On 11/11/2018 14:26, Shuffle wrote:
> Ok, many thanks everyone for your replies, I'll try to answer to all of them,
> but most suggestions don't apply to my problem or have already been tried... so
> I hope to also clarify what I actually need.
> 
>> Stephen: Have you tried to use the transmit value to control the transparency of
the atmosphere?
> This is not applicable because, for any non-zero transmit value, there will be a
> sudden change when the camera goes from outside to inside the media container.
> Also, the object inside the media should not become visible as soon as we enter
> the atmosphere, only at lower altitudes, as in the video I linked. So even with
> a transmit set by a function of the distance to the atmosphere boundary, this
> would still not be what I need.
> 

Clipka is right in saying a two shot approach is the way to go.

Media can be time consuming. Do you have your heart set on using it?
If you want or need to use media. I would try to make a density map that 
had zero density from the centre to the surface of the planet and using 
a spherical gradient, from the surface of the planet to the limit of the 
atmosphere. Or you could cheat and difference a sphere around your 
camera. Then fill that with a less dense media.


After making the video below. Where the whole murky atmosphere gets more 
transparent the closer you get to the planet. I think that using a one 
shot approach would take too long to get to the point of interest and 
the file size would be too large. Then there is the problem with the 
resolution of the point of interest at different heights. So for the 
close to land shot. I would create a “Sphere of Visibility” around your 
camera and have the material or texture be densest at the surface and 
zero in the centre. If you use transparency you could use a colour map 
as a density curve.



https://youtu.be/gqVw5K9ePyU




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message