Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Stellarium-pubdevel] Moon halo
|
From: <fab...@go...> - 2007-05-30 09:59:53
|
On 5/29/07, Johannes Gajdosik <joh...@gm...> wrote: > > Hello Fabien, > > I miss the thing we were talking about in the meeting: The brightness of > all objects on screen must be adjusted according to the brightness of the > brightest > object. So when the moon is visible, the stars must look dimmer. When you > zoom > in on Jupiter, the jovian moons and stars must look dimmer. And so on. Yeah I haven't done this yet. Although it should be taken into account for the moon already because it's brightness is computed in the atmosphere model. 2) changing the moon halo to haloLune.png: > Advance in time until 2007.06.11 when the moon has magnitude -9.5 and is > visible near Mars and Ceres. > Turn off atmosphere and ground. You will have a hard time to find the > moon, althout it is 10 classes of > magnitude brighter than Mars, which is nicely visible. > For me this is unrealistic and I cannot live with it. It is like > regression to version 0.7. > On the other hand the faint halo looks nice. It's just that in its center > there is black void > instead of a brigth white spot. I agree that it's not perfect but I think it is better the way it is in mos= t cases. Having a big very white halo is also unrealistic and will be frustrating for the user since they expect to see a moon crescent, not a disk shape. In fact to make that properly we should convolve the projected image of the 3d model with the star halo. But we don't have time for that i= n 0.9.0. It seems to be still a long way to go to until there is a smooth transition > between > small bright objects of magnitude -25 up to faint magnitudes greater than > 0. Yeah.. We probably also should put the code managing this in a common class instead of repeating it in each class (star, planet) etc.. For example in a PSF class. > 3) changing the sun halo > Now again the sun looks the same when seen from Pluto and from Mercury. > I have fixed this once, but you have simply undone my fix, without even > talking about it. You will understand that I cannot agree with this > procedure, > nor with the current implementation. Sorry I didn't understand why your code was like that and I didn't think about seeing the sun from Pluto/Mercury. More comments are needed. My idea was that the halo is not supposed to have its radius changed with magnitude but only its brightness, like an optical PSF. Also, it makes sense that the sun's halo looks the same from Pluto and from Mercury if your eye is adapted to it, but I agree that it's probably not what user would expect.. As the code I did was more adapted for the Moon that for the sun, I could make two different ad-hoc methods, one for the sun (your previous one) and one for the moon (the new one).. Fab Yours, > Johannes > > > On 2007.05.29 14:29:19 CEST, Matthew Gates wrote: > > I found that at wide FOV, the Moon can look a lot dimmer than bright > > planets. > > > > I experiemented a little and found that reducing the intensity of the > > haloLune.png file with gimp (brightness -75), and adding in the origina= l > > normal halo as well, looks quite good at wide fov. However, there is a > > little strangeness during the zoom in process as the two halos fade in > and > > out and different FOVs. > > > > I also think the haloLune should be turned off then the atmosphere is > turned > > off. > > > > Matthew > > > > > > On Tuesday 29 May 2007, Fabien Ch=E9reau wrote: > > > I now commited. Have look at the moon. > > > > > > On 5/26/07, Fabien Ch=E9reau <fab...@go...> wrote: > > > > Mmm, i probably failed my commit then.. > > > > I am now in Berlin, I'll do that on tuesday. > > > > Fab > > > > > > > > On 5/26/07, Johannes Gajdosik < joh...@gm...> wrote: > > > > > On 2007.05.25 16:42:04 CEST, Matthew Gates wrote: > > > > > > On Friday 25 May 2007, Fabien Ch=E9reau wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried to change the moon halo thing we talk about during th= e > > > > > > > > > > meeting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please update the SVN and comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not see a difference - I think I do not get your update fo= r > > > > > > some reason. I have r2130. According to svn log, your last > commit > > > > > > was r2126: "Limited nax FOV and fixed grid drawing bug". > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > I also cannot see any difference. > > > > > > > > > > Johannes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >---- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > > > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > > > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > > > > > Ste...@li... > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > > Ste...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Stellarium-pubdevel mailing list > Ste...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/stellarium-pubdevel > |