On 28/08/2017 12:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 28-8-2017 9:27, Stephen wrote:
>> On 28/08/2017 07:56, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 27-8-2017 19:23, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose these lower res meshes are posted by NASA in order to 
>>> reduce the 'weight' of the files.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is the other way round. The High Res meshes are made 
>> available as a courtesy. You can't expect NASA to give it a high 
>> priority when no one in their right mind would try to build a planet 
>> in High Res. What would the memory requirements be anyway?
> 
> I am lost now. The Nasa meshes we downloaded from NASA (like Valles 
> Marineris) are they considered hi- or lo-res? 

 From what I can remember. Only a few of the Mars sites have a high Res 
mesh.
Unless Sven is talking about another site.

> Additionally, I think that 
> mesh landscapes always show a resolution problem; so do height_fields 
> too of course, and both when used for a close, detailed, view. I don't 
> think there really is a solution for that, except using the 
> mesh/heightfield for background or mid-range view, and a separate, 
> local, one for a detailed foreground. That is what I do in those cases.
> 

The man uses mountain ranges as props. Respect. :-)



>> No more than two subdivisions, I would say. Can PoseRay displace faces 
>> along their normal? (I don't have it installed atm.)
>>
> 
> You can do displacement mapping, if that is what you mean, but that is 
> tricky. 

It is and it is.

I'd like to test but I can't.

> I don't know how good MeshLab is for these kind of 
> manipulations, by the way. Might be worth the try.
> 


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message