Version 0.5.0 Screenshots

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sat May 07, 2022 12:38 pm

You continue to impress me with your instinct for elegance when we hit speedbumps like this. Good show!

And the "Save chart?" looks really good!

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sat May 07, 2022 12:41 pm

BTW you can still specify what format you prefer in program options, but this will only control what is checked initially, user can change it for any chart.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sat May 07, 2022 12:49 pm

I don't really like autotab myself either. It makes data entry slightly faster for folks who seldom/never make data entry errors--it slows us mere mortals down.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sat May 07, 2022 12:59 pm

I'd mind it less if every field always behaved the same under all conditions, but it's highly conditional, i.e., there are conditions under which you need to tab and those where you don't. I have to actually THINK about what I'm doing

. But the main stumble is that, if I make a mistake and tab back a field, it instantly jumps me forward again because the (wrong) contents satisfy the condition for tabbing forward.

It is, however, an inconvenience at worse. Having right and useful data in the final product is far more important.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sat May 07, 2022 1:23 pm

I will add a program option to turn autotab off. Should we poll users about on or off by default? If so, I vote "off".

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sat May 07, 2022 1:27 pm

I vote off AND I think polling users is a good idea. (We haven't gotten much feedback from such requests for opinion, though I suppose that falls under "those who show up and vote get to decide"; but it's good to ask anyway.)

So that it's more likely to get seen, please make it a new thread and use the built-in polling function (which essentially never gets used around here).

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sat May 07, 2022 2:04 pm

How do you use the polling function?

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri May 13, 2022 4:28 pm

The new Solunars page, when a nativity is selected: https://i.imgur.com/UCBAvZM.jpg

When solar return is selected: https://i.imgur.com/GE6AAlN.jpg

When a lunar return is selected: https://i.imgur.com/h1gP1dk.jpg

This technique will also be used for kinetics when they are implemented.

A line for enneads will be added when they are implemented.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri May 13, 2022 4:53 pm

mikestar13 wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:28 pm The new Solunars page, when a nativity is selected: https://i.imgur.com/UCBAvZM.jpg

Lots of good stuff here. Suggestion: What do you think of M D Y and H M S etc. having the spaces dropped? I notice the UT (thanks for moving it next to the time field) is cut off and two more spaces would help.

When solar return is selected: https://i.imgur.com/GE6AAlN.jpg

Nice. (I had some additional ideas and then realized they were bad ideas, so fuggetaboutit <g>. This is good.)

When a lunar return is selected: https://i.imgur.com/h1gP1dk.jpg

Is the thing that we're supposed to see that the answer is "sorry, Charlie"? It doesn't seem anything can be selected off of this. If I'm right about that, then do you need the data input fields?

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pm

Will fix MDY/DMY. The idea is it is not possible to cast a valid return to an SLR. Likewise, it is not possible to cast a valid solar return to another solar return, nor to cast a regular SLR to an SSR, but we can cast anlunars. So lunar returns and most other types of charts will get a sorry, Charlie, NQ's will be fine when implemented.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri May 13, 2022 6:13 pm

mikestar13 wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pm The idea is it is not possible to cast a valid return to an SLR. Likewise, it is not possible to cast a valid solar return to another solar return, nor to cast a regular SLR to an SSR, but we can cast anlunars. So lunar returns and most other types of charts will get a sorry, Charlie, NQ's will be fine when implemented.

Agreed with all that. I was suggesting that if there is nothing to run off of a lunar return, you don't need the input fields, the form can be simpler. (Perhaps at least put the "sorry, Charlie" advisory at the top before someone takes time to input data.)

The "this is probably too tedious to program compared to its value" thing I was thinking was that the SSR just calculated could be a foundation for further SSRS (or demi or quarti) but you would have to swap the real natal in for the 'natal' planets instead of using the "base" SSR as the 'natal'. Maybe not hard because you already have them available, but OTOH maybe a pain in the butt. (Maybe only useful for people who save their return charts instead of having them all temporary.)

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri May 13, 2022 7:13 pm

I expect there will be tweaks in how we show a forbidden chart.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri May 13, 2022 7:45 pm

Oooh, that would be popular: Forbidden Charts!

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri May 13, 2022 8:34 pm

How it works now: If a forbidden chart is chosen, the form will display just the error message and the back button.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:08 am

This is a screenshot of what the Start Page will look like: https://i.imgur.com/Jcx1d2d.jpg
When coding is finished (mid-June to July 4) the download link will be posted in a new version 1.0 thread.
Among the Options, only Program and Chart will be implemented, Novien, Synastry, Prediction, and Interpretation when clicked will pop up a "Not Implemented: Coming in version 1.x." message.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:28 am

That little program you put together to let people calculate a Sidereal chart for free... is getting all grown up! This is an exciting collection of options and features.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:16 pm

The redefined chart options page: https://i.imgur.com/NXiwHb4.jpg

Each orb button will open a sub-form.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:22 pm

Wow! I now see what you mean by redesigned.

Under Angularity Model, even though a cosine function is used, the shape of the curve is a sinusoid (vs. the shape of a cycloid). I suggest the change to make the two options stylistically and mathematically matched.

Looking forward to seeing the sub-pages.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:03 pm

Change easily made and I will post screenshots of sub forms as designed. I like the important items are all on the main forms and you never need open a sub-form if you are happy with the default orbs and dignities. BTW inconsistent choices will be rejected so it won't be possible to choose both cycloid and cadent cusp .

BTW should I add aspect model line for the main page? I don't think it rational to for example choose sinusoidal for ecliptic aspects and cycloid for mundane aspects, while sinusoidal aspects and cycloid angularity or vice versa is reasonable for experimentation. I would like to hear more opinions about this.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:14 pm

mikestar13 wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 5:03 pm BTW should I add aspect model line for the main page? I don't think it rational to for example choose sinusoidal for ecliptic aspects and cycloid for mundane aspects, while sinusoidal aspects and cycloid angularity or vice versa is reasonable for experimentation. I would like to hear more opinions about this.

I agree with you concerning the inconsistencies and theoretical problems of Bradley's final aspect curve. If I were designing this only for myself, I'd say ignore it; only loyalty makes me think it should be included at all, so people can test it (though I have no need for its inclusion to be rushed <g>).

I agree on inconsistency of one model for ecliptical aspects and another for mundane aspects, and agree that it isn't inconceivable that angularity might work on a spikey model and aspects on a round one (or, conceivably or theoretically, the opposite) - I don't think it's true, but it's conceivable.

I think that Angularity Model choice could go on the Angularity Orbs page: I think you're trying to minimize tapping into sub-menus, but I don't think the switch between sinusoidal and cycloidal will be a common choice - pretty atypical, in fact.

I also think the Aspect Model could go on an aspect orbs page EXCEPT there are several aspect types. I kinda hate putting it on the first page. I wonder... could you put it on EACH of the aspect type pages but make it the same variable so that changing it one place automatically changes it for all places?

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:14 pm

I'll spend a day tomorrow re-redesinging to incorporate or improve upon those suggestions. Re Angularity, choosing sinusoidal vs cycloid won't be common either. What options should stay on the main form? In principle I could put everything on sub-forms except loading and saving option files, Help, and Back.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:22 pm

BTW I have already decided that Bradley's aspect curve is a no go. I propose having an option to calculate the drop-off from exact to maximum orb as cycloidal rather sinusoidal, but not try to fit a single curve to the whole 360 degree range.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Thu Jun 02, 2022 6:37 am

About sinusoid; yes it correct and I will use it. A cosine curve is a sinusoid curve but not a sine curve; rather it is a phase shifted sine curve (similar in meaning to sinusoid curve but wordier).

BTW I find it curious that spell check chokes on sinusoid but is fine with both sine and sinusoidal. Not all the red lined words in my posts are my mistakes. Rather like accepting batter but rejecting bat (which spellcheck doesn't do).

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:55 am

mikestar13 wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 6:37 am BTW I find it curious that spell check chokes on sinusoid but is fine with both sine and sinusoidal. Not all the red lined words in my posts are my mistakes. Rather like accepting batter but rejecting bat (which spellcheck doesn't do).

Yes, we have to educate spell checkers.

And the red lines only appear for you, not for the people reading your posts.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:16 am

Revised chart options page: https://i.imgur.com/CM9tSSF.jpg

Everything is delegated to the sub-forms.

Planets has checkboxes for Eris and Sedna and the abilty to edit dignities, and whether to use use mutual reception.

Angles is where we choose the angularity model: sinusoid: background at cadent cusps, sinusoid: background at mid-quadrant, and cycloid. Also whether to include the vertex in planetary data and orb of foreground (for marking purposes--the strength curve is determined solely by the angularity model).

Aspect is where we choose sinusoid or cycloid drop off for aspect and set the orbs for ecliptic aspects, non-eclicptic aspects (mundane aspects and parans) have their own sub-form launched by a button on the aspects sub-form.

Midpoints have the same functionality as in version 0.4.7.

Altogether, chart options will spread across six pages, but essentially every option anyone is likely to want will be there.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:56 am

I am also considering to let users add a limited number of experimental planets (perhaps two or three), user will supply name, two-letter abbreviation, and minor planet catalog number. I will investigate having TMSA automatically downloading appropriate ephemeris files from the SE site--if this is not feasible, the help file will have instructions for manual download. So if this works out, Danica can have Chiron.

I will likely include some popular choices in the TMSA install. I need time to think this feature through and I don't expect to implement it before version 1.1.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:31 am

mikestar13 wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:16 am Revised chart options page: https://i.imgur.com/CM9tSSF.jpg

Everything is delegated to the sub-forms.

To refresh my memory: This is the current "Chart Options" section (still structured on the same option set model of the current version), yes? (I ask because I thought you had mentioned consolidating Program Options in the same place, which, btw, doesn't matter to me one way or the other except I didn't see it here.)

Aspect is where we choose sinusoid or cycloid drop off for aspect and set the orbs for ecliptic aspects, non-eclicptic aspects (mundane aspects and parans) have their own sub-form launched by a button on the aspects sub-form.

Parans are treated independent of mundane aspects, yes?

Altogether, chart options will spread across six pages, but essentially every option anyone is likely to want will be there.

I think this will be easier and catch on quickly. I'll have to try it before I have a clear opinion but, since SO much stuff is now on the sheet, this is probably the way to go.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:52 am

Yes parans and mundane aspect are treated separately (but will likely fit on the same page, if not each will get it's own sub-form). Program Options are remaining a separate item as program colors, autotab, etc. really need to be program wide. Can you imagine autotab on for natals but off for ingresses?

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:09 am

I think I've said this before, but it deserves repeating: This all feels like a definite "versioning up," a maturing of the underlying program to reflect a whole new level compared to what it has been before. It really does feel like 1.0 is approaching.

I had lost track of the timeline of TMSA to date. If asked, I'd have said you've probably been working on this for two years. But no, it's been less than a year! You posted Astro 0.1 August 30, 2021. It's been almost exactly 9 months, and the labor contractions seem to have started. This is an impressive amount of quality work in so short a period of time.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:19 am

This is the revised midpoint page: https://i.imgur.com/pTttekB.jpg

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:49 am

Nice & straightforward.

Mundane midpoints are going to be enabled for all chart types in 0.5, I suspect?

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:13 pm

Mundane midpoints can be enabled for any chart type in version 0.4.7 already. Should they be enabled out of the box for ingresses, natals, andsolunars in 1.0? The user can change the defaults via this form. As it stands now, mundane midpoints are enabled for ingresses and disabled for natals and solunars.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:56 pm

mikestar13 wrote: Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:13 pm Mundane midpoints can be enabled for any chart type in version 0.4.7 already. Should they be enabled out of the box for ingresses, natals, andsolunars in 1.0? The user can change the defaults via this form. As it stands now, mundane midpoints are enabled for ingresses and disabled for natals and solunars.

Ah, I thought they worked in ingresses but not other charts in 0.4.7.

I don't think I've ever seen one in a solunar. I'm probably behind the curve a version or so on my memory of these things, so I'll watch closer.

I think they should be enabled out of the box for ingresses (where they can be quite basic things) and let people decide whether to add them for other things. BTW, I wouldn't mind seeing the MC / Asc / Angle lines appear before the planets on the Cosmic State so I don't have to remember to scroll to the bottom to look for the angle midpoints (obviously a small thing).

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:10 pm

I just ran a year of lunar returns for myself and didn't see an MC/Asc/Angle line on the CS report for any of them. I haven't confirmed that there should have been midpoints, but it seems one least one should have come up over the course of a year. Ecliptical and mundane midpoints are enabled for returns.

Meanwhile, I see that the vertical bar displacement is sneaking back in. (I hadn't seen that in a while.) Here is my SLR for 3/27/2023, for example.

Code: Select all

                              Cosmic State                              
                           Transiting Planets                           
Mo Ta+  |
Su Pi   | sq rMe 00°59'M   co rJu 04°52'M   sq tMa 05°44'    
Me Pi-  | sq rVe 00°00'M   co tJu 00°49'    sq rMe 02°57'    sq rSu 02°59'    
Ve Ar-  |
Ma Ge   | sq rJu 00°34'    sq tNe 05°34'    sq tSu 05°44'    
Ju Pi   | co tMe 00°49'    sq rMe 02°09'    sq rSu 03°47'    
Sa Aq   |
Ur Ar   | sq rSa 00°41'M   
Ne Pi+  | co rNe 02°37'    sq rSu 03°53'M   co rJu 06°08'    sq tMa 05°34'    
Pl Cp   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Radical Planets                             
Mo Ta+  |
Su Sg   | sq tMe 02°59'    sq rJu 03°08'M   sq tJu 03°47'    sq tNe 03°53'M   
         | co rMe 05°56'    
Me Sg-  | sq tSu 00°59'M   sq tJu 02°09'    sq tMe 02°57'    sq rJu 03°53'M   
         | co rSu 05°56'    
Ve Cp   | sq tMe 00°00'M   
Ma Ta-  |
Ju Pi   | sq tMa 00°34'    sq rSu 03°08'M   sq rMe 03°53'M   co tSu 04°52'M   
         | co tNe 06°08'    
Sa Cp+  | sq tUr 00°41'M   
Ur Ar   |
Ne Aq   | co tNe 02°37'    
Pl Cp   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by TMSA 0.4.7.5 (10 Jun 2022)

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:13 pm

I think it only comes up in single-wheel view of a solunar. One of the SLRs (10/15/2022) showed midpoints to MC when I re-ran it as a single wheel but had none when originally run.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:39 pm

Both ecliiptical and mundane mipoints not implemented for slounars (part of the reason for the redesign of the midpoint routines), they do however work for ingresses (on by default) and natals (off by default.My statement above was in error. Orbs can be set for midpoints in solurnars, but they wont be calculated in bi wheel view. The new framework for calculating midpoints will fix that. Been working so long on 0.5/1.0 I had misremembered.

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jun 10, 2022 2:49 pm

Got it. Yes, I thought it was something like that (hence my original question). I can set up the midpoint definitions, they just don't calculate/display for solunars.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:24 pm

The planets option page: https://i.imgur.com/ExH4CVP.jpg

This will expand when additional experimental planets are added. Plenty of room to grow.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:33 pm

The page to edit planetary dignities (defaults marked): https://i.imgur.com/l9JpUty.jpg

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:00 pm

Wow, much cooler than I'd expected.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:03 am

Still hacking away at getting the latter form to load and save dignities correctly, but editing them will be a breeze. Three button clicks from the opening screen is a pretty reasonable ask for what I expect to be a rarely accessed functionality. This will add new items to the chart option files, but the defaults will assure that Jim's dignities list will be in use except if the user changes it for a particular chart option set. I have developed a good accurate way for sub-forms to send data back to main forms, at whatever depth may be needed. (One level will be the most common for chart options, this particular option requires two levels--I could do more levels were it desirable.)

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:36 am

mikestar13 wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:33 pm The page to edit planetary dignities (defaults marked): https://i.imgur.com/l9JpUty.jpg

Now that I'm back at a computer and can see this in larger form, I notice that MR is turned off by default. I think it should default to On. (I'm looking forward to this too-often-overlooked condition having easy visibility for everyone.)

Digression: I don't know if I mentioned this before but, in auto-generating interpretive elements I've been happy using the trine-sextile interpretations for mutual reception. The condition is clearly a meaningful merging of the nature of the two planets (i.e., an aspect) but doesn't have the dynamic "do something" or "high pressure need" quality of hard aspects. The soft aspect paragraphs seem about right, which of course tells me something about how MR conditions function in the psyche.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:31 am

MR will be on by default. I made a slight error in the code already fixed. I had left a period out of self.mr.value = self.di.get("MR", 1), which sets the button to the users existing value or yes if they don't have one. The inadvertent selfmr.value = self.di.get("MR", 1) was just creating a new local variable which the program wasn't using, and I didn't notice when I took the screenshot.

Interestingly, back in the day when I was playing around with comparing the strength of various factors, I rated MR as being about the strength of a moderate trine.

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:12 pm

The revised Opening Page: https://i.imgur.com/hPYYBXd.jpg

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:16 pm

Nice. I think that's a little sleeker. (Of course, I don't mind geeky, obviously.)

mikestar13 · Post by **mikestar13** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 5:36 pm

The revised Select Chart screen incorporating Jim's suggestion (before any chart is chosen) The nine most recent charts (if the history is long enough) are displayed to be chosen by one click. When the history is long enough the tenth through seventeenth most recent charts are available by the More Charts button. The Find button is now faster. With a small chart collection, a couple of letters may be enough. For a large collection, more letters
may be needed but very seldom the whole name.

The screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/lPQtd6Y.jpg

Post by **Jim Eshelman** » Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:38 am

mikestar13 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 5:36 pm The revised Select Chart screen incorporating Jim's suggestion (before any chart is chosen). The nine most recent charts (if the history is long enough) are displayed to be chosen by one click. When the history is long enough the tenth through seventeenth most recent charts are available by the More Charts button. The Find button is now faster. With a small chart collection, a couple of letters may be enough. For a large collection, more letters may be needed but very seldom the whole name.

This looks sharp

Nicely arranged. Groupings fit intuitively.

A couple of small suggestions:

1. Make "Noviens:" singular (since you're applying it to a single natal). Even if you're contemplating successive Noviens (or multiple Noviens of Moon), I still think it communicates better.

2. More of a query: What do you think of swapping the Import and Export buttons? I'm thinking mostly of avoiding common user error such as a slight mouse slip. If one intends to click on Export and, instead, clicks Delete, that could lead to sad consequences. ("JUST when I meant to permanently save something, I deleted it! Aggh.") I can't think of an equivalent scenario if one intends to click Import and hits Delete instead, or if one intends to click Export and hits Recalculate. (These are all recoverable as is except when one is in a rush or having an inattentive day, so user-proofing always seems a good idea.) - Thoughts?

I have some other thoughts that I've put in the Wish List where they fit better.