On 5/12/2017 8:10 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>
> Here's the animation of the solar system over one Earth year.
>
> I just worked out a fast and efficient approximation for apsidal (orbital)
> precession last night. (not that it will make any noticeable effect)
>
> Still need to look up a bunch of things and do some further editing on the code
> before it gets fleshed out.
>
> Not sure how I ought to place the planets - so I just started at full syzygy.
> I may trace out the orbits in a future version.
>

Is POVray powerful enough to render details at large scale? I thought 
there was a memory issue.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Am 23.05.2017 um 00:50 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 5/12/2017 8:10 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>
>> Here's the animation of the solar system over one Earth year.
>>
>> I just worked out a fast and efficient approximation for apsidal
>> (orbital)
>> precession last night. (not that it will make any noticeable effect)
>>
>> Still need to look up a bunch of things and do some further editing on
>> the code
>> before it gets fleshed out.
>>
>> Not sure how I ought to place the planets - so I just started at full
>> syzygy.
>> I may trace out the orbits in a future version.
>>
> 
> Is POVray powerful enough to render details at large scale? I thought
> there was a memory issue.

The issue with renders of the solar system is usually not memory, but
precision; for example, if you set up a solar system with the sun at
<0,0,0>, trying to render one of Mars' moons will give you issues with
the precision used in the bounding mechanism.

That issue can be solved by translating the whole solar system so that
the camera ends up near <0,0,0>.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> The issue with renders of the solar system is usually not memory, but
> precision; for example, if you set up a solar system with the sun at
> <0,0,0>, trying to render one of Mars' moons will give you issues with
> the precision used in the bounding mechanism.
>
> That issue can be solved by translating the whole solar system so that
> the camera ends up near <0,0,0>.

Excellent.  I will make a special note of that.
Is there a way in which greater precision may be obtained?
(I thought I saw something in that Graphics Gems series)

I realize that might be a somewhat complicated answer to a simple question, and
may not be something considered until V 4.0....

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2017 8:18 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> The issue with renders of the solar system is usually not memory, but
>> precision; for example, if you set up a solar system with the sun at
>> <0,0,0>, trying to render one of Mars' moons will give you issues with
>> the precision used in the bounding mechanism.
>>
>> That issue can be solved by translating the whole solar system so that
>> the camera ends up near <0,0,0>.
>
> Excellent.  I will make a special note of that.
> Is there a way in which greater precision may be obtained?
> (I thought I saw something in that Graphics Gems series)
>
> I realize that might be a somewhat complicated answer to a simple question, and
> may not be something considered until V 4.0....
>

I don't think it is Clipka you should be asking. Try the white haired 
deity with flowing robes. ;)

Look at the Pale Blue Dot. At 3.7 billion miles, Earth's apparent size 
is less than a pixel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I think Christoph's point is about significant figures.

If I have a planetary system with a moon at 651000 km away from the planet, then
I can model that accurately, whereas if I try to model that at the planetary
distance PLUS the moon orbit, then the planetary distance eats up a lot of zeros
and I can't calculate the smaller variations in distance.

Post a reply to this message

Also, 3D Models!

:)

http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/models/

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2017 9:00 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> I think Christoph's point is about significant figures.
>

Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay 
you can change that.

> If I have a planetary system with a moon at 651000 km away from the planet, then
> I can model that accurately, whereas if I try to model that at the planetary
> distance PLUS the moon orbit, then the planetary distance eats up a lot of zeros
> and I can't calculate the smaller variations in distance.
>

Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay
> you can change that.

Very nice.  I will have to look into that when I advance to that level, and get
a new computer   :)

> Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?

With Lots of Vitamin A and squinting   :P

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2017 9:00 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Also, 3D Models!
>
> :)
>
> http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/models/
>
>

You must be at work to do all this research. ;)

Thanks for the link. Pity there is only one texture.
I was thinking that when I finish my latest Earth. I would surround it 
with as many space craft that I can.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/23/2017 9:29 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay
>> you can change that.
>
> Very nice.  I will have to look into that when I advance to that level, and get
> a new computer   :)
>
>> Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?
>
> With Lots of Vitamin A and squinting   :P
>

Carrots, don't forget to eat your carrots. :)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propaganda-campaign-popularized-the-myth-that-carrots-help-you-see-in-the-dark-28812484/

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message