8 ms·
100k Stars
- iNic 2y agoExtremely cool, made me clean my screen.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- koromak 2y agoI miss playing Elite Dangerous
- geuis 2y agoI love the concept of ED and spent many an hour exploring. But when you have a full size galaxy, everything gets fairly repetitive after a while. I had a lot of hope for KSP2 and everything that was on the roadmap. Nowhere near a galaxy scale, but much more realistic combined with having to build all of the infrastructure to reach the nearest star. Maybe one day we'll get a game that delivers without being shut down.
- KolmogorovComp 2y agoFor those like me who were wondering, it seems that the game studio in charge of Kerbal Space Program 2 (KSP2 above) has announced it will be shuttered down [0]. This is a few days old. [0] https://www.ign.com/articles/take-two-shutters-kerbal-space-program-2-studio-amid-layoffs https://www.ign.com/articles/take-two-shutters-kerbal-space-...
- ganzuul 2y agoIt worked beautifully on Linux and then an update broke it!
- tomtom1337 2y agoThis is great! One request would be for the smoothing when zoomed out to not generate square pixels. Example: https://imgur.com/a/lRrHHTJ https://imgur.com/a/lRrHHTJ
- andersa 2y agoWhy does it zoom the wrong way around? Scrolling up means "zoom in" not "zoom out".
- baw-bag 2y agoThat makes sense to me I think! In things going back as far as command and conquer, mousewheel up zooms in, and mousewheel down zooms out.
- eviks 2y agoBut here wheel up zooms out!
- Retr0id 2y agoWheel does nothing at all for me in Firefox, I have to drag the bar.
- inquirerGeneral 2y ago[dead]
- lloeki 2y agoThere was no zoom in Command & Conquer (1995) :p
- derefr 2y agoI dunno, it works just fine with my intuition — which is that you're not zooming as such; rather, by swiping up / scrolling the page down, you're moving a camera "forward" / "deeper in", toward the stars at the centermost part of the cube. The UI then reacts by re-framing (zooming) to capture and center in the view frustum, the volume of space that's between you and that centermost point. I think early versions of Google Earth (predating pinch-to-zoom) worked this way, too? In that scrolling "down" meant descending from space "down" to Earth — and thus zooming in.
- srameshc 2y agoWhat tools or techniques do you think the developers used to build this ?
- Thaxll 2y agoThis is pretty old, I think those are the webgl demos for Chrome back then.
- helsinkiandrew 2y agoLast year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30850625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30850625 (81 comments)
- stadt 2y agoStill crazy after all these years... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4784821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4784821 Perhaps update the title with (2012)?
- rikafurude21 2y agoI like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look how small and insignificant we are.' It's like we're drawn to the idea that our existence is just a tiny blip on the universe's radar.I think this perspective is a bit one-dimensional. It seems almost nihilistic.
- GJim 2y ago> Look how small and insignificant we are ..... It seems almost nihilistic. It isn't nihilistic. It is a simple fact. As an aside, if you have not yet listened to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy radio plays (and you should!) you will know this is a major plot device.
- andoando 2y agoYou can look at it the other way. Compared to qubits, were fucking gods.
- pixl97 2y agoWe're the middle child of the universe.
- chgs 2y agoWe’re Mostly harmless. We’re significant enough to have a researcher double the length of our entry in space-Wikipedia.
- mistermann 2y agoHow does one measure significance? Science? Logic? Common sense? What's obvious? Some stories?
- narreme 2y ago>It is a simple fact. It is a simple fact that the Earth and solar system are small relative to the universe, because everyone agrees on how to measure dimensions and volumes. It is not as simple a fact that something more large is more significant -- whatever that means (if we knew what it meant, this claim would be settled). Physical size is such a universal metaphor for relevance/significance (eg, "it's a big deal", "it's a small matter") that they're implicitly treated as synonymous.
- nxicvyvy 2y agoIsn't the sun's name sol?
- concurrentsquar 2y agoGreat visualization, though (ironically, as one of the first Chrome experiments) the music no longer works on Chrome by default (go to site settings > sound and set it to "Allow" to hear it), and it is somewhat outdated now (for example, it states that no exoplanets have been discovered orbiting Proxima Centauri (and that the 'proposed' JWST is required to find these planets)).
- chgs 2y agoWhen I first went to Josemar bank as a kid there was a display talking about how exploits may theoretically exist. This would have been early 1990s. I went a few years ago with my kids, about the same age I was, and they had a counter which was in the thousands.
- sparky_z 2y agoDid you mean "exoplanets" not "exploits"? That's my best guess, but I have no idea what "Josemar bank" is (another typo? Did you mean to name some kind of science museum, maybe?) which makes it hard to tell.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cris-ward 2y agoI think they meant Jodrell Bank,a radio telescope with an astronomy based visitors centre in Cheshire in the uk https://www.jodrellbank.net/ https://www.jodrellbank.net/
- sparky_z 2y agoThanks!. Figured it was something like that, but Google and Wikipedia were no help. It's an interesting name for a telescope. What does "Bank" mean in this context? The Wikipedia article links to another telescope, the "Green Bank", but that one just appears to be named after the town it's in, which doesn't seem to be the case for Jodrell Bank. Edit: Nevermind, the Wikipedia page does have the answer. "It is named from a nearby rise in the ground, Jodrell Bank, which was named after William Jauderell, an archer whose descendants lived at the mansion that is now Terra Nova School.
- phantomathkg 2y agoVery nice simulation, the only snag is when rendering on iPhone, the stop/skip button cover some of the text
- dzogchen 2y agoI thought a project on GitHub reached 100k stars… I need to touch more grass.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- coolcoder613 2y agoI did too.
- Pikamander2 2y agoI saw "Chrome experiments" and "100k stars" and figured it was about some popular feature that Google was dragging their heels on like JPEG XL.
- jan_Sate 2y agoCame here to say that. The stars on this site looks cool tho.
- diyseguy 2y agoThis is really impressive. It's not important, but I kinda wish the constellations could be optionally overlaid onto the visualization somehow.
- jachee 2y agoThey largely wouldn’t translate to the pseudo-3d space… Constellations are a side-effect of the night sky being functionally 2D from our cosmically-speaking singular viewpoint.
- lostmsu 2y agoThere's one direction in which I see one very bright glare. What is special about it?
- shmerl 2y agoLooks cool, but scroll wheel isn't doing anything.
- FrostKiwi 2y agoVery well made in terms of visualizing scale. Scroll not working on Firefox (Windows).
- challenger-derp 2y agoEnjoyed playing around the visualization to get a better mental picture of Earth's neighborhood. it's mind-blowing to know that there are 200 to 400 billion stars just in our galaxy alone. And it's even more breath-taking to comprehend that our galaxy is but one of a ≥100 billion galaxies in the _observable_ universe.
- Reason077 2y agoSo about 4 × 10^22 stars in the observable universe, then? A huge number compared to the number of values that can be stored in a 64-bit integer (1.8 × 10^19). But a tiny number compared to the number of atoms in a human body (7 × 10^27).
- udev4096 2y agoHoly shit, this is incredible. Thanks for making it!
- kmacdough 2y agoSeems awesome, but unfortunately a bit glitchy on mobile. It'll pop open info panels even when I just mean to pan and I've not found a way to leave the info panels without a reload.
- amelius 2y agoThis seems to be totally incorrect as the constellations are completely unrecognizable.
- daveguy 2y agoFrom what I can tell, Earth is not the POV.
- rkagerer 2y agoWhy can't cookies be rejected?
- inetknght 2y agoBecause you're supposed to use Firefox with a plugin like uMatrix or NoScript to block cookies regardless of the website's "legitimate" practices. Protip: 90%+ of websites work great without cookies. And, you can do other things like... block scripts from phishy domains like google.com.
- htor 2y agoDidn’t manage to close the cookie banner before the intro started playing on top of it on my mobile screen. Great “experiment”, Google.
- OptCohTomo 2y agoWhere does the data come from for this? The Gaia satellite database?
- araes 2y agoIt might be the hygdata set which can be found here: https://github.com/astronexus/HYG-Database https://github.com/astronexus/HYG-Database It currently says it has the "Hipparcos-Yale-Gliese" database, with 119,614 stars and the "Tycho-2/Gaia" subset with 118,971 stars. That seems pretty close to the numbers quoted in the demo. I used it previously for a matrix math conversion project translating the NIST JAMA library into a Javascript library. If interested, the test page as a githack link can be found here. Click the "Run 3D Ellipse Fitting on Nearby (100 LY) Stellar Data". My example only uses the 25,000 out to 100 LY. https://rawcdn.githack.com/conceptualGabrielPutnam/JAMA4JS/253f01110a14750c173cf4568053602f0711733f/JAMA_Test.html https://rawcdn.githack.com/conceptualGabrielPutnam/JAMA4JS/2...
- fastaguy88 2y agoCurious -- how do we get information about the thickness/shape of the galactic plane from observations within the plane?
- basil-rash 2y agoA whole bunch of assumptions, mostly of the form “what other things look like from far away is probably what we look like from far away”. And “there probably isn’t anything that makes our perspective different from others”. We can’t test these, of course. But people are happy to assume them because without that there isn’t a field.
- jastanton 2y agoThere is such immense stored power in the universe, yet humans are struggling to harness even a tickle of the suns power via solar panels. Put into perspective of our galaxy, there is hardly no power difference between us and ants. Wild!
- ejtaal 2y ago[dead]