"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> "Matt Giwer" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message news:3A1639FF.50EFCF48@ij.net...
> > A generic rule of thumb if you rolling your own. Stars in the real are
> > visible by virtue of their brightness not their angular size. In the POV
> > world it is the angular size that makes an object visible.

> That's an untruth actually.

	In what way? 

> Take a granite color map, for example, which disperses a star-like pattern with
parts (dots) being scaled too
> small to be seen (when AA is used especially, not sure at the moment if this does in
all cases) and then try an
> increase in color value.  I think the previously invisible pixels will then appear.
> You might be right though about it when non-AA rendering.
> Same goes for objects too I think.  Seems I've encountered that before.

	Let me try it again. There are several ways to go for a starfield. The
optimize around "not doing dumb things that cost parsing/rendering
time." 

	I have played with several and tried my own. I have found two
approaches. One is to simulate movie starfields and the other is to
simulate real starfields. 

	Movie type starfields are ones that have just enough more than from
earth but not like too many. Real starfields are printed by exposure
time. 

	Granite and other patterns requires lots of playing with the scaling
and still colors tend to group and look like patterns. 

	What I learned from all of this was to create a simple rule of thumb
while in progress of trying to create starfields in a manner emulating
reality. 

	So the governing rule is, regardless of the distance it must be large
enough to render even though in reality brightness is all that matters. 

	I am not ready to go beyond this rule as yet. I could fake it several
ways from Sunday with processing time penalties getting worse with every
"improvement." 

-- 
Torturing the data until it confesses is not considered the 
scientific method. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 289

Post a reply to this message