On 11/06/2010 8:32 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Stephen"<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  schreef in bericht
> news:4c10a076@news.povray.org...
>>
>> 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 




-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me
> wonder what a game engine would make of it.

That reminds me - ever play any of the Halo games? There's a pretty good
rendition of a ringworld, and beautiful to look at. I kept getting shot up cos I
was too busy ogling the scenery :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 2:38 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom>  wrote:
>> I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me
>> wonder what a game engine would make of it.
>
> That reminds me - ever play any of the Halo games? There's a pretty good
> rendition of a ringworld, and beautiful to look at. I kept getting shot up cos I
> was too busy ogling the scenery :-)
>
>

No, the last game I played was Doom II, Doom III was too dark for me to 




-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4c122ef6f3c715fa6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
> 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!)
>

Would be nice to do a Ringworld again. We have progressed over the last five 
years, or so I hope :-)

I don't remember well now, was that epsilon issue fixed/corrected in version 
3.7 or not? At the time we had a rapid patch of 3.6 I seem to remember...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Would be nice to do a Ringworld again. We have progressed over the last five
> years, or so I hope :-)

Haven't touched mine for a while. Perhaps its time to haul it out again :)

> I don't remember well now, was that epsilon issue fixed/corrected in version
> 3.7 or not? At the time we had a rapid patch of 3.6 I seem to remember...

I think the smaller epsilon was to be included in 3.7. This was a few years ago
now so I guess it's in there... either have a peek at the source or try to
render something vast!

Post a reply to this message

> On 11/06/2010 2:38 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Stephen<mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> I agree with you. I think this is an interesting experiment. It makes me
>>> wonder what a game engine would make of it.
>>
>> That reminds me - ever play any of the Halo games? There's a pretty good
>> rendition of a ringworld, and beautiful to look at. I kept getting
>> shot up cos I
>> was too busy ogling the scenery :-)
>>
>>
>
> No, the last game I played was Doom II, Doom III was too dark for me to


>
>
Doom III was way BAD. They totaly sacrified playability to athmosphere :(
Even in the living abitats and working areas, where a good lighting is 
vital, you had great dificulty seeing things. Another bad thing: it 
overrode your gamma/contrast/brightness settings and did not restore 
those on exit.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2010-06-10 20:20, SharkD a écrit :
> Made the buildings larger, the roads narrower.
>
I realy like your new end cap. I also like that you now have more 
vegetation space.

But:
Why is the ground faceted and not smoothly curving?
Still to many road vehicles. The ONLY vehicles should be utility and 
public transportation, and positively NO personal ones.

On a space station, any space station, even an imensly huge one, 
resources are inherently scarce. Living space, parks space, working 
space, cargo space, air, water, raw and rafined materials, energy, 
everything is counted and counts. Personal cars are a waste of 
resources, and thus frowned uppon.

Juging by the dimentions of the buildings and other indices, I could 
relatively easily walk from one end to the other to get to work and back 
home. I could even walk back home for my lunch... After all, it looks 
like the overall length is less than about 2Km, or about a 10 to 20 
minutes walk. In such a case, taking a car would take about the same 
amount of time... and using a bike would reduce the time needed to 5 
minutes or less. (I need about 20 minutes to walk about 3Km. Most 
peoples have a walking speed ranging from 5 to 7Km/h)


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 5:55 PM, Alain wrote:
> Doom III was way BAD. They totaly sacrified playability to athmosphere :(
> Even in the living abitats and working areas, where a good lighting is
> vital, you had great dificulty seeing things. Another bad thing: it
> overrode your gamma/contrast/brightness settings and did not restore
> those on exit.



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message