Search results

That's overstating. I got a similar curve in a panorama, the cause of which is undetermined. Please stop paraphrasing, or you will be banned. Use quotes.

To discuss his claims. Which I'd be doing more of if I had the time and inclination. It's just a way of focussing the discussion instead of appending it to a much longer and older thread.

While kind of interesting, those numbers are irrelevant. They don't account for the number of transients per tile in their analysis, and there's at least one in nearly every tile. So it comes down to a correlation between the days on which Palomar took photos and the days around nuclear tests...

No, they are assertions. If they are in the data, then I would agree with you. You are pushing Marik's interpretation, your interpretation, and the perceptions and memories of the pilots, as if they are inviolable representations of reality.

Those are not "facts", they are assertions. Please stop doing that.

Fixed!

In order for any explanation of such things to be definitive, you need to know where the clouds are. The simple way to demonstrate that any theory works is to model it in 3D. I've been on-and-off (mostly off) messing with getting Gimbal working in a more flexible framework in Sitrec to try out...

Nobody claimed that. Stop inventing things. And stop ignoring when people answer your question. If you don't like the answer, then explain why, but don't pretend it's been ignored.

Fixed! Although, with 3D buildings, this location doesn't need the Google Earth polygons. https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/brussels_HLN_20251104T203645Z/20260414_183236.js

I very much doubt that the process will ever be independently fully replicated. I've been doing a bit of work with @HoaxEye on this, and there are numerous pitfalls and sensitivities. Unless you have the original source code, with pinned modules, and the original data, and the online databases...

The problem here is that each time I dig into your theories (like the triangulation issue), it takes a lot of time, and the end result is that there's some assumption you made that makes the entire thing meaningless (IIRC with triangulation it was ignoring some unquantifiable rotation or...

I'm closing this for now as I've made a lot of performance improvement. Open a new bug if there's something specific that is slow.

Fixed and improved! 2.45.5 https://github.com/MickWest/Sitrec2/commit/d00b2c6ff8d6cf3a3c0a3cdc3089e64b0e3babec

The current Gimbal sim is in something of an experimental state, before I lost interest. The original one (that I reference in my video) is here: https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal1/ No problem there, but it leaves the initial observed rotation unexplained. I know this is an outstanding...

I'll fix it. Please put new bugs in new threads (leave this though)

Why would it? There's nothing in there that predict bumps. Nothing prevents bumps from other sources. The implemented model predicts what the glare angle should be. The extents are not in the implemented model, and they don't require bumps. Zaine seem to be presenting an early bump as...

He claimed it failed to predict a bump. I see nothing in the model to support that. It's a meaningless assertion.

There is no predictive simulator of bumps. Why would it identify any bumps. Bumps are things that we observe happening. But the code makes no predictions. It does not attempt to stay in a deviation range. That's just what is observed. There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the...

No, it does not. There is nothing in the code that predicts bumps or steps. We simply observe those things happening. All it predicts is the curve (which is hard math, constrained by the physical reality of the gimbals, which is maybe why the video is called Gimbal) But I don't think his...

That it's a glare. Your assertions don't invalidate any of it. Like: There is no "predictive roll simulator" that identifies bumps. No bumps are predicted by anything; they are simply observed slightly before rotations. You utterly misunderstand that point and others. This is why you got...