Bob Hughes wrote:
> I reworked the surface, starry background and sun. Not necessarily for the 
> better, unfortunately. Looking over the first version I really like the 
> lumpy, melted ice cream look of it.
> 
> This one has conventional cratering mixed in, practically obliterating 
> previous appearance. That's mainly because I made a mistake in the 
> isosurface before but I've also added layered textures with very 
> small-scaled normals this time, too. Yeah, mistakes can be good, if you 
> agree with me that the first picture looked okay.
> 
Hi Bob, This version seems a bit closer to their artist's rendition 
because it seems more regular.  But that is precisely what I find less 
believable.  I liked the larger variations in scale that you first 
version had, but my knowledge of this "world" of celestial bodies is 
admittedly limited.  Mars and the moon mostly.  -Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:42ee0b54$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I thought the 10th planet was supposed to be called Rupert.

I knew a guy named Grant Rupert at school. :-)

The more I read, the more I'm skeptical of this new "planet" being anything 
other than another Pluto-like or Kuiper Belt object. The orbit is so far 
inclined to the ecliptic and comes very near to Neptune's orbit, similar to 
Pluto. Astronomers continue to debate the whole thing about what Pluto 
really is already so I think they need to get all that in order first before 
calling these things planets. Would be funny if all those larger things that 
are being found were actually Neptune moons thrown free at some point in 
time. Always has been some curiosity concerning the lack of many moons for 
Neptune, and if they were large that might help explain how they escaped. 
But then, I'm no astronomer so I can't really speculate.

I found out Rupert was a nickname for a fictional planet called Persephone. 
Interestingly, a couple other references to Persephone exist: in a Larry 
Niven story and a Star Trek map!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_X

That name would probably be suitable, after reading from the link to that 
name. Curious thing that the Matrix movie had both Persephone and Morpheus 
as character names, very fitting for that movie. These being Greek names 
strays from the current Roman naming of the nine planets (even though they 
are basically translations from Greek ones FAIK).

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Thank you Alain, darkness was definitely the idea.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message 
news:42ee5bc0$1@news.povray.org...
> Hi Bob, This version seems a bit closer to their artist's rendition 
> because it seems more regular.  But that is precisely what I find less 
> believable.  I liked the larger variations

It was the large elevation changes I wasn't sure would be feasible, though, 
after thinking it over a while. I kept thinking icey rock at first and, even 
though that might make for a flat terrain (Jupiters moons come to mind), I 
was considering the extreme cold making the surface so ridgid that 
mountainous places could exist.

Afterward, I got to thinking about the overall size. If as big as Earth's 
Moon then I had to figure it still probably had enough gravity to smooth 
things out. But you're right, Jim, it was very uninteresting that way. Last 
night I changed it yet again and it's more like the first time again.

I'll post that one as a final for this subject and probably move on to other 
things.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:42edc9f5@news.povray.org...
>
> The Sun is OK, I think. I prefer a simulated view through human eyes, as 
> it
> were, to simulated exposure film.

Oh well, I changed it to have a bit of lens flare. heh-heh!

> The surface is not worse or better than the previous render, it is
> different, and both are credible, imho.
> In any case, it is much better than most of the artists' views we see,
> including NASA's.

Very happy to hear that, Thomas. Everything is subjective, of course, so 
I'll consider your praise to be partly influenced from being a POV-Ray user 
like myself. Hey, maybe you'll like the new version, too, then! Posting it 
as reply to the original.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Okay, this is probably the final render and I renamed it a planetoid since 
there isn't official word on this being a planet. Added a bit of lens flare 
to the tiny Sun, however post-processed. Also post-processed the stars to be 
somewhat more exagerrated. I wasn't having much luck with doing that in POV 
since it's all random granite patterns. The brightnesses of everything is 
probably unrealistic, I just don't know.

I was checking on what might be seen from this vantage point, looking back 
toward the Sun, and just by chance there are a couple bright stars that 
could be thought of as being Arcturus and Alpha Centauri (near top left, and 
left near middle). Well, if you care to pretend that anyway. I'm not sure 
about any planets being visible at all so I didn't attempt to add such dim 
points of light since they'd likely mix into the background.

Some info about the "new planet" discovery, which this is supposed to 
represent: I found out that the orbit is highly inclined to the other planet 
orbits, about 44 degrees. And it is very eccentric, going almost as close as 
Neptune's orbit during its path. So it is much like Pluto and many other 
objects out that far. This is something I had to consider when making the 
final changes. I was going to add an ecliptic dust cloud, like that of the 
artists rendition seen at NASA's web site but I can't imagine it being 
visible at all unless looking from edge-on. The surface is a guess about it 
being extremely cold, yet an icey rock mix. Apparently it might have 
Pluto-like ingredients but there's obviously very little known of it yet.

Thanks for the comments thus far. Hope you will like this revised render. 
Simple stats: AA was 0.1, method 2, depth 4. Under one hour on PIV 2GHz.

P.S.

I also found out that all this currently talked of 'tenth planet' stuff was 
caused when someone got into a web site, about object 2003 UB313, and leaked 
out the story and the news media picked up on it. Don't know about you but 
I'm not going to call it the tenth planet until it's official.
;)
Bob

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Planetoid_Morpheus.jpg' (371 KB)

Preview of image 'Planetoid_Morpheus.jpg'

Bob Hughes wrote:
> Would be funny if all those larger things that 
> are being found were actually Neptune moons thrown free at some point in 
> time. 

Nah. There can only have been one Neptune moon knocked loose, as there 
was only one Thrint around to do it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "You shouldn't buy ice cream. It's bad
      for you and it'll make you fat. Oh,
      look. A 2-for-1 sale. Get two."

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:42ee9ec5$1@news.povray.org...
> Bob Hughes wrote:
>> Would be funny if all those larger things that are being found were 
>> actually Neptune moons thrown free at some point in time.
>
> Nah. There can only have been one Neptune moon knocked loose, as there was 
> only one Thrint around to do it.

Aw heck. You made me look around for what a Thrint is (expecting you hadn't 
misspelled) and now I'm really confused! LOL
One of those all-powerful super beings, eh? You can tell I'm not a book 
reader.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <omniverse@charter%net> schreef in bericht
news:42ee99e4@news.povray.org...
>
> I also found out that all this currently talked of 'tenth planet' stuff
was
> caused when someone got into a web site, about object 2003 UB313, and
leaked
> out the story and the news media picked up on it. Don't know about you but
> I'm not going to call it the tenth planet until it's official.
> ;)
> Bob
>
>
Well, yes. I must admit that the rougher surface is more interesting to look
at (as can be expected). Good work.
In the mean time, I read on News@Nature

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050725/pf/050725-13_pf.html

About another planetoid with compagnon, dubbed Santa and little helper.

Another exciting story can be found here:
http://news.nature.com//news/2005/050711/050711-6.html

A solar system with three suns.
I am not sure if you can read these documents as they come with a (free)
subscription...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:42f07572@news.povray.org...
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050725/pf/050725-13_pf.html
>
> About another planetoid with compagnon, dubbed Santa and little helper.
>
> Another exciting story can be found here:
> http://news.nature.com//news/2005/050711/050711-6.html
>
> A solar system with three suns.
> I am not sure if you can read these documents as they come with a (free)
> subscription...

Yep, I could read the stories there. Thanks for sharing the link to there, 
Thomas. I needed to search for the three suns story since I didn't see that 
on that web page. I used to be interested in multiple stars back when I went 
to the U of W.

I came across that Santa one while looking for info on the new planet. I 
only knew of at least one other kind like it found in the asteroid belt from 
some time ago, something that seemed a fluke when I first heard of it. 
Apparently there are many such small planetoids/asteroids though.

Going waaaayyy OT now:

They have a story about the supposedly extinct ivory-billed woodpecker 
there. I reported, what I thought to be one, back in May (on the 8th), to 
Cornell's ornithology people; was seen flying over the road I live on, after 
I left here, late one morning.

I had only seen the similar pileated woodpeckers a few times before so I was 
both surprised and suspicious of it being either kind at the instant it 
appeared. The head and "ivory-bill" was what caught my attention more than 
anything else. Was merely a week since I saw the story told on CNN and I 
kept thinking I must be influenced by that, especially since that was the 
first and only time I've ever even seen a (pileated?) woodpecker fly across 
a road in front of my car. Although I've been looking out for anything and 
the pileated's are around my home more than I ever imagined. The proverbial 
phrase "you should get out more", right? LOL

If you know the story about these ivory-billed woodpeckers, as I later 
learned, they are said to be extremely shy and reclusive. That made me think 
I was mistaken. Thing of it is, that beak (or bill) was a bright solid 
yellow-white color, like new pine lumber as I described it to Cornell and 
others. I asked around if pileateds can ever look that way (Cornell just 
gave me a link to their description/comparison web page) but it seems they 
always have grayish bills. I searched with google images and not only do all 
the pictures seem to show them to be shades of gray (or black to light gray) 
but also smaller looking to me. This bird I saw, if pileated woodpecker, 
would have had to have dipped its bill into vanilla ice cream-colored paint 
to look the way it did. Very yellow vanilla. Either that or tree pollen, but 
that didn't seem to relate because I got a good look at it as the car drew 
closer before it disappeared into the woods again and it was like seeing a 
pointy goose bill.

Well, I just did a quick search again of google images, trying to find a 
similar beak or bill on any bird and a real good one came up:

http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/yellowbilled-stork_knp-5058.html

So... that's how it looked, similar in shape and color, just not size. As 
far as it being a woodpecker, well, it was a twin to the pileated 
woodpeckers if nothing else.

I still find it hard to believe, but I can't figure any other explanation. 
The sun was just about right to cause a glint off it but I saw it so well 
that I had to rule that out. There is a large wildlife refuge within a mile 
of here, which has some areas similar to the ivory-billed's habititat when 
last known to exist. Interestingly, the refuge areas are also a product of 
the TVA river dams (on Tennessee River) built in the 1930's, 1940's... about 
the time the "extinction" status was being determined.

I understand if no one else could believe it was such a rare bird here, so 
far from the accepted region they are likely to be at. Only thing for me to 
believe it myself is the sight of that beak! Not much to go on really. I'd 
have needed one of those police car video recorders going to have any 
evidence.

Bob

Post a reply to this message