Project "Celestia Origin"

[FarGetaNik]

To be honest, we would need need a mesh for Miranda. We have some topography data... http://stereomoons.blogspot.de/2009/09/mirandas-warning.html
Ariel could pass with a normal map http://stereomoons.blogspot.de/2009/08/more-ariel.html

I failed to reproject these maps into cylindrical.

[Art Blos]

To be honest, we would need need a mesh for Miranda.

I agree, but I have not found it yet.

[LukeCEL]

Hi everyone. I was a bit late to the conversation about asteroids, but is the asteroid (162421) 2000 ET70 in the addon? It's listed in Greg Frieger's 3D Asteroid Catalogue but I couldn't find it anywhere in the file.

Luke

[Art Blos]

Preparation for the new release has begun!

[Art Blos]

Added 3D-model of the Iapetus with 300 thousand polygons.

[Art Blos]

Added new 1K-textures of Uranus in the visible and infrared ranges.

[Art Blos]

Added 3D-model of the Rhea with 300 thousand polygons.

[Art Blos]

Hi everyone. I was a bit late to the conversation about asteroids, but is the asteroid (162421) 2000 ET70 in the addon? It's listed in Greg Frieger's 3D Asteroid Catalogue but I couldn't find it anywhere in the file.

Hi! Sorry, I did not immediately notice your message.
We have this asteroid. It is located with all other asteroids in one file.

(162421) 2000 ET70

[CM1215]

By the way, I'm talking about the Rhea model.

I can't quite see in these images, but did you do something about the "no data" area at the top of the model, as well as the smaller "no data" area at the bottom of the model?? Also..could you put this model, as well as the texture you used with it, up for download, because I am interested in this.

[Art Blos]

I can't quite see in these images, but did you do something about the "no data" area at the top of the model, as well as the smaller "no data" area at the bottom of the model??

Yes, all the holes on the bump map we painted over with a uniform color.

Also..could you put this model, as well as the texture you used with it, up for download, because I am interested in this.

Usually it's not in my rules to lay out the individual elements before the main release. But I can make an exception. Write to me in private messages.

[Art Blos]

Added "restored" 4K standard textures according to the Sudarsky's gas giant classification.

[FarGetaNik]

Added 3D-model of the Rhea with 300 thousand polygons.

I checked out the model of Rhea at the asteroid catalogue, and these groves are a bit annoying. I'll stick to my crude normal map for now, Rhea isn't irregular enough to justify a mesh imo.

[Art Blos]

I checked out the model of Rhea at the asteroid catalogue, and these groves are a bit annoying. I'll stick to my crude normal map for now, Rhea isn't irregular enough to justify a mesh imo.

The model, although not perfect, but it always has superiority over simple maps of heights.

If you turn your normals into bump, Greg will try to improve.

[CM1215]

Added "restored" 4K standard textures according to the Sudarsky's gas giant classification.

Well...now I wish I had those textures! I will be anxiously awaiting the release of the new version of this addon.

If you turn your normals into bump, Greg will try to improve.

Does this mean that if we give you a bump map of Miranda, one of your guys could turn it into a model, or am I misunderstanding something? A model of Miranda is desperately needed, for the Voyager images show topography that cannot be acomplished by a mere bump/normal map.

[FarGetaNik]

The model, although not perfect, but it always has superiority over simple maps of heights.

I have to disagree. For objects that don't show any non-shperical shape from a distance (anything in hydrostatic equilibrium) normals are doing the trick almost as well, while saving much disc space and hence loading time. Imagine having to load a mesh worth a 64k (1-2 GB) normal map.

If you turn your normals into bump, Greg will try to improve.

Well I belive it is based on the same data after all. And it's the other way around, I based my normal map on a bump map. Here is what I got, at least I can retouch any irregularities easily with a texture:

Come to think of it, does anyone have the original data from Paul Schenk? The small web jpg files are not quite perfect to use for such purposes.

Does this mean that if we give you a bump map of Miranda, one of your guys could turn it into a model, or am I misunderstanding something

If that's the case, the data is on Paul Schenk's blog also, but I am not sure if my try on this texture is accurately projected.

[Art Blos]

Does this mean that if we give you a bump map of Miranda, one of your guys could turn it into a model, or am I misunderstanding something? A model of Miranda is desperately needed, for the Voyager images show topography that cannot be acomplished by a mere bump/normal map.

Well, you've figured out our plans. We are going to create models of all five moons of Uranus. We will take as a basis bumps of Snowfall-The-Cat.

We still need the maximum height and maximum depth for each body. Can someone tell me? It is desirable in kilometers.

I have to disagree. For objects that don't show any non-shperical shape from a distance (anything in hydrostatic equilibrium) normals are doing the trick almost as well, while saving much disc space and hence loading time. Imagine having to load a mesh worth a 64k (1-2 GB) normal map.

Normals will not be able to show all the features of the relief (ridge on Iapetus, mountains on Pluto, deep craters on Tethys ). In addition, a realistic appearance from close distances is important. For bodies that are the size of Triton and smaller, the model is preferable. For larger yes, the normals are better, but for other reasons.

Well I belive it is based on the same data after all. And it's the other way around, I based my normal map on a bump map. Here is what I got, at least I can retouch any irregularities easily with a texture:

Here is our map of heights. Can you move the details on your version in the same way?

The main thing is that the new image did not have compression artifacts. Groves arose for this reason.

If that's the case, the data is on Paul Schenk's blog also, but I am not sure if my try on this texture is accurately projected.

Maybe there is, but most likely they are also of low resolution.

[FarGetaNik]

We still need the maximum height and maximum depth for each body. Can someone tell me? It is desirable in kilometers.

I encountered the same problem while calibrating the normal maps. I looked at Voyager imagery and measured the rim irregularities relative to the radius to get a topography range. I haven't saved that data though... you might also look into Snowfall's Space Engine addons, since this software also need some reference on bump magnitude (probably).

Here is our map of heights. Can you move the details on your version in the same way?

Sure, but wouldn't this result in a misaignement? Or is the UV mapping on your model rotated? I am confused.

The main thing is that the new image did not have compression artifacts. Groves arose for this reason.

That's certainly an advantage, but just by looking at the bump map I don't see groves, while they are obvious on the mesh. Your texture is of higher quality than mine in direct comparision. There is an artifact at the adge, I'll try to remove it and repost the texture. There is no data in higher bit depth (16bit) avaliable, right?

Maybe there is, but most likely they are also of low resolution.

Honestly, the resolution for Ariel and Miranda is fine imo: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/__iArZbqJn9Y/SpP40yVHzFI/AAAAAAAAADM/BFCdPRkhzIo/s1600-h/ariel_ZTff.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/__iArZbqJn9Y/SqkA_zzmOPI/AAAAAAAAAFs/IO8F9jkm0vM/s1600-h/miranda_D88-x2.jpg

Added after 33 minutes 40 seconds:
Here my results for Rhea:

A version with the artifacts fixed:

And a version with missing areas filled with resyntesyzed data:

[Art Blos]

I encountered the same problem while calibrating the normal maps. I looked at Voyager imagery and measured the rim irregularities relative to the radius to get a topography range. I haven't saved that data though... you might also look into Snowfall's Space Engine addons, since this software also need some reference on bump magnitude (probably).

I also have some meager data taken from Wikipedia.

Sure, but wouldn't this result in a misaignement? Or is the UV mapping on your model rotated? I am confused.

Everything is normal. The fact is that we have our own standards of orientation.

Honestly, the resolution for Ariel and Miranda is fine imo:

Too little data. And we can not make a ready map ourselves. It's easier to use the finished material.

And a version with missing areas filled with resyntesyzed data:

Thank you so much!

[FarGetaNik]

...couldn't resist. The normal map:

And a view from Celestia

[Art Blos]

FarGetaNik < Instead of a thousand words.