|
Work progress 0.97
|
|
| Baleur | Date: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 05:42 | Message # 241 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
| Yeah the next big thing for planets should definetly be the water. And the already planned improved clouds.
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 11:08 | Message # 242 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| Quote (Joey_Penguin) http://www.ambient-mixer.com/
Added to favourite!!! 
Quote (Baleur) Yeah the next big thing for planets should definetly be the water. And the already planned improved clouds.
I totally agree 
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
|
| |
| |
| Aaron | Date: Sunday, 04.11.2012, 23:22 | Message # 243 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
| I'm not sure if I believe that. Close or cover one eye, and stare straight ahead at a target. Swing your arms out in front of you, and try to keep them just at the edge of your vision. It's approximately 90 degrees or so.
Quote (HarbingerDawn) Actually each eye has the 160-170° FOV; the FOVs are not added. This is because both eyes face the
same direction. So the total FOV is the same as the FOV of each eye. It's just that your nose might get in the way of each eye in one direction |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 05.11.2012, 00:10 | Message # 244 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Aaron) I'm not sure if I believe that
Your belief is not required. It is fact.
I just did your test, just as I had done it for eye exams in the past, and I can see my hand on one side until it is almost directly beside me, and I can see it on the other side until it disappears behind my nose. All while looking straight ahead. Which means that the FOV is at a MINIMUM 150°.
Besides, if both eyes had a 90 degree FOV, and they both look in the same direction, then it is a mathematical impossibility for them to have a combined FOV of 180°. Each eye's FOV is comparable to the total FOV.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Baleur | Date: Monday, 05.11.2012, 02:38 | Message # 245 |
|
Observer
Group: Users
Sweden
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
| The very fact that the FoV of the eyes overlap is the reason why we have any depth perception what so ever, and why our eyes are facing forward like a predator. Grade school knowledge really. Herbivores on the other hand have eyes that don't overlap, many even have a blind spot directly in front of them.
|
| |
| |
| Aaron | Date: Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:19 | Message # 246 |
|
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 39
Status: Offline
| Take a look at section 17-12. For a single eye (monocular vision) it's relatively close to 140 degree field of view. I totally understand 180 degree field of view if you've got two good eyes.
http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/64vision/17.htm
Edited by Aaron - Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:22 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 05.11.2012, 05:44 | Message # 247 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (Aaron) For a single eye (monocular vision) it's relatively close to 140 degree field of view
The only reason it is not the full FOV is because of obstructions from the face. That has nothing do to with the actual capability of the eye. Just because you can't see beyond your nose, you shouldn't ignore the fact that you can still see your nose, so it must be included in the FOV. Again, each eye has approximately the same FOV as both eyes combined.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 07:07 | Message # 248 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm just wondering if SE takes into account the planets temperature and atmospheric pressure when determining the snowline on mountains? It does take latitude into account in general, but I've seen warm and hot planets with snowcapped mountains.
The reason I'm asking is because I had found a terran world with tons of mountains (it's like the mountains and canyons got set on max or something, the continents looked, spongy, to use the word I described it in my head) and lots of snowcapped moiuntains over all latitudes. However, the planets average temp was 384 or so. So, unless the mountains were all extremely high mountains, I'm just not sure if a planet that hot would have snowcapped mountains in that amount. This planet also had an atmospheric pressure of 1. something, I forget the exact number.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 10:01 | Message # 249 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (smjjames) I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm just wondering if SE takes into account the planets temperature and atmospheric pressure when determining the snowline on mountains?
Yes, it seems to be a bug. Did you save the coordinates?
|
| |
| |
|
| DoctorOfSpace | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 10:10 | Message # 251 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
| That looks much better.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 15:22 | Message # 252 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| SpaceEngineer, YEEEEEEEEES, I never liked that effect of water
If it possible in the same way you could make the transition of some biomes just a bit smoother, for example sand and snow, because now is a bit unrealistic
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
Edited by Salvo - Friday, 09.11.2012, 15:30 |
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 15:37 | Message # 253 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Quote (smjjames)
I'm not sure where to ask this, but I'm just wondering if SE takes into account the planets temperature and atmospheric pressure when determining the snowline on mountains?
Yes, it seems to be a bug. Did you save the coordinates?
No I didn't, sorry, and yea that planet seemed a bit odd.
The new landscape and water looks nice. It also looks like the coastline got smoothed out a bit.
|
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 17:19 | Message # 254 |
|
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Salvo) If it possible in the same way you could make the transition of some biomes just a bit smoother, for example sand and snow, because now is a bit unrealistic
It is not "the same way". And no, transition between snow and sand/rocks must be hard. Where did you see the smooth transition between them?
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Friday, 09.11.2012, 20:18 | Message # 255 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| What i mean is that if you zoom in so much you will see this effect:
Edited (badly) with photoshop:
Quote (SpaceEngineer) It is not "the same way". And no, transition between snow and sand/rocks must be hard.
Don't worry
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
Edited by Salvo - Friday, 09.11.2012, 20:38 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Sweden 
Italy 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Pirate