On 11/06/2010 1:41 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  wrote:
>> On 11/06/2010 8:32 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>   schreef in bericht
>>>> If Mike does that then it may be realistic but it will be boring to look
>>>> at. IMO realistic space scenes show one feature while hiding most others
>>>> due to differences in scale. Do you remember the posts from a few years

>>>> Having said that the ground could be s bit further away ;-)
>>>
>>> Yes indeed. Bill, and myself, did some exploration that way back then; and
>>> there was some scenes based on Arthur Clarke's Rama iirc, some years ago
>>> too. It is not easy, fairly impossible, to show all, so a shrewd choice of
>>> viewpoint and scene cutout to suggest - more than to show - the vast
>>> dimensions of such artificial structures is needed.
>>>
>> I think that, that is the reason I gave up realistic modelling of scenes


>
> Ah, but I think Mike's approach with the interactive VR is exactly the way to do
> a space habitat.

I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me 
wonder what a game engine would make of it.

> I think the way the perspective distorts the edge of the frame
> while panning gives the viewer an instinct for the fov that can be very tricky
> for non-rectilinear geometries.


would make you seasick driving down those roads.

> I'm going to try this with my ringworld - and
> I'll also dig out the O'Neill habitat that I started constructing some years
> ago. (As an aside, this had a simple uniform fog inside it, and it worked very
> well as a depth cue!)
>

I look forward to seeing it.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message