Welcome, Guest
Login or Register
Home
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Image Vs Simulation  (Read 4237 times)

mrt127

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • The sky isn't the limit, footprints on the moon.
Image Vs Simulation
« on: February 14, 2012, 09:33:38 AM »
Which do you think is better at comparing size. More images coming...
Logged

mrt127

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • The sky isn't the limit, footprints on the moon.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2012, 09:37:45 AM »
More...
Logged

smjjames

  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2012, 09:39:35 AM »
The one in the simulation works fine, stretching (or maybe squishing) them out into ovals doesn't help much and the ratio is the same anyway.
Logged

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2012, 09:41:16 AM »
If the first images weren't stretched, it would probably look most clear on those. But if you turned the background darker (or maybe just completely black), and put the objects closer together, and zoomed a bit more in, the simulation could be equally good, or even better, if the first images don't exist in a better quality.
Logged

mrt127

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • The sky isn't the limit, footprints on the moon.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2012, 09:44:32 AM »
Sorry, I have to stretch it or else it will appear really  small  :(
Logged

smjjames

  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2012, 09:48:13 AM »
Some stars (Rigel for example I believe) spin so fast that they actually bulge out like that.

What are you using for the first images and could you try showing at least the mercury to earth one as not stretched out?
Logged

mrt127

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • The sky isn't the limit, footprints on the moon.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2012, 09:54:33 AM »
hope this is better, I did the best I could
Logged

smjjames

  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2012, 09:58:30 AM »
The ratio is the same, but I agree with Bla, moving the objects closer would be good, and as for the background, you can do as you wish. Also, you should make sure that the angle is straight on to eliminate any distortion from perspective.

However, if you're making a movie out of it, making the background black might be a good idea, but thats up to you.
Logged

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2012, 12:04:29 PM »
If there are very small objects, they'll be very hard to tell from the stars with the background, I think. If you just compare like Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth, it's ok, but if you compare the Sun and Rigel, the noisy background is confusing imo.
Logged

clockworks

  • *****
  • Posts: 64
  • Connor
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2012, 02:31:38 PM »
US looks better imo
Logged

smjjames

  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2012, 03:50:39 PM »
mrt, since the graphics will be way better in US3, you might want to wait until that comes out? A summer release or a summer beta seems possible as Dan and his team seem pretty far along
Logged

mrt127

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • The sky isn't the limit, footprints on the moon.
Re: Image Vs Simulation
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2012, 04:06:19 PM »
Quote from: smjjames on February 14, 2012, 03:50:39 PM
mrt, since the graphics will be way better in US3, you might want to wait until that comes out? A summer release or a summer beta seems possible as Dan and his team seem pretty far along


I agree, I can't wait for universe sandbox 3, the graphics look amazing! and I'll be definitely making the most of it!
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »