Animated planet files

Development of artwork, requests, suggestions, samples, or if you have artwork to offer. Primarily for the artists.
Message
Author
User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

#91 Post by pd »

tzlaine wrote:What does "+" mean in the third image? Are the values in the preceding images literally added, or multiplied, or what?
I've used '+' just as 'and' - What I've done is - combining(I guess multiplying) the first and the second version.
Can I see the gradient ramp from the fourth image as a plot, like the folloff plots under the first two images? I can't tell how to reproduce that gradient without some math, or at least a description.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'plot'. There is no falloff graph as in the first 2 images - it's just the gradient bar, where you can set the colors. It's a linear gradient going from the middle to the outline.
Image
Actually, while looking at the picture, it's doesn't look that linear. But that's not important. What is needed is simply a way to put a color gradient on the sphere - going from the outside inwards, or the other way round. It would be nice if you could set up about 4 colors.
The final image appears to be images 3 and 4 multiplied together. Is that right?
Exactly.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#92 Post by Geoff the Medio »

pd wrote:
Can I see the gradient ramp from the fourth image as a plot, like the folloff plots under the first two images?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'plot'.
I think he meant these:
Image

User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

#93 Post by pd »

Those plots describe the opacity. Since the gradient picture is fully opaque, there isn't such a plot. In the final version the opacity is the same as in picture 3 though.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#94 Post by Geoff the Medio »

A thought: It might be a good idea to plan ahead for non-planet planet-scale structures being visible in battles. We could have Dysonspheres or ringworlds or that's-no-moon spacestations. These probably don't have traditional atmospheres, but might benefit from reflectivity / shininess angle-dependence in a similar manner, as well as bump / normal mapping, light/dark side differences, etc.

Also: Some thought about how to render stars might be worthwhile... Solid textured sphere would probably be unimpressive. Further, we have black holes and neutron stars that likely require distinct treatment.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#95 Post by eleazar »

Clouds:
I generated a bunch of cloud-maps at 2048x1024. As i was messing with the generator, i realized there were 2 main visually interesting variables: cloud density and coriolis force. Coriolis force correlates directly to rotational speed. So i did a series, with 5 levels of coriolis force, and 7 levels of density. I expect 6 to 8 of these to be appropriate for any given atmospher-bearing planet type, but with a series like this we should be able to provide appropriate clouds for any relatively normal planet.

Image

Left to Right: slower to faster planetary rotation.
Top to Bottom: thinner to thicker clouds.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#96 Post by Geoff the Medio »

I'm not particularly well versed in exometerology, but I'm a bit skeptical about the effect of the "coriolis force" in these images. On Earth or Jupiter, coriolis forces causes the rotation of storms around low pressure centres, not great stretched out angled cloud formations as in the images. In fact, looking at images on google image search, the only planet I see with that sort of angled cloud formation is Venus, which as a day that's 243 Earth-days long.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#97 Post by eleazar »

Geoff the Medio wrote:I'm not particularly well versed in exometerology, but I'm a bit skeptical about the effect of the "coriolis force" in these images. On Earth or Jupiter, coriolis forces causes the rotation of storms around low pressure centres, not great stretched out angled cloud formations as in the images. In fact, looking at images on google image search, the only planet I see with that sort of angled cloud formation is Venus, which as a day that's 243 Earth-days long.
Rats, you're right. I misremembered that Venus rotated faster than earth. And the series on the right looks so obviously like it's being spun faster. I probably have it backwards.

However the diagonal pattern is present in earth's clouds, to about (maybe a little less) the degree seen in the second column from the left.

I don't claim that all these variants can be found in our solar system, but there are very few noticable atmospheres in our solar system— especially when you exclude gas giants which have a very different dynamic. More importantly FO has types of worlds that aren't known to exist, so non-terrestrial cloud patterns are good, as long as the look plausable.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#98 Post by eleazar »

The Direction of the light source on Planet texture maps.
Will our current style planet maps work well if they are viewable from any angle?
It's most noticeable on the barren worlds, with the highlights and shaddows on the craters. There's a definite light source (usually on the right) baked into the map. It currently feels natural because as viewed in the sidebar, the light is coming from that basic direction.

I know the human eye often overlooks such discrepancies if the light and shadow fall in "reasonable" places. But in battle the player could pause the game and view a planet for an extended time from an angle where our baked-in shaddows are completely opposite.

Do we need to add bump maps, or am i overestimating the noticability of this?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#99 Post by Geoff the Medio »

eleazar wrote:Do we need to add bump maps, or am i overestimating the noticability of this?
This was discussed briefly earlier in this thread:

http://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24772#24772

and the next few posts after it, I believe.

Essentially, it's probably only important for barren worlds, and needs to not look cartoony.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

#100 Post by eleazar »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:Do we need to add bump maps, or am i overestimating the noticability of this?
This was discussed briefly earlier in this thread:

http://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24772#24772

and the next few posts after it, I believe.

Essentially, it's probably only important for barren worlds, and needs to not look cartoony.
The context has changed from tiny planets in the sidebar to screen-filling planets in combat. The effects of the question are much more important.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#101 Post by Geoff the Medio »

eleazar wrote:The context has changed from tiny planets in the sidebar to screen-filling planets in combat.
Granted, but the same conclusion likely still applies... most non-barren worlds have atmospheres that blur out small shadows. I suppose some terran worlds might have mountains that produce some visible shadows, and radiated could, though the present radiated textures don't seem to. The rest have thick atmospheres or sand/ice/water surfaces that don't cast big shadows.
The effects of the question are much more important.
Not sure what you mean by this...

Post Reply