 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/24/2017 4:50 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 24.05.2017 um 07:10 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>> On 5/23/2017 4:24 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Hoe much of a performance hit will POV-Ray (in general) take if you do
>> that?
>
> Virtually none; but you'll void your warranty
Do you mean that we will not be able to get our money back?
> (read: you might get
> artifacts someplace else).
>
Too bad the newsgroup doesn't allow font changes for small print. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.05.2017 um 18:35 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/24/2017 4:50 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 24.05.2017 um 07:10 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>>> On 5/23/2017 4:24 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hoe much of a performance hit will POV-Ray (in general) take if you do
>>> that?
>>
>> Virtually none; but you'll void your warranty
>
> Do you mean that we will not be able to get our money back?
Exactly.
Not even at gunpoint.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/25/2017 8:33 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Virtually none; but you'll void your warranty
>> >
>> >Do you mean that we will not be able to get our money back?
> Exactly.
>
You missed a trick there. I would have said that "for you we will give
you every penny you spent on the software".
> Not even at gunpoint.
In that case:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/19/91/cc/1991cc8accc264d60d1f967e8a81bc4a.jpg
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Further work:
Over the weekend I worked out the REAL way to do orbital inclinations, and
processed the data for ~655,000 minor plants from:
http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/MPCORB.html
You can clearly see why it's called the asteroid BELT. :O
Animated. 180 frames - took 9.5 hours to render.
(Win 7 Home Premium x64 SP1 went to sleep during the rendering - IIRC there's a
patch or something I need to install to fix MS's screwup?)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '1year.mpg' (3483 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/30/2017 12:57 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Further work:
>
> Over the weekend I worked out the REAL way to do orbital inclinations, and
> processed the data for ~655,000 minor plants from:
> http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/MPCORB.html
>
> You can clearly see why it's called the asteroid BELT. :O
>
> Animated. 180 frames - took 9.5 hours to render.
>
I'm not too sure what I am seeing. I guess that the sun is on the LHS of
the animation and the white dots are the minor planets. Looking from
above the plane of the solar system.
It is not what I expected to see. But then reality is overrated IMO. :)
>
> (Win 7 Home Premium x64 SP1 went to sleep during the rendering - IIRC there's a
> patch or something I need to install to fix MS's screwup?)
>
There is an option to prevent Windoze sleeping in Pov's Render menu.
(Fourth from the bottom.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> I'm not too sure what I am seeing. I guess that the sun is on the LHS of
> the animation and the white dots are the minor planets. Looking from
> above the plane of the solar system.
>
> It is not what I expected to see. But then reality is overrated IMO. :)
You are correct in your interpretation.
It's certainly not what I expected to see either - although keep in mind that I
have NO data on how big those "minor planets" are - they could be pebbles for
all I know. It's interesting to see the accumulating objects when the test data
sets are increased from 100, to 100, to 10000, .....
A frame takes a mere 2.5 minutes to read all that data and parse all of those
spheres. I'd like to figure out a faster way, and maybe something with a wee
bit less demand on memory.
I just thought it would be cool to "populate" the solar system model with some
of the other stuff that's out there. I had NO idea that there was SO MUCH.
:O
> There is an option to prevent Windoze sleeping in Pov's Render menu.
> (Fourth from the bottom.)
I would guess (hope) I had that checked, but sometimes things get a bit
discombobulated, what with different computers and OS's and versions ...
I will check.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/31/2017 12:39 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> I'm not too sure what I am seeing. I guess that the sun is on the LHS of
>> the animation and the white dots are the minor planets. Looking from
>> above the plane of the solar system.
>>
>> It is not what I expected to see. But then reality is overrated IMO. :)
>
> You are correct in your interpretation.
> It's certainly not what I expected to see either - although keep in mind that I
> have NO data on how big those "minor planets" are - they could be pebbles for
> all I know.
I love your acronym NERTS :)
> It's interesting to see the accumulating objects when the test data
> sets are increased from 100, to 100, to 10000, .....
>
Is that what your animation is doing, increasing the data sets as well
as position?
I expected to see a band of rocks constantly orbiting between Mars and
Jupiter. Maybe I read too much SF. ;)
> A frame takes a mere 2.5 minutes to read all that data and parse all of those
> spheres. I'd like to figure out a faster way, and maybe something with a wee
> bit less demand on memory.
>
I was going to say that it might be quicker if you could load the data
into a Virtual disk. But that would take up more memory. :(
Maybe one of the smart people could help.
> I just thought it would be cool to "populate" the solar system model with some
> of the other stuff that's out there. I had NO idea that there was SO MUCH.
> :O
>
I knew there were a lot but seeing a visualisation puts it in
perspective. I wonder if there is an available data set of all the space
junk whizzing around the Earth?
>> There is an option to prevent Windoze sleeping in Pov's Render menu.
>> (Fourth from the bottom.)
>
> I would guess (hope) I had that checked, but sometimes things get a bit
> discombobulated, what with different computers and OS's and versions ...
> I will check.
>
I only use windows and can't remember setting the option.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Is that what your animation is doing, increasing the data sets as well
> as position?
> I expected to see a band of rocks constantly orbiting between Mars and
> Jupiter.
Nope, I just did that in the testing phases to make sure my interpretation and
implementation of the 6 orbital elements wasn't WAY off.
Still working on that "Mean anomaly at the epoch" part.
I'm guessing that's it's position at some well-defined time-point.
> I was going to say that it might be quicker if you could load the data
> into a Virtual disk. But that would take up more memory. :(
I'd thought of something like that - maybe a RAM disk, a SSD, or a USB3 stick.
The parsing takes longer than the data reading.
The number of spheres isn't TOO bad - considering my rgb histogram analysis
processes millions of them for certain images. (it just takes forever)
> Maybe one of the smart people could help.
Be sure to take your frog pills today.
And wipe your chin.
> I knew there were a lot but seeing a visualisation puts it in
> perspective. I wonder if there is an available data set of all the space
> junk whizzing around the Earth?
I think that there is. Likely even Google has some of it.
I need to figure out how to reject badly-formed data, like the E's, the MPE's,
the MPO's, etc in the data set, so I don't have to manually delete them.
I also need to figure out how to plot the objects that look like they have
parabolic paths. I haven't yet reasoned that out or investigated the equations
and parameters for those yet.
I can't imagine that there are things with hyperbolic orbits - but the universe
is a surprising place.
So, I have the planets, a lot of the moons, and asteroids.
UV mapping of the planets and moons.
(BTW, I really like the way your Earth looks with the normal mapping - I haven't
gotten that far yet)
A realistic starfield in the background would be nice - esp if there were some
actual constellations in approx the right place. That would make a very nice
sky_sphere indeed.
Not sure what else to throw in there - galaxies, nebulae - not sure what's large
enough to be seen (if I fudge the scaling like I do with the planets and
moons...)
Comets would be very cool, and some of the man-made-satellite models as well.
Also on the list is a nice fly-through path for the camera to travel through the
solar system and pause around each planetary system for a bit.
I suppose each data set for each set of objects could be worked out, and
included in the central scene file. Things like the asteroids could be limited
with a bailout number - which I already have implemented.
..... and if things get too unwieldly, we can always have Dick Balaska do all the
animation frames on his render farm ;) :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I knew there were a lot but seeing a visualisation puts it in
> perspective. I wonder if there is an available data set of all the space
> junk whizzing around the Earth?
The first actual database I was able to dig up:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/space-weapons/satellite-database#.WS8VoZLytaQ
Apparently our sleazy politicians and spy agencies have too many secrets up
there in Earth orbit, so the actual (portions of) databases are on a
"demonstrable need to know" basis.
I think the POV community needs to know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> I can't imagine that there are things with hyperbolic orbits - but the universe
> is a surprising place.
And, there we go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory
Learn something new today ... check [X]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
