interstellar navigation.

I used to think, if kidnapped by interstellar travelers, I might be able to find my way home. Now I know I never could, not in a million years.

Sure you could, if you have the Pioneer map with you. Some people have it tattooed just in case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

Re: 100,000 stars

#36

Post by utoku »

mey wrote: post #21

Warning: Scientific accuracy is not guaranteed. Please do not use this visualization for interstellar navigation.

I agree with you. I am calling them total bullshit on the scientific part.

They could at least try to put the Alpha Cassiopeiae and and Beta Cassiopeiae in the same "general" direction from the Sun. It would fool more people.

Distances seem to be correct but the coordinates aren't true at all.

Regardless, it looks beautiful. But it would be more beautiful if you could actually see their true locations. Without it, it is a just a game ui demo.

Re: 100,000 stars

#37

Post by [deleted] »

equalarrow wrote: post #20

WOW, that is amazing. I'm always blown away by stuff like this, where you can actually get a sense of how small we all are and how distant even the closest neighbor stars are. I just close my eyes for a minute and think (or try to), what would it be like for those people that are finally able to reach, say, Vega (I know it's not the closest). Sure, this is not a big deal in sci-fi, but for reality, it's pretty mind b…

[deleted]

Re: 100,000 stars

#38

Post by skeoh »

ynniv wrote: post #27
duaneb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swiping up to move closer feels natural to me. Perhaps it is the other platforms that are wrong?

It would take a proper user interaction study to find out, but I don't think that I am wrong. Imagine a photograph on a table that you want to see better (make larger). Your natural motion is to touch and pull, which is dragging down.

I agree that scrolling should be inverted. Scrolling down moves the zoom slider on the right side of the page up which seems counter intuitive to me.

Re: 100,000 stars

#39

Post by mey »

utoku wrote: post #36
mey wrote: post #21

Warning: Scientific accuracy is not guaranteed. Please do not use this visualization for interstellar navigation.

I agree with you. I am calling them total bullshit on the scientific part. They could at least try to put the Alpha Cassiopeiae and and Beta Cassiopeiae in the same "general" direction from the Sun. It would fool more people. Distances seem to be correct but the coordinates aren't true at all. Regardless, it looks beautiful. But it would be more beautiful if you could actually see their true locations. Without it, it…

May I suggest taking a look at http://en.spaceengine.org/

Edit: and my apologies if I have wasted your afternoon.

Re: 100,000 stars

#40

Post by jpxxx »

daeken wrote: post #31
jpxxx wrote: post #22

Unfortunately, it looks wonky as hell on Chrome for Mac. Edit: I'm sorry for my misleading and value-free comment. Allow me to clarify: THIS EXPERIMENT LOOKS LIKE HOT BROKEN GARBAGE ON CHROME FOR MAC, A FACT WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST TO PERHAPS HALF OF THE HACKER NEWS READERSHIP WHO WILL MOST LIKELY EXPERIENCE THE SAME VISUAL CORRUPTION AT VARIOUS VIEW LEVELS. SOME MAY VIEW THIS AS UNFORTUNATE, AS THE INTENDED EXPERIE…

I'm guessing for your edit that you feel you're being downvoted for a negative comment about a cool demo. However, you're being downvoted for not giving any actionable information, or even a screenshot; you're not making it possible for the author to make the project better, you're just making a valueless comment (and making it worse with your edit).

TinyGrab is down again, I have a headache, etc. And I felt this thread is a bit more interesting with an hand-crafted ALL-CAPS punching bag. :)

Ever at your service! -JPXXX

Post reply on HN