Verm wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>> Nice.
>> However, I wonder what that platform is for, if this is a space 
>> station. No gravity to walk around!!!
> 
> Magnetic boots of course.

Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)

http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html

      -=- Larry -=-

Post a reply to this message

"Larry Hudson" <org### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:45ff8c0d$1@news.povray.org...
> Verm wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Nice.
>>> However, I wonder what that platform is for, if this is a space station. 
>>> No gravity to walk around!!!
>>
>> Magnetic boots of course.
>
> Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)
>
> http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html
>

LOL!!!!  :-)
Incredible story!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Larry Hudson <org### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)
>
> http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html
>
>       -=- Larry -=-

The mind boggles.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

45ff8c0d$1@news.povray.org...
> Verm wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Nice.
>>> However, I wonder what that platform is for, if this is a space station. 
>>> No gravity to walk around!!!
>>
>> Magnetic boots of course.
>
> Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)
>
> http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html
>
>      -=- Larry -=-

Lot of people think there is no gravity in vacuum just because they see ISS 
images and 'think' it's in vacuum, its in 0 gravity thus vacuum = 0 gravity
What is rare is expensive, what is cheap is rare, thus what is cheap is 
expensive...

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"Marc" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht 
news:45ffd366@news.povray.org...
>
> Lot of people think there is no gravity in vacuum just because they see 
> ISS images and 'think' it's in vacuum, its in 0 gravity thus vacuum = 0 
> gravity
> What is rare is expensive, what is cheap is rare, thus what is cheap is 
> expensive...
>

Now I understand why I paid a lot of money to get POV-Ray.... :-)
(and I don't remember who I paid either...)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Larry Hudson wrote:
> Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)
> 
> http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html

I grok not :/

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> Because there is no atmosphere in space the shadows should be deep and
> sharp (The ambient for your textures should be 0 or very close).

Atmospheric scattering isn't the only factor.  The Earth casts formidable
backlighting.  In low Earth orbit, the Earth occupies nearly all of one
side of the universe.  At the Earth-Moon distance, the Earth reflects
almost 60 times more light than the Moon.

The sharpness of the shadows depends on the size of the light source.  The
Sun spans about 1/2 degree in diameter, enough for subtly, but noticeably
fuzzy shadow edges.  An extreme case is the penumbral area of a lunar
eclipse.

Post a reply to this message

Larry Hudson <org### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Verm wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> Nice.
> >> However, I wonder what that platform is for, if this is a space
> >> station. No gravity to walk around!!!
> >
> > Magnetic boots of course.
>
> Or heavy boots.   Check this link...     :-)
>
> http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/heavy_boots.html

Erhw!  I'm having enough trouble as it is wondering how someone who believes
the universe was made in 6 days became the most powerful man in the world.
Now you're saying that not only college students, but university-level TAs
can't think their way through 4th grade astronomy?

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > Because there is no atmosphere in space the shadows should be deep and
> > sharp (The ambient for your textures should be 0 or very close).
>
> Atmospheric scattering isn't the only factor.  The Earth casts formidable
> backlighting.  In low Earth orbit, the Earth occupies nearly all of one
> side of the universe.  At the Earth-Moon distance, the Earth reflects
> almost 60 times more light than the Moon.
>
> The sharpness of the shadows depends on the size of the light source.  The
> Sun spans about 1/2 degree in diameter, enough for subtly, but noticeably
> fuzzy shadow edges.  An extreme case is the penumbral area of a lunar
> eclipse.

I stand (or sit) corrected. That would call for a very large area light.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 23-03-2007 04:37:
> "Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>>> Because there is no atmosphere in space the shadows should be deep and
>>> sharp (The ambient for your textures should be 0 or very close).
>> Atmospheric scattering isn't the only factor.  The Earth casts formidable
>> backlighting.  In low Earth orbit, the Earth occupies nearly all of one
>> side of the universe.  At the Earth-Moon distance, the Earth reflects
>> almost 60 times more light than the Moon.

>> The sharpness of the shadows depends on the size of the light source.  The
>> Sun spans about 1/2 degree in diameter, enough for subtly, but noticeably
>> fuzzy shadow edges.  An extreme case is the penumbral area of a lunar
>> eclipse.

> I stand (or sit) corrected. That would call for a very large area light.

> Stephen


You can have an earth place holder (about the right apparent surface and 
coloration) and use radiosity. Or, you can use a large area_light to simulate an 
earth, or some other close-by off field planet. In that case, using look_like 
with a sphere mapped with an adequate image_map can be nice.
For the sun, use a parallel light not to far and make it an area_light of 
approximatively the right apparent extention.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Unitarian: Shit that happens to one person is just as bad as shit that happens 
to another.

Post a reply to this message