Talk:WorldWide Telescope

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Reception[edit]

The reception section is biased. It needs to be reworked or researched for an alternative for 'reception'--67.166.110.86 (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and I added the corresponding tag). In fact it would seem to me that the article has a bit of a commercial tone in which it fails to mention other software that fulfills the same functions and explains the software as unique instead of categorizing it.

Note that by not mentioning other software I refer to the main article and not the See Also section which I (and others) contributed to.

For now I believe this section (reception) should be removed or be replaced by more relevant information like statistics of use. JunCTionS 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The quote is from a reputable source within the relevant community. Should be kept as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.134.169 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just updated the Reception section with a few more quotes and such. I've really seen very little serious criticism of WWT, but I got at least a couple complaints. Take a look and see if maybe we can remove the bias tag. Tophtucker (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd concept of resolution[edit]

I noticed this in the article: "with a resolution to 100,000 feet above sea level." That doesn't exactly mean anything, it only tells (I assume) the satellite took the pictures from an altitude of ~30,5km. Could someone find the actual meters/pixel resolution for the imagery? --piksi (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

The issues is just a drive-by attack. The section and statement should be removed.

It is based on this posted in the forum of the citation link;

"redxeth at 09:00 PM on 05/13/08 Reply by Email * @redxeth-- figured it out. Be sure to delete setup.exe from your Download directory-- apparently the setupwwt.exe is expanded into setup.exe.

redxeth at 09:01 PM on 05/13/08 Reply by Email * Figured out my install issue-- be sure to delete any existing setup.exe files in your Downloads directory! "

This *is* beta software, and you can download the isntall to places *other* than the directory he chose -- this is just ridiculous to be included. Is that really an "issue" with WWT?

Well if you don't include it, people may waste several hours trying to install this excellent software. I was unable to install it until I found the solution on this forum. This is a very minor issue. but it can give you a big headache if you do not know the solution.Mohit Agarwal (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is non-notable for an encyclopedia especially when the product is a beta version. Has anyone who discovered this bug reported it to Microsoft? It does not even have a citation. - xp client ^talk 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWT redirect[edit]

WWT redirects here, but it also stands for Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, and possibly other things. Surely Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust deserves a mention. -- Cowplopmorris^Talk_Contribs 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking?[edit]

Is it possible to link from a website on a special position in the sky? In Google Earth/sky it is with a kml no problem. And also for NASA Worldwind is was no problem with there own protocol "worldwind://...." Thanks. --Kolossos (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Click the little down arrow below "View" (at the top) and then click "Copy Shortcut to this View." So, for instance, here's a link to Polaris: [1] Tophtucker (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain?[edit]

Is all the imagry that microsoft gets from NASA is the public domain, or is public money going to support propritary datasets and software? where can i download the imagry? is it in nasa worldwind? How do the Space Act Agreements apply to this? Scientus (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In NASA World Wind's article, the data is cited as public domain, and can therefore be used by anyone for any purpose. Specifically, in the screenshot's copyright, they list Blue Marble, MODIS, Landsat, SRTM, USGS and GLOBE data. ErickOrtiz (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

The company that designed WWT is listed in the I.D. magazine award. Is information about the design process they used for WWT of sufficient interest to warrant some text?

Still in beta?[edit]

Is WWT still in beta? No word about it on its download site. EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version available 4.1.74.1[edit]

check this : http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/Home.aspx it's called eclipse(I think)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WorldWide Telescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]