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 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. 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!)

Bill

Post a reply to this message