Solar Scale

[MattWBradbury]

This is a quick render I did.

 

[attachmentid=19353]

 

It's based off of this image I found on the Internet.

 

[attachmentid=19354]

 

I wanted to see if I could get any better quality with A:M. I should have used a larger resolution map for the Sun, but it's allright for what it is. I'll probably add a bit of Specular to the next render I do, and may move the planets closer together, but it's basically finshed here.

[KenH]

I hope that's going on the extra dvd. Quite educational. Imagine Venus was the size of Jupiter! That would be one long eclipse.

[MattWBradbury]

It's mainly just a bunch of Latitude Longitude maps. I used the ones from this site for the planets, and this site for the Sun.

 

You can get a lot of other maps from JPL here.

 

I'm currently making a second rendition of it right now. Basically a larger version of this [attachmentid=19361]

[MattWBradbury]

Here's the final on that second one.

 

[attachmentid=19362]

 

I might just do all the planet's moons if I can find that data

 

Also, some people have said that they look a little odd with the specular highlights, so here's the diffuse pass.

 

[attachmentid=19363]

[MMZ_TimeLord]

I've already made the planets and solar system to scale with orbits built in for the Extra DVD Matt... just wanted to let you know so you don't waste your time.

 

I'll be posting more progress in the WIP forums soon...

[MattWBradbury]

This was just a quick thing. I didn't plan on stealing your light. What scale are you using? I found that 1cm:10,000km works the best. At that ratio though, Jupiter is still 74km away from the origin

 

Here's a bigger one of the one before

[attachmentid=19373]

[MMZ_TimeLord]

No worries Matt, I didn't think you were 'out to steal my light' (or thunder), I just hate to see folks duplicate effort if they don't have too.

 

As to the scale... Actually I'm doing the planets at 100km = 1cm... then I'm scaling them down to 0.1% in the Choreography and using 1000km = 1cm in the Chor.

 

I'm afraid that somewhere along the way, the precision of A:M is breaking down (mainly out near Pluto). Because as my camera passes, it REALLY shakes and the orbit lines get broken... I'll be posting an animation soon on the WIP that shows this.

 

I have all of the major satellites done (most of the ones in excess of 100km in diameter anyway) and I'm now working on some user properties to be able to turn off the orbit lines and add notations as well as tackle the asteroid belt.

 

I'm thinking of using particles, but we'll just have to see where that goes.

 

Looks great by the way... excellent comparison!

[MattWBradbury]

That scale is not good. Anything under about a 5th of a centemeter with the camera under 1 centemeter away will not render. You'll have to use some serious exaguration if you want to make those planets visible.

 

From my tests, 1cm:10,000km gave the best results. Any larger of a scale, and the distances would just cut out.

[Rodney]

When you dropped the specular highlights I think you surpassed the quality in the original image source.

Nice.

 

Maybe Jody can borrow your scaled image (or at least the layout) for the thumnail image on the Extra DVD?

It definitely lets everyone know at a glance the relative scale of the planets.

[MattWBradbury]

He can use any image he wants out of here.

 

This site lays it out on scale of the planets and the distance away from the sun as well

 

I found the original image.

 

 

These were done in 3D Studio Max. Here's the site it was on. It also shows the size of our Sun to huge ones such as Betelgeuse and Rigel.

 

 

Neat stuff

[DanCBradbury]

I was messing around with radiosity combined with light rigs, and who ever said that the two dont mix together, i think it was luckbat, never tried

 

(Note: mars is not to scale cause i was an ideot and didnt check the scales before i rendered, and what appears to be an artifact under the earth is in fact the south pole's light reflections)

[ypoissant]

Matt,

 

You have a way of making nice pictures with simple things.

[DanCBradbury]

I took out the sun and did a skylight radiosity render with matts setup. I think i should ask rodney or one of the admins if i can put this choreography in with the A:M free cd.

[Rodney]

I think i should ask rodney or one of the admins if i can put this choreography in with the A:M free cd.

 

Go ahead... twist my arm. Okay... you win!

That setup will make a nice addition to the DVD.

Thanks Dan!

[jpappas]

Matt, Dan,

 

Awesome renders! It amazes me that Jupiter's red spot is the size of the earth.

 

-Jim

[MattWBradbury]

I created all three layouts, but each one is going to take around three half hours to render. I did mannage get out the Earth scale layout.

 

[attachmentid=19478]

 

It goes: Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Pluto, and the Death Star (the little on next to Pluto).

 

I have attached the project if you want to download it; however, You'll have to download the cylindrical maps from the sites above.

PlanetProject.zip

[MattWBradbury]

Here's the Sun Scale. I rendered that over night, though it only took 1 hour and 43 minutes to do.

 

[attachmentid=19494]

[agep]

They are really cool!

[MMZ_TimeLord]

Very beautiful Matt... Nice job!

[MattWBradbury]

I just got back and my Jupiter Scale was finished. This one took two hours to render. The focal length is much larger than the focal length in the Jupiter Scale Dan rendered before which gives a better feel for the size of the planets.

 

[attachmentid=19498]

 

Yes, Saturn is an oblique sphereoid. I calculated that its minor axis is aproximatly 90.13% the length of its major axis.

[Gerry]

Nice family portraits! Speaking of which, are Matt and Dan related?

[Rodney]

Nice family portraits! Speaking of which, are Matt and Dan related?

 

Matt and Dan are brothers.

 

Twin brothers? I dunno. I forget.

 

*Great renders. Really clues us in on the scale of things.

[MattWBradbury]

Yep, we're identical twins. We've been that way all our lives

 

I'm going to render the Earth Scale again without the death star so I can add it to the show case stills. Maybe I'll make it a comparison.

[Zaryin]

Great looking images. I wish there was a way to have Saturn's rings in there without it disrupting the rest of the planets.

[MattWBradbury]

Okay, I just got back from school, and I touched up the Earth Scale image.

 

[attachmentid=19524]

 

I also created a side by side comparision to the 3D Studio Max version.

 

[attachmentid=19525]

 

One thing I noticed is that the size of Pluto is different between the two. I have 1,180 km for the radius of Pluto pulled from Google. Is that correct, or do I have the incorrect radius?

 

Zaryin, I was going to add the rings to mine, but it would be going right though jupiter, so I decided against it.

[Gerry]

Oh yeah, Saturn's rings! I knew there was something missing. Now that I think about it, though, it's a little eerie that Matt's avatar is....A RING!! (cue music)

[Stuart Rogers]

I also created a side by side comparision to the 3D Studio Max version.

One thing I noticed the other day, which is obvious now you've shown them side-by-side, is how the original 3DSM version doesn't have the mapping quite right - it pinches at the poles a bit. If you look closely you'll see some of the white spots on Jupiter's northern latitudes are stretched north-south - in reality such spots, if they vary from the circular, stretch east-west due to the prevailing winds.

One thing I noticed is that the size of Pluto is different between the two. I have 1,180 km for the radius of Pluto.

I found the figure of 1195km quoted on NASA's web site, and 1132 km elsewhere. Most quoted figures have errors of +/-20km. Stick with the value you have. I would check my old univertsity text books (I have a BSc in Astronomy & Physics) but they're waaaaay out of date.

[JoakimL]

Re. size of pluto: 1180 km is about right (NASA gives the radius as 1151 km. I don't know which is correct).

 

Comparing it to your Earth model it seems to be about 1/3.3 of the earths diameter, while it should be about 1/5.3 . It so happens your Pluto is a factor 1.6 too large. Did you by any chance model Pluto with a radius of 1180 miles instead of km? 1 mile=1.6093 km

[MattWBradbury]

I had noticed the pinching before. The planets in the 3D Studio Max image have reflectivity and specular values, which is why it looks a bit different as well.

 

The perspective of the camera is causing that error in size. I would need to use an Othogonal camera to get everything to be the exact scale they should be. But a little bit of perspective makes the planets look like objects sitting on a table.

 

This image makes earth look like it has a radius of 5,690 km; 670 km short.

 

 

--------

This is an othogonal view:

 

[attachmentid=19532]

 

From my calculations, this image says that Earth has a radius of 6,492 km. The actual radius of Earth is 6,378 km, so the is a slight amount of error, and it's probably due to the sample pixel size and not the size of the planets.

[cuboos]

i thought that jupiter was almost as big as the sun?

[Stuart Rogers]

Yes, Saturn is an oblique sphereoid. I calculated that its minor axis is aproximatly 90.13% the length of its major axis.

This is nicely demonstrated in a very recent photo from the Cassini space probe currently in orbit around Saturn.

[jpappas]

i thought that jupiter was almost as big as the sun?

 

Here's some interesting information from www.nineplanets.org that might help explain why stars are much larger than gas planets:

 

Jupiter is just about as large in diameter as a gas planet can be. If more material were to be added, it would be compressed by gravity such that the overall radius would increase only slightly. A star can be larger only because of its internal (nuclear) heat source. (But Jupiter would have to be at least 80 times more massive to become a star.)

 

-Jim

[MattWBradbury]

Most people don't really have a good idea of the scale of the solar system. These images really help to give a good idea for the proportions and even the color and texture of the planets compared to each other.

 

That Cassini shot really gives a different look to saturn. It looks even more squished than what I made it out to be.

[NancyGormezano]

I'm intrigued by your images - terrific - How about some solar flares?

[MattWBradbury]

Like these?

 

 

There's no really good map of solar flares because their always changing. There would also be clipping problems like I have for Saturn rings, but it would add a cool look to the sun.

[NancyGormezano]

Yes - solar flares like that - a static image would be striking - c'mon you can fake the locations - who would know?

 

Of course, animated would be even better. Could even have the lighting change based on the flare ups (watch those poor little planets on the ground plane sizzle, burn a hole in the ground plane, fall thru , etc ).

 

& you could composite the animated results so that you could have reasonable render times

 

AND I have some lava flow & forest fire wav files that I would love to contribute.

 

EDIT: Johnl3d where are you ? - 1 solar flare effect needed pronto - oh wait - he might use it to barbeque some pork chops, never mind)

[OdinsEye2k]

Strange bit of trivia (and thus slightly OT) - you may have to take Pluto out or add a few more bodies.

 

That trans-Neptune neighborhood is getting pretty strange:

 

Pluto may still be a planet.

 

Also, it may turn out that Charon is not really a moon of Pluto, but more like they are a "double planet."

 

PS - Nice renders.

[MattWBradbury]

Pluto is still considered a planet, but it might not be one for long. It would be nice if these included our Moon, Halley's Comet, and maybe a few other solar bodies such as the Moons of Juipter, but I think they suffice as they stand.

[MMZ_TimeLord]

I always understood a 'Planet' as the primary bodies orbiting the solar center of a system (star or stars) that did not have an eccentric enough orbit to cause comet tails on them.

 

So if that was the case Charon is still a 'moon' of Pluto and Luna is still a 'moon' of earth.

 

Even if we found habitable worlds orbiting, say a gas giant in another solar system, it would be called a 'moon' of that planet.

 

Anyway... my mind is probably too simplistic for that scientific debate.

[MattWBradbury]

The International Astronomical Union is going to meet on August 24, 2006 to vote that the definition of a plante is:

 

"A celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (B ) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

 

Sounds good to me.

[robcat2075]

Cool looking planets.

 

Is the banding on the ground from using a light rig rather than AO?

[Stuart Rogers]

I always understood a 'Planet' as the primary bodies orbiting the solar center of a system (star or stars) that did not have an eccentric enough orbit to cause comet tails on them.

It's not the eccentricity of an object's orbit that gives rise to cometary tails. Comets create tails because they're not massive enough to retain ejected material. Far out from the sun the comet is cold and lifeless; as it closes in on the sun it gets warm and starts boiling away. You could put Earth on a highly eccentric orbit and it wouldn't generate a tail because the Earth is massive enough to hold on to its dust and gases.

[MattWBradbury]

The images are rendered with radiosity with a Light Rig (And they said we were crazy to use radiosity with a light rig).

[Zaryin]

I guess you'll have to take Pluto out since it's not considered a planet anymore. <_>

[MattWBradbury]

That is correct. Pluto is no longer a planet.

 

This was written on the International Astronomical Union page of Wikipedia. "Among the business before the Assembly is a proposal to adopt a formal definition of planet (Resolutions 5, 6 and 7 for GA-XXVI); any vote on the proposal would be conducted under the reverted rules. The proposed definition would create 12 known planets in our solar system, adding initially the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's present moon Charon and the body 2003 UB313 and would retain Pluto as a planet. However this proposed definition was rejected and on August 24 the Assembly passed a resolution that redefined the definition of a planet, which classified Ceres, 2003 UB313 and Pluto as dwarf planets, and reduced the number of planets in the solar system to 8."

 

I feel comfortable having different classifications for planets; it allows for more organization of our solar system.

[thejobe]

i dont care what they say i grew up with 9 planets so in my head there are still 9

as so it says in my 1985 video the planets and you

[DanCBradbury]

Oy! This is the same reason why the US still uses the Imperial system of measurment.

 

The world is flat! I demand that it be flat! MUHAHAHAHA! XD

[pwknox]

My dad has a habit is saying:

 

"Just because you call a tail a leg does not mean that a cow has five legs."

 

I have been tracking this story for weeks now. It seems like a bunch of scientists are in a semantic knot over something that makes no difference at all. How space stuff is classified has no effect on the stuff they are classifying. I am not sure that the name we put on space stuff is nearly as useful (in a scientific sense) as the quantifiable information about it. It seems to me that this is much ado about nothing.

 

I will now refer to the chip of homostatic rock that I can never find on a cloudless nightime sky as "The unplanet Pluto".

 

See, this is fun!

Phil

 

PS: Since Pluto is a "dwarf planet", where are the "elf planets" and the "wizard planets"?

[MattWBradbury]

Dwarf Planets

 

[attachmentid=19991]

 

[DanCBradbury]

How space stuff is classified has no effect on the stuff they are classifying. I am not sure that the name we put on space stuff is nearly as useful (in a scientific sense) as the quantifiable information about it. It seems to me that this is much ado about nothing.

 

well you see, there are a lot of objects (large round asteroids, rocks, ice debris, etc) that are equivilent to the size of pluto, and bigger. If we consider pluto a planet, than there are a host of several dozens of other objects that would have to be considered planets as well. I can barely remember the order of the 9 ._.U