TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
TMSA 0.4.7.5
Bug fixed: New Install:
Installer: https://mega.nz/file/MNkkSKpS#8gkutCiN5 ... LGTCZTffEA
Source: https://mega.nz/file/4UEz1BpY#rxDiMdA7H ... LfRFKWl1mQ
Installer: https://mega.nz/file/MNkkSKpS#8gkutCiN5 ... LGTCZTffEA
Source: https://mega.nz/file/4UEz1BpY#rxDiMdA7H ... LfRFKWl1mQ
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Links updated. Off to download and install.
A LITTLE LATER: Fix confirmed. (Thanks!)
A LITTLE LATER: Fix confirmed. (Thanks!)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Jim-To answer last post/When you click to open a text file (*.txt), what program opens it? /I couldn't change default from the TMSA icon in downloads.Had to use file explorer but now I got it working OK with notepad Thanks again-Harold
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Glad it's workinNOTE: There's a new version as of this afternoon.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Jim-Version.5? I didn't see download link.Will it install over my version? Harold
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
0.5 isn't ready yet, it's in development. Yes, each new version installs atop earlier ones. The latest version is 0,4,7.5
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Technically this is a bug, except I don't know if it's unexpected or correctible.
Running the chart for Demoblaster, who posted this morning, I got the error below. I discovered pretty quickly that it's because I used the special character in the city name Międzyrzecz, Poland. The long/lat data base pulled it up fine but having it in the location's name caused the program to choke. - When I replaced ę with e, the chart ran without incident.
Running the chart for Demoblaster, who posted this morning, I got the error below. I discovered pretty quickly that it's because I used the special character in the city name Międzyrzecz, Poland. The long/lat data base pulled it up fine but having it in the location's name caused the program to choke. - When I replaced ę with e, the chart ran without incident.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Python tkinter module just doesn't handle non-ascii characters well. I will leave it stand for now but will work out a fix for version 0.5 and if it isn't too involved, I will back port it to 0.4.7.6.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Python has a module for that: the unidecode module, changes non-ascii characters to the nearest ascii equivalent. Testing now. If it works, it it worthwhile to build a new release of 0.4?
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Not in my opinion. Just roll it forward. The work-around was quickly evident and fast.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Fix confirmed for version 0.5, need to copy the fix to a few places.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Bug possibly already fixed in an unreleased version, but I'd missed it until today.
In general, planet speed has been shifted successfully to show minutes and seconds if it's less than one degree.
But on a lunar return, while this is correct for transiting planets, the natal planets always display as degree and minute of speed.
Not a big deal because one usually is not interested in motion of natal in a lunar; nonetheless, thought I'd dutifully mention it.
It's not because the natal was calculated under older code. It was observed on my natal, which has been calculated many times.
In general, planet speed has been shifted successfully to show minutes and seconds if it's less than one degree.
But on a lunar return, while this is correct for transiting planets, the natal planets always display as degree and minute of speed.
Not a big deal because one usually is not interested in motion of natal in a lunar; nonetheless, thought I'd dutifully mention it.
It's not because the natal was calculated under older code. It was observed on my natal, which has been calculated many times.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I will check the code in the new release and fix it if I haven't already done so.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Fixed the lunar return chart natal planets speeds less than 1 degree showing as degrees and minutes rather than the minutes and seconds used for transiting planets (also affected solar returns). Made some fixes to the help files. As well as of course updating the version number. I'm thinking of back-porting the designation of particular angles from 1.0.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Back-port done for single wheel charts, will need to copy changes to bi-wheel view. Also suppressed leading zeros in printout so instead of 02Ar06 it will print as 2Ar 6. (For all numbers except minutes and seconds of time). Version 0.4.8.0 should be up by Sunday.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Got bi-wheel working. Tomorrow make some minor edits to the help files and build and test a new install.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I meant to ask (in relation to this): I know you had worked out a better formula for minor angle strength expression. Is that available for 0.4.8 too?mikestar13 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:17 pmI'm thinking of back-porting the designation of particular angles from 1.0.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
No, I'd only coded that experimentally. Minor angle strength = cos(20 * orb). I believe the idea was that 2 degrees from a minor angle is of the same strength as three degrees from a major angle as both dispell dormancy, but the dropoff is far faster after that. I know I published a formula here, but I'm having trouble finding it.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Let me look. I thought you'd had it, but I don't remember where. - We knew that the % drop-off was a little weird for the minor angles. You were doing some sort of greater curve-shaping (that, if you haven't already coded it, is surely too much to do ahead of the current 0.4.8 timeline).
The minor angles are indeed complicated in theory. If you use the "dormancy is deflected" argument, then 3° in majors is like 2° on minors. OTOH, since more-than-2° feels no stronger than Class 3, a closer rule-of-thumb was something like 3° major = 1° minor, 7° major is like 2° minor; 10° major is like 3° minor. This kinda sucks because there isn't an easy, natural curve that describes the whole phenomenon, and you were sculpting with a pocketknife on a bar of soap to try to shape it.
The minor angles are indeed complicated in theory. If you use the "dormancy is deflected" argument, then 3° in majors is like 2° on minors. OTOH, since more-than-2° feels no stronger than Class 3, a closer rule-of-thumb was something like 3° major = 1° minor, 7° major is like 2° minor; 10° major is like 3° minor. This kinda sucks because there isn't an easy, natural curve that describes the whole phenomenon, and you were sculpting with a pocketknife on a bar of soap to try to shape it.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Found it, will code and test:
if orb<=2: x = 3 * orb / 2
else x = (orb - 2) * 7 + 3
then power = cos(6 * x)
Then rebuild the install and upload.
if orb<=2: x = 3 * orb / 2
else x = (orb - 2) * 7 + 3
then power = cos(6 * x)
Then rebuild the install and upload.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Okay! - I think this will be a much better taper for minor angles than what we've had until now.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
BTW, this is a good occasion to say again how much I appreciate the flexibility you've built into TMSA. This week's example: I'm totally sure the weakest part of the quadrant is the cadent cusp, but I've been wondering if I'm missing something else[ about the quadrant center. So, this week I reset my defaults to go 0 at mid-quadrant - not because I think that's the low point but because I wanted the program to alert me when a planet was exactly there.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Coded. This is Fagan's speculative chart for Jesus. Notice how this plays up Mo co Ur on the Westpoint by right ascension.
Code: Select all
+-------------12Cn 2-----------11Ge41-----------12Ta 6--------------+
|Er 26Cn33 01°52'| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
12Le49-----------+----------------+----------------+-----------12Ar53
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | Jesus Christ | |
| | | |
| | Natal | |
| | | |
| | 25 Dec 7 BCE OS 22:20:00 LMT | |
| | | |
| | Bethlehem, Israel |Ju 20Pi54 07°29'|
| | |Sa 19Pi38 06°03'|
| Ep 8Vi 1 | 31N42'16" 35E12'22" | |
| | | |
|Pl 15Vi29 29°15'| UT 19:59:11 | |
13Vi14-----------+ +-----------13Pi14
| | RAMC 66°45'24" | |
| | | |
| | OE 23°41'52" | |
| | |Ur 5Pi52 22°31'|
| | SVP 3Ar 8'47" |Mo 4Pi29 20°30'|
| | | |
| | Sidereal Zodiac | |
| | | |
| | Campanus Houses | |
| | | |
| | Speculative per Fagan | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
12Li53-----------+----------------+----------------+-----------12Aq49
| | | |Ma 12Aq12 29°09'|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |Ve 20Sc57 09°25'| | |
| | | | |
| | | | Vx 28Cp56 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Se 3Cp35 22°54'| |
| | |Su 5Cp42 23°48'| |
|Ne 9Sc54 27°50'| | | |
| | | |Me 13Cp43 01°12'|
+-------------12Sc 6-----------11Sg41-----------12Cp 2--------------+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pl Longitude Lat Speed RA Decl Azi Alt PVL Ang G
Mo 4Pi29'13" 4S 8 +12°49' 334°57' 14S58 258° 6' - 9°18' 170°30' 98% Wa
Su 5Cp42' 9" 0S 0 + 1° 1' 272°47' 23S40 282°44' -65°40' 113°48' 52%
Me 13Cp42'36" 2S 1 + 1°44' 281°41' 25S17 272°54' -58°46' 121°12' 39%
Ve 20Sc56'40" 4N14 +48'20" 226°30' 13S16 49°47' -63°49' 69°25' 22% b
Ma 12Aq11'59" 1S 6 +46'30" 311°51' 19S15 265°13' -30°46' 149° 9' 0% b
Ju 20Pi53'50" 1S21 + 8' 7" 349°18' 6S 8 258° 6' + 7°19' 187°29' 85% D
Sa 19Pi38'26" 2S26 + 3'46" 348°33' 7S37 257°16' + 5°54' 186° 3' 90% D
Ur 5Pi51'42" 0S45 + 2' 4" 335° 0' 11S19 261°14' - 7°24' 172°31' 98% Wa
Ne 9Sc54'24" 1N51 + 1'27" 215° 0' 12S10 63°25' -54°53' 57°50' 0% b
Pl 15Vi29'29" 17N 2 - 0'18" 170°47' 22N37 63°35' + 0°41' 359°15' 100% A
Er 26Cn33'15" 43N43 - 1'30" 131° 3' 64N 4 30°38' +39°21' 301°52' 38%
Se 3Cp34'39" 5N32 + 0' 6" 270°27' 18S10 296°42' -64°42' 112°54' 54%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 Aspects Class 2 Aspects Class 3 Aspects
Mo sx Su 1°13' 97% Mo tr Ne 5°25' 45% Su co Me 8° 0' 34%
Mo co Ur 1°22' 98% Su sx Ne 4°12' 67% Me sx Ve 7°14' 6%
Mo sx Se 0°55' 98% Me sx Sa 5°56' 35% Me sx Ju 7°11' 7%
Su oc Ve 0°15' 99% Me sx Ne 3°48' 72% Sa tr Er 6°55' 14%
Su sx Ur 0°10'100% Ve sx Pl 5°27' 45% Ur op Pl 9°38' 7%
Su co Se 0°55' 98% M Ve tr Er 5°37' 42% Ne sx Se 6°20' 27%
Me tr Pl 1°47' 94% Ju op Pl 5°24' 69%
Me op Er 0°40' 99% M Ju tr Er 5°39' 41%
Ve tr Ju 0° 3'100% Sa op Pl 4° 9' 81%
Ve tr Sa 1°18' 97% Ur tr Ne 4° 3' 69%
Ma sq Ne 1°19' 97% M Ne sx Pl 5°35' 42%
Ju co Sa 1°15' 98%
Ur sx Se 2°17' 90%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmic State
Mo Pi F | Su Cp-
| sx Se 0°55' co Ur 1°22' sx Su 1°13' tr Ne 5°25'
| Me/Er 39'i Ve/Sa 48'i
Su Cp | sx Ur 0°10' oc Ve 0°15' co Se 0°55'M sx Mo 1°13'
| sx Ne 4°12' co Me 8° 0'
| Pl/Er 19'i Er/As 48'i
Me Cp | Mo Pi-
| op Er 0°40'M tr Pl 1°47' sx Ne 3°48' sx Sa 5°56'
| co Su 8° 0' sx Ju 7°11' sx Ve 7°14'
| Ma/Pl 8'i Ve/Ur 18'd Ma/As 59'i Mo/Ve 60'd
Ve Sc- B | Mo Pi+
| tr Ju 0° 3' oc Su 0°15' tr Sa 1°18' sx Pl 5°27'
| tr Er 5°37' sx Me 7°14'
| Pl/Er 5'd
Ma Aq B | Su Cp+
| sq Ne 1°19'M
| Ju/Se 2'd Su/Sa 28'd Me/Mc 30'i Sa/Se 35'd
Ju Pi F | Su Cp-
| tr Ve 0° 3' co Sa 1°15' op Pl 5°24' tr Er 5°39'
| sx Me 7°11'
| Su/Ur 7'i Mo/Su 48'i
Sa Pi F | Su Cp+
| co Ju 1°15' tr Ve 1°18' op Pl 4° 9' sx Me 5°56'
| tr Er 6°55'
| Ur/Se 5'i Ma/Er 16'i Mo/Su 27'i Mo/Se 37'i
Ur Pi F | sx Su 0°10' co Mo 1°22' sx Se 2°17' tr Ne 4° 3'
| op Pl 9°38'
| Ve/Ju 4'i Ve/Sa 34'i Me/Er 44'i Ne/Se 53'd
Ne Sc B | Mo Pi+
| sq Ma 1°19'M sx Me 3°48' tr Ur 4° 3' sx Su 4°12'
| tr Mo 5°25' sx Pl 5°35' sx Se 6°20'
| Me/Ur 7'd Pl/Se 22'd Su/As 26'd Su/Pl 41'd
| Mo/Me 48'd
Pl Vi F | tr Me 1°47' op Sa 4° 9' op Ju 5°24' sx Ve 5°27'
| sx Ne 5°35' op Ur 9°38'
| Sa/Mc 10'i Ju/Mc 48'i Sa/As 57'd
Er Cn | op Me 0°40'M tr Ve 5°37' tr Ju 5°39' tr Sa 6°55'
| Me/Ne 15'i Mo/Sa 31'i Ve/Se 42'i Ur/Pl 53'i
| As/Mc 54'd
Se Cp | sx Mo 0°55' co Su 0°55'M sx Ur 2°17' sx Ne 6°20'
| Er/Mc 32'd
As Vi | Su/Ve 5'd Ju/Ur 9'd Me/Ma 17'i Pl/Mc 21'i
| Sa/Ur 29'd Mo/Ju 33'd Ve/Se 59'd
Mc Ge | Me/Ne 8'd Mo/Sa 23'd Ve/Se 35'd
Angle | Ju/Ur 0'M Ne/Er 9'M Me/Ne 29'M Sa/Ur 43'M
Ep | Mo/Sa 23'M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by TMSA 0.4.8.0 (17 Sep 2022)
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
It sure does! That's kind of a Wow! - OK, let me look... Moon and Uranus are both on the bare fringe of foreground except -
234°47' - RA Moon 98%
235°00' - RA Uranus 98%
236°45' - RA WP
(Of course, the strongest is still Pluto 0°45' from Asc.)
This almost seems too much. Where does 98% fall on the major angles curve? Moon is almost exactly at the 2° drop-off - is 98% where majors are at 3°?
PS - Something in mind for the future: This is the scenario where we need to capture the occasional RA aspect. The Moon-Uranus ecliptical conjunction shows at 1°22' (closer than the mundane = PVL conjunction at 2°01'), but these two planets on WP in RA are only 0°13' apart in RA. That seems, to me, what their conjunction orb should be (but this is a more complicated filtering that we aren't grabbing yet).
234°47' - RA Moon 98%
235°00' - RA Uranus 98%
236°45' - RA WP
(Of course, the strongest is still Pluto 0°45' from Asc.)
This almost seems too much. Where does 98% fall on the major angles curve? Moon is almost exactly at the 2° drop-off - is 98% where majors are at 3°?
PS - Something in mind for the future: This is the scenario where we need to capture the occasional RA aspect. The Moon-Uranus ecliptical conjunction shows at 1°22' (closer than the mundane = PVL conjunction at 2°01'), but these two planets on WP in RA are only 0°13' apart in RA. That seems, to me, what their conjunction orb should be (but this is a more complicated filtering that we aren't grabbing yet).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Here is the latest install (version 0.4.8.0): https://mega.nz/file/EEEnQBoC#wu0d4Mx6k ... CLMs0WYr4w
Source code: https://mega.nz/file/1JsGQSLK#kTt5s7usR ... i5QKEGniAA
Virus scanned before upload and after download. Highly recommended to virus scan after download.
Source code: https://mega.nz/file/1JsGQSLK#kTt5s7usR ... i5QKEGniAA
Virus scanned before upload and after download. Highly recommended to virus scan after download.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
The new minor angle strength formula derives from two observations: 1. In ingresses, a planet within three degrees of a major angle dispells dormancy, as does a planet two degrees from a minor angle--therefor two thing must have equal strength or we will have a logical contradiction: a weaker angularity dispelling dormancy when a stronger angularity cannot. 2. The strength of a planet 0° 0' 0" from a minor angle is exactly the same as the strength of a planet 0° 0' 0" from a major angle.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Oh, boy! - I have to get Marion some lunch, then I'm back to download, test, edit links, co-locate the download, etc.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Installed and checked. Nice work! A lot of small things in this release are both esthetically pleasing and will be useful in a serious, practical way - especially in rapid assessment of solunars by angularity strength involving minor angles.mikestar13 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:52 amHere is the latest install (version 0.4.8.0): https://mega.nz/file/EEEnQBoC#wu0d4Mx6k ... CLMs0WYr4w
My check-list:
Downloads and installs well. Clean files. I've updated the links at the top of this thread and put the duplicate download copies on Solunars.org.
The angle distinctions are really nice. Here, as an example for everyone else, is how Marion's multiple angularities look:
Code: Select all
Pl PVL Ang G
Mo 138°47' 4% b
Su 6° 7' 90% A
Me 358°52' 100% A
Ve 352°37' 86% A
Ma 124°20' 99% N
Ju 336°26' 48%
Sa 297°52' 39%
Ur 127°13' 94% N
Ne 172°52' 87% D
Pl 149°48' 34%
Er 355°38' 95% A
Or, as another example, here are Veronica's complex natal angularities:
Code: Select all
Pl PVL Ang G
Mo 157°16' 98% Wl
Su 263° 0' 87% M
Me 241° 6' 37%
Ve 195°24' 65%
Ma 170°55' 79% D
Ju 164° 6' 99% Wl
Sa 334°47' 44%
Ur 133° 4' 1% b
Ne 163°38' 100% Wl
Pl 138°43' 100% N
Er 332°45' 40%
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
The speed formatting looks good (checked on lunar returns also). The minor angle curve (on a first impression) seems better than before. (I'm going to be watching that more closely for a while).
One opinion and one question:
The question: Along with the designation of particular angles, we had talked about you marking Vertex and Antivertex with Vx and Ax (but not changing the strength curve) if a planet is within 3° in azimuth. I see this isn't here. I'm guessing it takes more infrastructure buildout because (I'm guessing) you want to make that orb user modifiable. Is that the case?
The opinion: I'm not crazy about El and Wl, mostly because lower case L looks like a one or is otherwise not immediately interpreted right. I'd prefer E and W alone, then add the "a" for the RA version. (I haven't come across one of those yet, but I assume you already have the "a" in place.)
One opinion and one question:
The question: Along with the designation of particular angles, we had talked about you marking Vertex and Antivertex with Vx and Ax (but not changing the strength curve) if a planet is within 3° in azimuth. I see this isn't here. I'm guessing it takes more infrastructure buildout because (I'm guessing) you want to make that orb user modifiable. Is that the case?
The opinion: I'm not crazy about El and Wl, mostly because lower case L looks like a one or is otherwise not immediately interpreted right. I'd prefer E and W alone, then add the "a" for the RA version. (I haven't come across one of those yet, but I assume you already have the "a" in place.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
0.4.8
I recommend everyone testing or using TMSA get the new 0.4.8 version. It has some nice refinements on really basic things - like angular strength - that we use all the time. - Big thanks to Mike!
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
The a is already in place for eastpoint/westpoint by right ascension. I could remove the l, and note in the help files that unadorned E and W indicate by longitude. I won't bother making a new release just for this, but will make the change if a new edition is needed for other reasons, and it will be in 1.0.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
The vertex marks will be in 1.0 (user option). You correctly intuit that some infrastructure needs to be built. Note I use the generic F in the cosmic state report--this will change in 1.0, as I am rebuilding the infrastructure anyway. The change in the planetary data was just a question of adding some code, no redesign was needed.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I can't help noticing that the output looks much better 0 suppressed.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I don't know that it needs to change in the CS report, though I can't think of a reason NOT to do it.mikestar13 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:46 pmNote I use the generic F in the cosmic state report--this will change in 1.0, as I am rebuilding the infrastructure anyway.
On natals, I rely on the CS a lot. Every now and then I wish it had the percentage of strength; then I remember how beautifully simple it is and that the percentage is right above a few lines (and now more usable than before) - so no change is needed on that matter.
I guess something in the back of my mind says the individual angles in CS could make it seem more complicated; but heck, I can't really tell until I see it. If you do that, I suggest you stick with the lower case b for background. I suppose I can manually edit a chart to see how this looks. See below: Not bad, no objection to it (though I'm not sure it's as intuitively obvious.)
Code: Select all
Cosmic State
Mo Le b | Su Ta+
| co Pl 0°39' sq Su 1°58' sx Ne 3°26' tr Ve 3°29'
| co Ur 8°52'
| Ju/Mc 56'd
Su Ta A | Mo Le+
| sq Pl 1°18' sq Mo 1°58' sx Er 2°41' sx Ju 3°57'
| co Me 7°15'M sq Ur 6°54'
| Er/Mc 24'd
Me Ar A | sq Sa 1°22' co Er 3°14'M op Ne 5°59'M co Ve 6°14'M
| co Su 7°15'M sq Ma 6°20'
| Ve/As 20'd Ne/As 22'd
Ve Ar- A | Su Ta+
| op Ne 0° 3' co Er 3° 1'M tr Mo 3°29' tr Pl 4° 8'
| co Me 6°14'M
Ma Le N | Su Ta-
| oc Ju 0°53' co Ur 2°53'M op Sa 4°59' oc Er 2° 8'
| sq Me 6°20'
| Sa/Ur 51'd
Ju Pi | co Er 1°15' oc Ma 0°53' sx Su 3°57' op Pl 6°38'M
| Mo/Ve 15'd Mo/Ne 16'd Ve/Pl 34'd Ne/Pl 35'd
| Me/Ur 39'd
Sa Cp+ | sq Me 1°22' op Ma 4°59' op Ur 8°15' oc Er 2°50'
| Pl/Mc 8'd Mo/Mc 12'd
Ur Le- N | Mo Le-
| co Ma 2°53'M co Pl 8°13' op Sa 8°15' co Mo 8°52'
| sq Su 6°54'
| Sa/Pl 1'd Mo/Sa 19'd
Ne Li D | op Ve 0° 3' op Er 2°46'M sx Mo 3°26' sx Pl 4° 5'
| op Me 5°59'M
Pl Le | co Mo 0°39' sq Su 1°18' sx Ne 4° 5' tr Ve 4° 8'
| op Ju 6°38'M co Ur 8°13'
| Ju/Mc 16'd Er/Mc 54'd
Er Pi A | co Ju 1°15' op Ne 2°46'M co Ve 3° 1'M co Me 3°14'M
| sx Su 2°41' oc Ma 2° 8' oc Sa 2°50'
| Sa/As 10'd Me/Ur 36'd Ne/Pl 40'd Ve/Pl 41'd
| Mo/Ne 59'd
As Ta | Ma/Ur 36'd Su/Me 53'd
Mc Cp | Ju/As 44'd
Angle | Su/Ne 30'M Su/Ve 38'M Su/Er 52'M
Ze | Ma/Ur 36'M
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Zodiac Member
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:37 pm
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Excellent work, as usual!
The angle distinctions are sweet. (It made me notice that I for IC doesn't look too bad when it's serifed.) I second the opinion of dropping the lower case L for E/W measured in longitude. (Much like an unserifed upper case I, it's not very distinctive. It's just a stick.) Since E/W measured in right ascension is the only way angles are measured as such, it makes sense for it to have a special indication.
Still regarding angles, with the new minor angle curve, my Neptune's strength shot way up. It's 1 minute past the 2° threshold, so it's an interesting case.
The lack of leading zeros, especially for minutes (especially for aspects), weirds me out a little. I'm sure it's a matter of getting used to it.
The angle distinctions are sweet. (It made me notice that I for IC doesn't look too bad when it's serifed.) I second the opinion of dropping the lower case L for E/W measured in longitude. (Much like an unserifed upper case I, it's not very distinctive. It's just a stick.) Since E/W measured in right ascension is the only way angles are measured as such, it makes sense for it to have a special indication.
Still regarding angles, with the new minor angle curve, my Neptune's strength shot way up. It's 1 minute past the 2° threshold, so it's an interesting case.
The lack of leading zeros, especially for minutes (especially for aspects), weirds me out a little. I'm sure it's a matter of getting used to it.
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Logic hole?
My current (December 1) SLR is set for home: 34N03'46", 118W18'47".
I think there is a hole in out logic filters. Here's the scenario: ONLY transiting planets are foreground. Natal Moon is non-foreground at 65% strong (12°02' from IC) vs. transiting Moon foreground at 87% (7°06' from IC). Transiting Neptune is foreground and ecliptically conjunct natal and SLR Moon 0°11'.
Therefore, I have a partile Neptune transit to natal Moon that is NOT a foreground aspect because natal Moon is not foreground. I do, however, have a foreground conjunction of transiting Neptune and transiting Moon (since both are foreground). TMSA does not show Moon-Neptune in tbe SLR aspect list except the transit to natal Moon under the "Other Partile Aspects" list.
I think the current logic is: In most cases there is no transiting Moon in an SLR. Exceptions are that each has its independent angularity. Mundane aspects get special treatment because (all other things being equal) a t Moon - t Neptune mundane aspect that is closer than t Neptune to r Moon would show.
That leaves a hole for this situation: Since natal Moon isn't foreground, it's only the foreground transiting Moon that could have the (ecliptical) conjunction with Neptune in the primary aspect list, so that should pre-empt, showing t Mo co t Neptune 0°11' 100% in the primary list. (Moon-Mercury is the same story, but Neptune is the more vivid example.)
I think there is a hole in out logic filters. Here's the scenario: ONLY transiting planets are foreground. Natal Moon is non-foreground at 65% strong (12°02' from IC) vs. transiting Moon foreground at 87% (7°06' from IC). Transiting Neptune is foreground and ecliptically conjunct natal and SLR Moon 0°11'.
Therefore, I have a partile Neptune transit to natal Moon that is NOT a foreground aspect because natal Moon is not foreground. I do, however, have a foreground conjunction of transiting Neptune and transiting Moon (since both are foreground). TMSA does not show Moon-Neptune in tbe SLR aspect list except the transit to natal Moon under the "Other Partile Aspects" list.
I think the current logic is: In most cases there is no transiting Moon in an SLR. Exceptions are that each has its independent angularity. Mundane aspects get special treatment because (all other things being equal) a t Moon - t Neptune mundane aspect that is closer than t Neptune to r Moon would show.
That leaves a hole for this situation: Since natal Moon isn't foreground, it's only the foreground transiting Moon that could have the (ecliptical) conjunction with Neptune in the primary aspect list, so that should pre-empt, showing t Mo co t Neptune 0°11' 100% in the primary list. (Moon-Mercury is the same story, but Neptune is the more vivid example.)
Code: Select all
Pl Longitude Lat Speed RA Decl Azi Alt PVL Ang G
Transiting Planets
Mo 27Aq24' 0" 4S 3 +13°34' 354°41' 6S43 13°33' -62° 2' 82°54' 87% I
Su 14Sc20'37" 0S 0 + 1° 1' 247°43' 21S52 121° 6' + 5°30' 353°35' 89% A
Me 26Sc57'47" 2S 3 + 1°31' 261°11' 25S15 116°17' - 6°21' 7° 4' 87% A
Ve 24Sc14'40" 0S24 + 1°15' 258°20' 23S25 116°17' - 3°10' 3°32' 97% A
Ma 23Ta34'40" 2N 1 -22'45" 77°27' 24N58 298° 1' + 3°26' 183°54' 96% D
Ju 3Pi50'38" 1S25 + 1'36" 359°33' 1S45 2°46' -57°39' 88°15' 99% I
Sa 24Cp50' 5" 1S16 + 3'51" 322°43' 16S 3 72° 2' -51°12' 52°36' 4%
Ur 20Ar57'46" 0S22 - 2'13" 43°40' 16N17 314° 0' -25°21' 146°38' 1%
Ne 27Aq35'22" 1S12 - 0' 5" 353°43' 4S 1 14°22' -59°12' 81°35' 82% I
Pl 1Cp44'24" 2S14 + 1'26" 299°18' 22S59 95°35' -35°26' 35°34' 32%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radical Planets
Mo 27Aq24' 0" 4N46 +14°42' 351°12' 1N23 16°39' -53°22' 77°58' 65%
Su 22Vi27'42" 0N 0 +59'17" 196° 9' 6S53 157°51' +46°38' 289°36' 59%
Me 17Li21' 3" 3S10 +44'52" 218°57' 18S35 139°33' +26°10' 322°51' 3%
Ve 1Sc52'48" 5S48 +29'45" 233°10' 25S 7 132°51' +12°52' 342°42' 38%
Ma 28Sg55'21" 2S50 +36'43" 296°24' 24S 6 98°14' -33°33' 33°49' 35%
Ju 3Cn36'46" 0N 9 + 6'44" 120°50' 20N35 272°10' +35°36' 215°37' 32%
Sa 14Li56'37" 2N10 + 6'50" 218°18' 12S45 136°18' +31°18' 318°40' 9%
Ur 3Cn19'58" 0N30 + 1'17" 120°37' 20N58 272°42' +35°36' 215°38' 32%
Ne 1Li20'24" 1N39 + 2'13" 205° 5' 8S39 147°24' +41°35' 301°16' 39%
Pl 2Le 6' 8" 9N55 + 1'20" 153° 0' 21N45 250°46' +62°28' 243°47' 4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 Aspects Other Partile Aspects
tMo sq tSu 0°41' 99% M tMe sq rMo 0°26'100%
tSu sq tNe 2° 0' 92% M tSa sq rMe 0°15'100% M
tMe co tVe 2°43' 86% tNe co rMo 0°11'100%
tMe sq tNe 0°38' 99% tPl op rJu 0° 4'100% M
tVe op tMa 0°22'100% M tPl op rUr 0° 4'100% M
tPl sq rNe 0°24'100%
----------------------
rJu co rUr 0° 1'100% M
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: Logic hole?
Similar but different: Here's somebody else's upcoming SLR where the aspectarian speaks for itself. Wen I saw the first line, I thought, "Oh, t Moon because it's mundane square to natal Sun is closer than natal Moon's." But no, the natal Moon-Sun square is closer in this SLR.
Code: Select all
Class 1 Aspects
tMo sq rSu 0°55' 98% M
tMa sq rMo 2°27' 88%
----------------------
rMo sq rSu 0°47' 99% M
rMo co rPl 0°39' 99%
rSu sq rPl 1°18' 97%
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
May i ask how if possible to set different ayanamsa such as KP ayanamsa for research purposes in TMSA ?
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Mike would be the best person to answer, but, in case he doesn't see this right away, I'll pass along what he has said in the past.
This capability isn't in TMSA at present. Mike has indicated he doesn't plan to add it (for similar reasons to why the program will never add a Tropical zodiac option).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
It is by intention not possible to use alternate ayanamsas, just as it is not possible to cast a tropical chart. Fagan-Bradley SVP is hard coded. TMSA is intended as software to cast very accurate charts, not as a research tool.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
The non-foreground position of the natal Moon is correct, I need to tweak my filters. Between accrued precession and the 8 degree latitude difference, the mundane positions of the two moons are significantly different. This is far more likely than in SSRs, and the latitude difference is the big player, though at your age, the precession correction is not exactly tiny (nearly one degree).
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Are you sure? I think it's the difference in latitude of transiting vs. natal Moon. They can be widely different in latitude because Moon's node loops around the zodiac - currently, Moon's north node is trine where it was when I was born, so I'm closer to the middle of one of those cycles than to either end.mikestar13 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:52 amJim, in the first case, natal moon has its strength calculated incorrectly, natal moon is by definition foreground, as it is at an identical position ecliptically and only slightly different mundanely (accrued precession).
I think your basic planet calculations are all correct.
In my current SLR, natal Moon is 4°46' North latitude but transiting Moon is 4°03' South latitude. That's a lot (and not an unusual amount). This 8° difference in latitude gives a difference of 3°29' in RA and 8°06' in declination. With planets near the meridian (as in the example), the RA difference matters more than the declination, but they both play a part. A 5° difference in PVL isn't a lot.
I've seen much larger PVL differences. It's kinda normal. (Arena, of course, gets gigantic differences due to geographic latitude, but I've seen perhaps 15° difference in moderate latitudes.) I think it's just the difference in celestial latitude.
You don't get this with Sun, of course, because transiting and natal Sun always have the same latitude. My Moon is near the latitude max of 5°+ (since my late Aquarius Moon is less than a sign from being square my mid-Sagittarius north node).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
My opinion as to how I would actually prefer to filter is to list all aspects excepting tSu co/op/sq rSu in SSRs and corresponding moon-moon aspects in SLRs. I would rather have an occasional redundant entry than miss something important as here.
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I corrected my post and cited the latitude difference as you were writing your response, Jim.
Time matters
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
- Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 18672
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
That makes sense. I could probably come up with enough layered rules to solve it, but that actually narrows the program. People can ignore redundancy.mikestar13 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:15 amMy opinion as to how I would actually prefer to filter is to list all aspects excepting tSu co/op/sq rSu in SSRs and corresponding moon-moon aspects in SLRs. I would rather have an occasional redundant entry than miss something important as here.
An easy one you didn't mention above, though, is ALL transiting Sun aspects in SSR or Demi-SSR. (Not in Quartis and, when added, Enneads or 10-Day Solars.) That's always safe.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
I will be posting version 0.4.9 later today (coding done, building install).
Time matters
-
- Synetic Member
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
- Gender:
Re: TMSA 0.4 Stable Release
Release 0.4.9: https://mega.nz/file/dBFS3TpD#95CJF6vBU ... NPI5MTtuS0
Source code: https://mega.nz/file/QJtBgBwC#-CdqoyEg0 ... 3E5kuyOSV4
Fixes issues Jim mentioned. Also designated Eastpoint and Westpoint by longitude as "E" and "W" (by right ascension, they are "Ea" and "Wa").
Source code: https://mega.nz/file/QJtBgBwC#-CdqoyEg0 ... 3E5kuyOSV4
Fixes issues Jim mentioned. Also designated Eastpoint and Westpoint by longitude as "E" and "W" (by right ascension, they are "Ea" and "Wa").
Time matters
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest