> me...but how does it help in defining transparency? (note that I have
> never used a transparent image_map, and never bothered to figure out how
> they are done)
>

In a 16color image, say, your background color is listed as palette entry
eight. In your texture statement for that image you specify transmit 8,1 and
you're done. You can't do that with 16Mill colors, that I know of, but even
if you could it would be a relative pain in the rear. With 256 color images
sorting out the colors I want to specify as transparent can be time
consuming and a real carpal nightmare.

I have to make an admission here. Because I lower the color count, I can get
away with much larger image_maps (better application quality) and I do. So,
the disk space I save gets taken in the end.

> Yes, that would be Jupiter. :-)
> Not impossible to do procedurally, but definitely harder than Saturn.
>
>
> > I suspect that Saturn, or Jupiter are just as complex as Earth, close
up.
>
> Actually, the images I saw were from one of the space probe
> fly-by's...it looked like a light grayish-yellow ball with slight
> banding. Very simple texture, with little variation in color.

Examine the approach distance for this probe. :)  At such a distance I would
think Earth was not very complex, either. Yet, both of these planets are
huge. Jupiter, it has been postulated, is composed of ammonium gases and
such. Perhaps, under those dense cloud layers and perpetual storms, there is
a sea of petroleum. Contemplate; what form would life take there? Now,
render that! :)

What I am trying to get at, is that a working texture should be functional
even upon (near) full immersion. You can't 'get involved' with an image_map.
It's two dimensional. :)

I have a book NASA published on images they've obtained over the years.
Fascinating stuff, it includes all the planets (most of their moons), and
speculation on Pluto (binary, or singular snowball?). Come to think of it, I
haven't seen that book in a while! :(

Grim

Post a reply to this message