Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:

>
> Very nice!

Thanks!
>
> Some minor issues
>
> - the lighting is very soft / ambient for a space scene

Yes indeed. By design, actually. I wanted an 'old' 1960's era
science-fiction-film look for the scene. Like it was photographed in a studio
setting. But the one thing I adamantly refused to do was to show the strings
holding up the meteors ;-)

> - there seem to be some "collisions" (rocks passing through each other)

I was wondering if anyone would notice that. So far, I count only one, but there
are probably others. I toyed with the idea of writing some kind of code for
collision detection or whatever, but got bogged down in the details; so I opted
for an easier scheme of random meteor placement, but one that's not *quite* so
simple as <rand(...),rand(...),rand(...)>. The final construction is actually a
cylindrical 'tube' full of objects (with a central tube carved out for the
camera to move through.) There are multiple seed() values for this, to give me
at least *some* control over the situation. If I had taken enough time, I could
probably have found a set of values to *totally* eliminate the few collisions.
But real collision detection is obviously needed.

> - this better be debris from a recently destroyed moon, otherwise
>    so-called astroid belts / fields usually have millions of km
>    between individual asteroids ;)

It's just a completely fanciful scene. That's why I wasn't even sure what to
call those rocks. Not asteroids, not really meteors--more a collection of simple
space junk. But why would they all be *rotating* and at different rates? Hmm,
something strange here!  :-P

Post a reply to this message