Dear fellow atlas-enthusiasts,
I have been working on my own stellar atlas in my free time since March, and I have arrived to a point where I think it is worth showing, and asking opinions of the wider public. Please head over to my website and read the whole story there: http://papics.eu/?p=3969 (There are of course more and better quality sample pages over there.)
I would appreciate any kind of comment / suggestion / criticism (preferably constructive).
I like it, and think your approach is good, and that the atlas will be very useful for many observers.
The number of DSOs is way too few for my 12.5" aperture, used in dark skies, but, like the Millenium Sky Atlas a while back, that doesn't mean it's not a good atlas.
If you added up to 30,000 or more objects, an atlas of this scale would become very crowded and the overlap of identifying designations a real problem.
I like your approach to plotting the Milky Way, for example, and large nebulae.
However, there is always a risk in using connect-the-dots depictions of constellations, as there have been several different pattern sets in the last 40 years, and some are not very good (i.e. don't connect
enough dots). To use such on a star atlas of large size, such as the Tirion Atlas 2000, helps with page identification at a glance. On a larger scale atlas, however, the section of a
constellation so depicted doesn't help that much, and it could even be a problem if the observer didn't like the constellation patterns you picked. I'd advise against it for general distribution,
even if you like it for yourself.
The magnitude 10 limit for stars is a good one. Kudos.
As for the SAC database, be aware that all its star cluster positions (open and globular) have been corrected per the data in the book "Star Clusters" by Archinal & Hynes and represent the most current, corrected, catalog of star clusters available. You state that you made corrections to DSO positions. I hope no correction was applied to star clusters, since much other on-line data is filled with errors--especially for catalogs like the Ruprecht clusters, where many on-line lists had positional errors of up to a degree (!). I have no comment about other coordinates, since I did not have a hand in correcting them, nor checking them against a modern, corrected, reference, like NED or SIMBAD.
I also do not know if the positions and identifications of NGC objects in your list have been corrected per the most recent Historically-corrected data from The NGC/IC.org group or Wolfgang Steinicke's more recent corrections. In some cases, continuing an error (the NGC90/91 switch, for example) may be called for because of all the literature concerning these two objects, all of which used incorrect identifiers, i.e. if 100 years of scholarly studies are all in error, then perhaps the error has become the accepted norm, regardless of the historical roots of the error. I hope you used at least the NGC/IC.org data or Steinicke's data for your NGC information rather than the older, and more error-ridden data often found on-line.
Edited by Starman1, 22 June 2017 - 03:52 PM.