Scripting API, what is a substitution for StelSkyDrawer.setBortleScaleIndex?

[andrey-nakin]

Hello!

StelSkyDrawer no longer has setBortleScaleIndex method in Scripting API.

What can be used as a substitution for it?

[10110111]

Looking at the code I can't confirm that there's no such method. How did you conclude this?

[andrey-nakin]

The setBortleScaleIndex method is not listed on documentation page: https://stellarium.org/doc/23.0/classStelSkyDrawer.html

Also, my script fails when attempting to execute StelSkyDrawer.setBortleScaleIndex method.

[alex-w]

See http://stellarium.org/doc/23.0/classStelSkyDrawer.html#a4e4405fbd4a1a36c4d8b89d5de4abf50

[10110111]

@alex-w

The limit is valid only at a given zoom level (around 60 deg)

What is this about? Is the text misplaced?

[alex-w]

From the description: Set the parameters so that the stars disappear at about the naked-eye limiting magnitude corresponding to the given zenith luminance at moonless night.

P.S. I think the description of setLightPollutionLuminance should be improved

[andrey-nakin]

@alex-w thank you!

Is there an easy way to convert bortle scale to a magnitude/arcmin^2?

[alex-w]

@andrey-nakin please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale (hint: SQM)

[10110111]

From the description

Either my browser is broken, or the Doxygen output is:

[alex-w]

From the description

Either my browser is broken, or the Doxygen output is:

This part you will see when link “more” is pressing in the list of scriptable methods above.

[github-actions]

Thank you for suggesting documentation improvement.

[10110111]

This part you will see when link “more” is pressing in the list of scriptable methods above.

Well, this is a bad layout, because I got to this part by mere following your link. The @brief should also be there in the full section. If the layout can't be changed, then the approach to filling the @brief and the full parts in the sources should be changed.

[alex-w]

This part you will see when link “more” is pressing in the list of scriptable methods above.

Well, this is a bad layout, because I got to this part by mere following your link. The @brief should also be there in the full section. If the layout can't be changed, then the approach to filling the @brief and the full parts in the sources should be changed.

You can propose better layout.

P.S. The current layout was prepared around doxygen 1.6 and I far as I can remember it was some limits or problems when brief and full descriptions was showing together.