Apollo 11 mission reconstruction - a teamwork

[chris]

4k for that flag !??? Geez, are you smoking grass ?

Christophe,

Would it be possible to create geometry for the stars and stripes in the flag instead of using a texture? Then you would never see pixelization.

--Chris

[t00fri]

4k for that flag !??? Geez, are you smoking grass ?

Perhaps the flag could be ironed beforehand, then is probably only 2k

Bye Fridger

[ElChristou]

4k for that flag !??? Geez, are you smoking grass ?

Christophe,

Would it be possible to create geometry for the stars and stripes in the flag instead of using a texture? Then you would never see pixelization...

Of course, those on the side of the LEM are done this way... now the little problem is the geometry of the flag, precisely not well ironed (:wink:); possible but be quite long to do, it's why I was experimenting with a 4k dds texture...
I'll test a 2k, if not good enough, will try the full poly flag.

[Cham]

I already done many flags (remember my cosmic temples ?) using 512 x 512 textures, and I don't see a single pixel on them, even when my face is literally on a flag, while my screen is a 20" LCD.

I also used a small texture of the american flag on one space station I made for Mars (remember it ?), and don't see any pixel, even at a very close range. So I don't think you really need a 2k texture for a simple flag.

[ElChristou]

I already done many flags (remember my cosmic temples ?) using 512 x 512 textures, and I don't see a single pixel on them, even when my face is literally on a flag, while my screen is a 20" LCD.

I also used a small texture of the american flag on one space station I made for Mars (remember it ?), and don't see any pixel, even at a very close range. So I don't think you really need a 2k texture for a simple flag.

Really? I do see pixels even on the 4k...

[ElChristou]

No indeed 4k was really too exagerated...
2k is nice, even 1k is fine (after all who will examine each stars on the flag?)
If I got some time, I'll go for the full poly to test.

[Cham]

after all who will examine each stars on the flag?

Me.

[LordFerret]

I was curious about the previous comments about the engine exhaust. In looking at the following Apollo 15 ascent footage taken from the rover camera (Quicktime movie), you'll see not much is visable at all (no flame so to speak) aside from its initial ignition.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1713625.mov

It's very much like the second image posted by Andrea.

I found this footage here --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html

The Apollo 11 video library can be found here --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

Homepage for the Apollo Surface Journals --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/

[ElChristou]

I was curious about the previous comments about the engine exhaust. In looking at the following Apollo 15 ascent footage taken from the rover camera (Quicktime movie), you'll see not much is visable at all (no flame so to speak) aside from its initial ignition.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v_1713625.mov

It's very much like the second image posted by Andrea.

I found this footage here --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html

The Apollo 11 video library can be found here --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

Homepage for the Apollo Surface Journals --> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/

Many Tx! I'll try to look at this today. Seems we have all needed for this problem.

[Chuft-Captain]

An animated GIF would do the job nicely... ... (and it's only 32.4KB )

[ANDREA]

An animated GIF would do the job nicely... ... (and it's only 32.4KB )

Sure Chuff, the only problem is the wind missing on the Moon, alas!
Bye

Andrea

[rthorvald]

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

Due to the poor quality of the smaller scale images, I understand the difficulty to obtain a wide 3D map.
Just an idea: could "fractals" fill the gap?
I understand that this would not be quite real, but not so different, IMHO.
Your opinion?

Don't know yet, must do some test...

Christophe,
The way to go is to make a VT and mix it with a CMOD file of the terrain
closest to the landing site. I have developed techniques that does this
seamlessly. Example 1 - Example 2 (a CMOD mountain embedded in a level 7 VT,
from two different angles)... Of course, with the Moon, we should go to
at least level 10.

Now, there does not exist information to replicate the landing site exactly,
so a generic VT must be built on top of the best moon map we can find.
Then, approximate the vicinity of the lander in a CMOD, based on what
imagery exists.

I haven??t time myself right now to dive into a project of this scale. I can
help out with the details if someone else has time to take it on, though. Or
you and i can do it together after the summer... But first, we would have
to find the optimal hi-res moon texture to use as a foundation.

- rthorvald

[ElChristou]

Mmhh... I suppose it won't be so easy to do a texture from those... we will see...

Due to the poor quality of the smaller scale images, I understand the difficulty to obtain a wide 3D map.
Just an idea: could "fractals" fill the gap?
I understand that this would not be quite real, but not so different, IMHO.
Your opinion?

Don't know yet, must do some test...

Christophe,
The way to go is to make a VT and mix it with a CMOD file of the terrain
closest to the landing site. I have developed techniques that does this
seamlessly. Example 1 - Example 2 (a CMOD mountain embedded in a level 7 VT,
from two different angles)... Of course, with the Moon, we should go to
at least level 10.

Now, there does not exist information to replicate the landing site exactly,
so a generic VT must be built on top of the best moon map we can find.
Then, approximate the vicinity of the lander in a CMOD, based on what
imagery exists.

I haven??t time myself right now to dive into a project of this scale. I can
help out with the details if someone else has time to take it on, though. Or
you and i can do it together after the summer... But first, we would have
to find the optimal hi-res moon texture to use as a foundation.

- rthorvald

Indeed Runar, your experience here would be welcome!
Perso I was thinking in releasing the addon with a particular moon texture (4k dds for example) and try to match the color of the border of the wider ground (2km2) with the texture...
In all case there is still lot to do for example looking at the video provided by Lord Ferret, it's clear that I must do a DS after take off of the AS...
Also I would love to simulate the particules flying all over during the AS take off...
So I think we will talk again about the landscape a bit later...

[rthorvald]

Perso I was thinking in releasing the addon with a particular moon texture (4k dds for example) and try to match the color of the border of the wider ground (2km2) with the texture...

If you want a real landscape, i would instead find the highest resolution possible. Then, generate a VT and only use the 1 > 4k levels for this - it will then be a stepping stone to higher res, instead of a dead end...

I think we will talk again about the landscape a bit later...

Yes, let??s do that... In a couple of months, or so... In the mean time, let??s have some suggestions on what is the best, publicly available moon map...? Anything less than 8k PNG quality is not good for this work.

- rthorvald

[LordFerret]

An animated GIF would do the job nicely... ... (and it's only 32.4KB )

Sure Chuff, the only problem is the wind missing on the Moon, alas!
Bye

Andrea

Not according to the conspiracy theorists! LOL!

[Chuft-Captain]

Sure Chuff, the only problem is the wind missing on the Moon, alas!

Another minor technicality is that Celestia doesn't do GIF's.

Not according to the conspiracy theorists! LOL!

[ANDREA]

Sure Chuff, the only problem is the wind missing on the Moon, alas!

Another minor technicality is that Celestia doesn't do GIF's.

Not according to the conspiracy theorists! LOL!

True, at least up to now.
Hello, Vincent, where are you?

Andrea

[ElChristou]

TV camera and Solar wind experiment...

(Click to enlarge)



Strangely, if I place those items following the photo and pict by Andrea some days ago, they don't match exactly the photos on ground within Celestia...

[Cham]

Strangely, if I place those items following the photo and pict by Andrea some days ago, they don't match exactly the photos on ground within Celestia...

That's the proof that the landing on the moon was actually a hoax. They never got to the moon !

[ANDREA]

TV camera and Solar wind experiment...

Very nice indeed, like the real ones!

Strangely, if I place those items following the photo and pict by Andrea some days ago, they don't match exactly the photos on ground within Celestia...

Chris, this is probably due to the fact that the drawings show the scheduled points where to put the various instruments, whose positions were calculated in order to allow the needed experiments as wished.
I show you a document (from the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Operations Plan, June 27, 1969-Final Edition) that gives the reasons why the far TV camera had to be at that distance and with that angle respect to the LEM, in order to show the full structure with the right light angle, and so on:



This the theory (moreover based on the assumption of a FLAT surface!!!) and really the astronauts followed the instructions with good attention, but didn't use a flexible ruler and a goniometer to measure exactly distances and angles, so positions are close to, but not exactly the scheduled ones, IMHO (Hoax? Hohohooo! ).

BTW, while digging here and there, I found a VERY interesting pdf file

http://nho.ohn.free.fr/celestia/Andrea/ ... ctures.pdf

where there are zillions of structural drawings of all the LEM stuff, with details I've never seen elsewhere.
Give a look, if you have not yet completed the LEM itself.
Bye

Andrea