David Cook wrote:

> I should have said that you'd probably be better off using these as texture
> maps than as height fields. The only drawback with this method (if this is
> suitable for your application) is that since the renderings are embossings
> of the flattened planet surface, when you wrap it around a sphere the
> surface features shadows are inconsistent with the way the lighting should
> follow the curvature of the planet.

I know.. I already have some image maps of planets, and I've already used them
in scenes.... And they have nicer colours than these :)

> However, if by "door to door" you mean that you're developing a VR model,
> then texture mapping won't give you the elevation data you're looking for.
> Have you tried contacting Calvin J. Hamilton, the site author, to ask him
> where the original topo data that he used to make his images can be
> acquired?

Well, by saying "see them door to door" (and that was a typo... I meant 'sell'
*sigh*) I was just baing a bit sarcastic. All I meant was that I didn't need
anything super scientificly accurate here, just something to play around with
that was not just generated at random....

> BTW, here's another site that has some good planetary maps:
> http://maps.jpl.nasa.gov/

I know. Love ths site! I made some custom planets using their maps, and a lot of
tweaking.

They're at:
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet/Planet1.jpg
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet/Planet2.jpg
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet/Planet3.jpg

If anyone's interested.. just simple, silly little things.... but I like it.

I wanted the heightfields so I could render them with a waterlevel set, to
create realistic continents/oceans for custom planets, instead of relying on
flukes in the images to do the same..... that's all... :)

Post a reply to this message