Sirius_Alpha wrote:So why doesn't your upscaled texture look like the asteroid it claims to represent?
I think the reason why it doesn't look like the asteroid is because the texture isn't in equirectangular projection. The texture is meant to be wrapped around only the mesh itself (because of its weird UV map matching the texture), rather than a sphere or a mesh that uses a texture in that projection. That explains why it looks weird.
Another reason why is that it looks like the texture has been colored by some AI which makes it look like a piece of moldy bread. I don't know why he did that instead of giving it a brownish tint or leaving it as grayscale. I apologize if you already know why the texture looks like that before I posted this reply.
I think the problem is john71 thought the texture would also work on a sphere and other asteroid meshes that use equirectangular textures. Maybe he has no knowledge of how texture mapping and UV mapping on a mesh works.
john71 wrote:Hint: maybe it is not a sphere.
Just put "(works on original mesh linked below)" when your textures don't look like they can wrap around a sphere and they aren't in equirectangular projection. Textures in equirectangular projection have a 2:1 ratio (the width is 2x the height). The asteroid meshes in Celestia use equirectangular texture maps that can be also wrapped around spheres, although they are distorted to match the asteroid's shape. An example would be Phobos's texture map. It's in equirectangular projection and it can be wrapped around a sphere.
john71 wrote:So, I ask you again, as in the case of the JWST exoplanet image: why am I responsible for NASA's scientific results?
Also, please stop bringing up your old arguments. Can we not start another one again, john71?