Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Astrolog 541G

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Francois Carriere

unread,
May 11, 2002, 12:32:31 AM5/11/02
to
Hello everyone,

Just a word to say that Valentin Abramov has an upgraded version of
Astrolog, A541gwin.

Enjoy!

--
Francois
http://www.bdcol.ee/astrolog/changed/a541gwin.zip

SeaGtGruff

unread,
May 11, 2002, 2:07:39 AM5/11/02
to
Francois Carriere (francois...@alussinan.org) wrote:

Yes, I just discovered this through Nicolas' post about his version 5.42H, in
which he mentions 5.41G. I've just downloaded the new versions but have not
set them up yet. The improvements to 5.41G sound wonderful, though, and I
greatly appreciate them, because most are things I've long wanted to see. I
encourage anyone who uses Astrolog to download the new versions! :-)

Michael Rideout

SeaGtGruff

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 3:53:57 PM6/8/02
to
[posted to alt.astrology.moderated and Astrol...@yahoogroups.com]

I wrote:

I've noticed a bug in Astrolog 5.41G, and one or two things I don't like.

One thing I thought was a bug turned out to be me. I was trying to turn on or
unrestrict the fixed star Algol, but it wouldn't show up. I changed the
"Number of aspects used to allow fixed star" to 0, but Algol still wouldn't
show up. I later noticed the "Alternative stars restriction" box (immediately
above the "Number of aspects used to allow fixed star"), and realized I had to
uncheck that box. So that was my fault for not reading the release notes
carefully enough, and for not paying close enough attention to the "Chart
Setting Details" screen!

There seems to be an occasional quirk in the new "seconds" routines,
specifically in the birth time. I was adjusting and readjusting the longitude
and/or latitude of a chart that I was "backwards-engineering," and I noticed
that each time I changed the longitude or latitude (I don't remember which), 1
second was being added to the birth time-- even though I wasn't even modifying
that field. It doesn't happen all the time, and I'm not sure under what
specific conditions it does happen.

I liked the addition of the "flower" graphics many versions back-- which draws
a "flower" showing the areas of strength, harmony, or disharmony, based on the
aspects/harmonics of the planets-- but it's a feature that I almost never use,
because the "flower" is drawn in white, and I change my color settings to make
the black background white, and to make all of the other glyphs and lines
(except the aspect lines) black. This means the "flower" graphics are always
invisible (white drawing on a white background), unless I change the background
color to something other than white. I use a color inkjet printer, and I can't
imagine why anyone would want to print a chart using Astrolog's default colors
(colorful glyphs and lines on a black background), because it wastes ink or
toner. I don't want to use the "Monochrome" setting, because I want the aspect
lines to be in color. And anyway, the "flower" graphic is always drawn in
white, even with the "Monochrome" setting.

So here's a suggestion: I think it would be better to either add color
switches for the "flower" graphics, or perhaps to use one or more of the
"elemental" colors for the "flower" graphics. I like the first idea better,
because I'd also like to see the ability to draw all three "flower" graphs at
once-- the harmonic "flower," the tension "flower," and the total "flower"--
each in a different color, like blue for harmony, red for tension, and black
for total power (but with the user being able to specify these colors). To
draw multiple "flowers," the selection buttons would have to be changed from
"radio buttons" to "check boxes," so the user could select which "flower" or
"flowers" to draw.

Also, switching to the "Monochrome" setting should change the "flower" graphics
to black, the same way that all of the glyphs and lines are changed to black.

Somewhat related to the above is the new feature in which the second date,
time, and Julian day number (when doing comparison charts, or
transits-to-natal, or progressions-to-natal) are written in yellow or green in
the info sidebar. This is almost impossible to read when the chart is drawn on
a white background, and switching to the "Monochrome" setting also does not
affect these drawing colors.

I would like to see the user given the ability to specify these colors.

These colors should also change to black in the "Monochrome" chart.

Michael Rideout

SeaGtGruff

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 5:53:01 PM6/8/02
to
[posted to alt.astrology.moderated and Astrol...@yahoogroups.com]

I wrote:

[..]


> There seems to be an occasional quirk in the new "seconds" routines,
> specifically in the birth time. I was adjusting and readjusting the
longitude
> and/or latitude of a chart that I was "backwards-engineering," and I noticed
> that each time I changed the longitude or latitude (I don't remember which),
1
> second was being added to the birth time-- even though I wasn't even
modifying
> that field. It doesn't happen all the time, and I'm not sure under what
> specific conditions it does happen.

[...]

It just happened again, and I think I've found a pattern.

Set the chart time for 0 (midnight). The chart will display for that time.

Pull up the "Enter Chart Info" window again. The chart time will still say
"12:00:00am" as it should.

Without changing any of the chart info, click on the "OK" button. The time in
the "info sidebar" will now read "12:00:01am"!

Pull up the "Enter Chart Info" window again. The chart time will now say
"12:00:01am"!

Without changing any of the chart info, click on the "OK" button. The time in
the "info sidebar" will now read "12:00:02am"!

Keep repeating those steps, and 1 second will be added to the time each time.

It doesn't seem to matter what time is used-- if you specify a certain number
of seconds on the time, the program adds 1 second to it when you click "OK" (or
press ENTER) to accept the chart info. This means that you would need to
subtract 1 second from the time you want to use.

Entering the time without seconds does not do this.

However-- and here's the crazy part-- it doesn't happen all the time! It just
happened to me as I've described it, and it happened no matter what time I
entered. But then I closed the program and restarted it, and now it isn't
happening any more. In fact, now I can't seem to make it happen again, no
matter how many times I shut down and restart the program! Thus, it seems to
be a rare bug, more likely to *not* occur.

It's almost as if there's a "bit flag" or other variable that is usually 0 but
sometimes 1, which is getting added to the time, but I'm not sure *what* is
going on-- only that when it does happen, it happens as I've described, and
seems to keep happening until you close and restart the program.

Michael Rideout

Francois Carriere

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 8:35:28 PM6/8/02
to
Hi Micheal,

Ok, it didn't happened with me, but I know that Valja worked on something
about the seconds lately. Would you try to download astrolog once more to
see if it still happens with a "corrected" version?

--
François

SeaGtGruff <seagt...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message :
20020608165138...@mb-cp.aol.com...

SeaGtGruff

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 10:02:01 PM6/8/02
to
Francois Carriere (francois...@alussinan.org) wrote:

> Hi Micheal,
>
> Ok, it didn't happened with me, but I know that Valja worked on something
> about the seconds lately. Would you try to download astrolog once more to
> see if it still happens with a "corrected" version?
>
> --
> François

I can't seem to duplicate it again. Both times that it's happened, I was
trying to find the date, approximate time, and approximate location that fit
certain natal positions or aspects. When I do that, I start with a date such
as January 1, 1950, 0 hours, no daylight-saving time, time zone 0, longitude 0,
latitude 0. Then I move the date forward or backward until I find the right
year, month, and day. Then I look for the approximate time (if I know the
position of the Moon). Finally, I start moving the longitude, and then the
latitude, until I get the right house cusps (if I know them) or house
positions.

When it happened the first time, I didn't experiment to see if I could find a
pattern to it. When it happened again today, I tried different times to see if
it kept happening, and it did. But as soon as I closed the program and then
restarted it, I couldn't make it happen any more-- even when I tried doing
everything that I'd done before.

If it happens again, I'm going to keep experimenting to see if I can find out
what triggers it. As a software support person myself, I know how frustrating
it is to get a report of a bug that can't be duplicated. It's much more
helpful to get a report of a bug that's accompanied by enough data to help the
programmer zero right in on the problem. I haven't contacted Valja yet, and
I'd like to have something definite to report to him, with definite
instructions on how to duplicate it-- instructions that produce the reported
behavior without fail.

Michael Rideout

Valentin Abramov

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 11:46:29 AM6/9/02
to
In article <20020608145332...@mb-cp.aol.com>, seagt...@aol.com says...


>I've noticed a bug in Astrolog 5.41G, and one or two things I don't like.
>
>One thing I thought was a bug turned out to be me. I was trying to turn on or
>unrestrict the fixed star Algol, but it wouldn't show up. I changed the
>"Number of aspects used to allow fixed star" to 0, but Algol still wouldn't
>show up. I later noticed the "Alternative stars restriction" box (immediately
>above the "Number of aspects used to allow fixed star"), and realized I had to
>uncheck that box. So that was my fault for not reading the release notes
>carefully enough, and for not paying close enough attention to the "Chart
>Setting Details" screen!

You can swithch of this automatic stars restriction in astrolog.dat - just put "_YU"
instead of original "=YU" (of cource without quotes).


>There seems to be an occasional quirk in the new "seconds" routines,
>specifically in the birth time. I was adjusting and readjusting the longitude
>and/or latitude of a chart that I was "backwards-engineering," and I noticed
>that each time I changed the longitude or latitude (I don't remember which), 1
>second was being added to the birth time-- even though I wasn't even modifying
>that field. It doesn't happen all the time, and I'm not sure under what
>specific conditions it does happen.

There was small bug with latitude/longitude seconds and I put fixed version to the server
without changing version name. Just download 5.41G again and check if it works.

Well, I already did some changes in this direction (not on the server yet). For normal
wheels there's possibility to set up different colors for reverse background and in this
case colors are switched automatically (as example by default green is replaced by dark
green and looks nice). I have just to check other graphics outputs move this change there
too.

Thanx that you pointed this out (I didn't notice that this change isn't working with
flowers).


>Somewhat related to the above is the new feature in which the second date,
>time, and Julian day number (when doing comparison charts, or
>transits-to-natal, or progressions-to-natal) are written in yellow or green in
>the info sidebar. This is almost impossible to read when the chart is drawn on
>a white background, and switching to the "Monochrome" setting also does not
>affect these drawing colors.
>
>I would like to see the user given the ability to specify these colors.

It's done already in the "draft" version.

>These colors should also change to black in the "Monochrome" chart.
>
>Michael Rideout


Regards,
Valja

Francois Carriere

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 1:14:36 AM6/10/02
to
Valentin Abramov <va...@www.bdcol.ee> a écrit dans le message :
3d031...@news.estpak.ee...
> >There seems to be an occasional quirk in the new "seconds" routines,
> >specifically in the birth time. I was adjusting and readjusting the
longitude
> >and/or latitude of a chart that I was "backwards-engineering," and I
noticed
> >that each time I changed the longitude or latitude (I don't remember
which), 1
> >second was being added to the birth time-- even though I wasn't even
modifying
> >that field. It doesn't happen all the time, and I'm not sure under what
> >specific conditions it does happen.
>
> There was small bug with latitude/longitude seconds and I put fixed
version to the server
> without changing version name. Just download 5.41G again and check if it
works.

Hello all,

I'm not sure anymore that it "is" a bug!!!

I wonder if it is not just a normal time conversion calculation problem from
sexagesimal to decimal and vice versa (a +/- 4 secon = +/- 0.0011111111...
hour of time)? I've just downloaded the new version from the server. I'm
working with Tycho Brahe's horoscope and I'm getting this display "problem"
with both versions. Are we not just inventing bugs? For instance new version
print in decimal with Right Ascension (which I had to use with Brahe's
horoscope).

Kind regards - François

SeaGtGruff

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 3:57:36 AM6/10/02
to
Francois Carriere (francois...@alussinan.org) wrote:

> Valentin Abramov <va...@www.bdcol.ee> a écrit dans le message :
> 3d031...@news.estpak.ee...
> > In article <20020608145332...@mb-cp.aol.com>,
> seagt...@aol.com says...
> >
> > >There seems to be an occasional quirk in the new "seconds" routines,
> > >specifically in the birth time.

[...]


> >
> > There was small bug with latitude/longitude seconds and I put fixed
> version to the server
> > without changing version name. Just download 5.41G again and check if it
> works.
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm not sure anymore that it "is" a bug!!!
>
> I wonder if it is not just a normal time conversion calculation problem from
> sexagesimal to decimal and vice versa (a +/- 4 secon = +/- 0.0011111111...
> hour of time)? I've just downloaded the new version from the server. I'm
> working with Tycho Brahe's horoscope and I'm getting this display "problem"
> with both versions. Are we not just inventing bugs? For instance new version
> print in decimal with Right Ascension (which I had to use with Brahe's
> horoscope).
>
> Kind regards - François

I've also downloaded the newer version of 5.41G, and I haven't seen a
recurrence of the bug yet. When it did occur, it did seem to be a bug,
although I also considered whether it might have something to do with a
"rounding error" in either the program or the Windows operating system itself.
(I'm still using Windows 95 on this machine, and I remember that there was an
issue about the math routines in that version, although the computer I'm using
was supposedly pre-installed with the later version of Windows 95-- just prior
to the release of Windows 98-- so that particular operating system bug *should*
have been corrected by then.)

The crazy thing is, when I tried to duplicate the bug with the first version of
5.41G, following exactly the same steps as I'd gone through the first time, I
could not get it to recur. Thus, I haven't been able to determine what might
have triggered it.

Michael Rideout

velazque...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 7, 2014, 2:40:02 PM9/7/14
to
El viernes, 10 de mayo de 2002 23:35:02 UTC-4, Francois Carriere escribi�:
But the program doesn't work in Windows 8.1, How can I run in windows 8.1?

don hindenach

unread,
Sep 8, 2014, 5:50:02 AM9/8/14
to
On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 13:34:51 CST
velazque...@gmail.com wrote:

> El viernes, 10 de mayo de 2002 23:35:02 UTC-4, Francois Carriere escribi_:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Just a word to say that Valentin Abramov has an upgraded version of
> > Astrolog, A541gwin.
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > --
> > Francois
> > http://www.bdcol.ee/astrolog/changed/a541gwin.zip
>
> But the program doesn't work in Windows 8.1, How can I run in windows 8.1?
>

use a win7 or XP or perhaps Linux VM?

--
-donh-
donh at audiosys dot com

Todd Carnes

unread,
Dec 14, 2014, 10:00:02 PM12/14/14
to
You do know you responded to a post that was 12 years old, right? :)

Todd Carnes

unread,
Dec 14, 2014, 10:00:08 PM12/14/14
to
On Sunday, September 7, 2014 11:40:02 AM UTC-7, velazque...@gmail.com wrote:
You do know you responded to a post that was 12 years old, right? :)

Todd

0 new messages