 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> The issue with renders of the solar system is usually not memory, but
> precision; for example, if you set up a solar system with the sun at
> <0,0,0>, trying to render one of Mars' moons will give you issues with
> the precision used in the bounding mechanism.
>
> That issue can be solved by translating the whole solar system so that
> the camera ends up near <0,0,0>.
Excellent. I will make a special note of that.
Is there a way in which greater precision may be obtained?
(I thought I saw something in that Graphics Gems series)
I realize that might be a somewhat complicated answer to a simple question, and
may not be something considered until V 4.0....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/23/2017 8:18 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> The issue with renders of the solar system is usually not memory, but
>> precision; for example, if you set up a solar system with the sun at
>> <0,0,0>, trying to render one of Mars' moons will give you issues with
>> the precision used in the bounding mechanism.
>>
>> That issue can be solved by translating the whole solar system so that
>> the camera ends up near <0,0,0>.
>
> Excellent. I will make a special note of that.
> Is there a way in which greater precision may be obtained?
> (I thought I saw something in that Graphics Gems series)
>
> I realize that might be a somewhat complicated answer to a simple question, and
> may not be something considered until V 4.0....
>
I don't think it is Clipka you should be asking. Try the white haired
deity with flowing robes. ;)
Look at the Pale Blue Dot. At 3.7 billion miles, Earth's apparent size
is less than a pixel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think Christoph's point is about significant figures.
If I have a planetary system with a moon at 651000 km away from the planet, then
I can model that accurately, whereas if I try to model that at the planetary
distance PLUS the moon orbit, then the planetary distance eats up a lot of zeros
and I can't calculate the smaller variations in distance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also, 3D Models!
:)
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/models/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> If I have a planetary system with a moon at 651000 km away from the planet, then
> I can model that accurately, whereas if I try to model that at the planetary
> distance PLUS the moon orbit, then the planetary distance eats up a lot of zeros
> and I can't calculate the smaller variations in distance.
>
Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay
> you can change that.
Very nice. I will have to look into that when I advance to that level, and get
a new computer :)
> Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?
With Lots of Vitamin A and squinting :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/23/2017 9:00 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Also, 3D Models!
>
> :)
>
> http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/models/
>
>
You must be at work to do all this research. ;)
Thanks for the link. Pity there is only one texture.
I was thinking that when I finish my latest Earth. I would surround it
with as many space craft that I can.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/23/2017 9:29 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay
>> you can change that.
>
> Very nice. I will have to look into that when I advance to that level, and get
> a new computer :)
>
>> Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?
>
> With Lots of Vitamin A and squinting :P
>
Carrots, don't forget to eat your carrots. :)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propaganda-campaign-popularized-the-myth-that-carrots-help-you-see-in-the-dark-28812484/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-5-2017 22:42, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/23/2017 9:29 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes and epsilon although if you can compile your own version of PovRay
>>> you can change that.
>>
>> Very nice. I will have to look into that when I advance to that
>> level, and get
>> a new computer :)
>>
>>> Even if you could. Would you be able to see it at those distances?
>>
>> With Lots of Vitamin A and squinting :P
>>
>
> Carrots, don't forget to eat your carrots. :)
>
>
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propaganda-campaign-popularized-the-myth-that-carrots-help-you-see-in-the-dark-28812484/
>
And never, repeat *NEVER*, forget your dried-frog pills! ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
