Idea We can do this much better! (NASA Aqua)

[Urwumpe]

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020418aqua.html

Looking at the videos of this page, I thought: Damn, this is 2009 and it looks like it was rendered on an old IBM/370, before Tron and the last starfighter.

So, my idea: What about using the orbiter add-ons for Delta II and Vandenberg, together with a new mesh of the Aqua satellite to produce better videos than this, just to show of a bit on Youtube?

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Looking at the videos of this page, I thought: Damn, this is 2009 and it looks like it was rendered on an old IBM/370, before Tron and the last starfighter.

I don't get it? I understand it's not exactly 'Dan Maas' quality.
And although the article is from 2002 (not 2009), those animations are still rendered much better than Orbiter currently is, in terms of graphics (reflections, bumpmapping, etc).

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't get it? I understand it's not exactly 'Dan Maas' quality.
And although the article is from 2002 (not 2009), those animations are still rendered much better than Orbiter currently is, in terms of graphics (reflections, bumpmapping, etc).

The launch video is stuck with plain Phong shading. No bumps, no specular oceans, no good particle streams.

 

[Notebook]

Tron, now there was graphic!

N.

 

[Coolhand]

The launch video is stuck with plain Phong shading. No bumps, no specular oceans, no good particle streams.

Whats wrong with Phong shading eh? could be worse, could be plain ol gourad.... Like, erm, orbiter uses at the moment dammit, i'm crying out for a bit of phong shading action...

I agree its not good at all... but it probably cost very little too. sometimes thats the most important thing

 

[Andy44]

This sounds like fun, but I think my next project will be to start building meshes for some BattleTech addons.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

The launch video is stuck with plain Phong shading. No bumps, no specular oceans, no good particle streams.

Maybe we're talking about different launch videos?
I agree that the launch video is not very good in quality, but still much better than you could get with just using the current Orbiter. The one I see on that site has moving grass, better-than-orbiter particle lighting, on-mesh-casting shadows and reflective surfaces. All pretty basic stuff in most rendering software, but I wouldn't use Orbiter for that purpose...

Even I might be able to do a better rendering using Cinema 4D or Vue, provided to have accurate models, but still needs some time invested (I've got way too many other projects! )

 

[Urwumpe]

This sounds like fun, but I think my next project will be to start building meshes for some BattleTech addons.

Give me a call, if you need a BattleTech infected coder.


-----Post Added-----

Maybe we're talking about different launch videos?
I agree that the launch video is not very good in quality, but still much better than you could get with just using the current Orbiter.

I would disagree here. We already do better.

The one I see on that site has moving grass, better-than-orbiter particle lighting, on-mesh-casting shadows and reflective surfaces. All pretty basic stuff in most rendering software, but I wouldn't use Orbiter for that purpose...

The moving grass can be done, but we just don't have it.
Particle lighting is not really impressive as the particle effects themselves are bad. reflective shading is not visible, instead I just see simple environment mapping, Lock-On already has the same effect in real time. Shadows are also not much visible.

 

[T.Neo]

I think it is very possible to do animations like this in Orbiter. Even without self-shadowing, reflections, etc, it could be done.
If you made a model that was high-poly, and plastered hi-res textures on it, then used hi-res planet surfaces and atmospheric effects, you'd get something very realistic, as long as the machine running it was capable of decent framerate...

But it wouldn't be of much use as a flyable ship, since you'd have to have a super performance machine...

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

The moving grass can be done, but we just don't have it. Particle lighting is not really impressive as the particle effects themselves are bad. reflective shading is not visible, instead I just see simple environment mapping, Lock-On already has the same effect in real time. Shadows are also not much visible.

I think it is very possible to do animations like this in Orbiter. Even without self-shadowing, reflections, etc, it could be done.

Well, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done with Orbiter. I even know it's possible to make pretty nice video's with Orbiter (for example, [ame="http://www.vimeo.com/1256851"]this one[/ame] ).
All I'm saying is that if you want do make animations like this spectacular, you'd be better off using 3DSMax/Cinema4D/Lightwave/etc, instead of using a realtime physics simulator. The end-result with using orbiter could be nice, and also fun to make, but wouldn't be that much better than the video you see here. Except for the particle shapes indeed maybe.

On the other hand, if you combine Orbiter with rendered animations, it might be a different story.

 

[Coolhand]

Well, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done with Orbiter. I even know it's possible to make pretty nice video's with Orbiter (for example, this one ).
All I'm saying is that if you want do make animations like this spectacular, you'd be better off using 3DSMax/Cinema4D/Lightwave/etc, instead of using a realtime physics simulator. The end-result with using orbiter could be nice, and also fun to make, but wouldn't be that much better than the video you see here. Except for the particle shapes indeed maybe.

On the other hand, if you combine Orbiter with rendered animations, it might be a different story.

It would be fantastic to be able to dump motion data from orbiter into a nice rendering application... not only could you take advantage of all the rendering features, detailed models, textures etc that you just can't do in realtime, you also have total control over cameras, compositing... with the authentic looking simulation that orbiter provides you could save a lot of animation time.

 

[Andy44]

Isn't that what Martin's cooking up for Orbiter vNext?

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

It would be fantastic to be able to dump motion data from orbiter into a nice rendering application... not only could you take advantage of all the rendering features, detailed models, textures etc that you just can't do in realtime, you also have total control over cameras, compositing... with the authentic looking simulation that orbiter provides you could save a lot of animation time.

True, that would be pretty nice indeed. However most of today's 3D rendering software (at least, Cinema 4D, the one i'm familiar with, but I'm sure Max too), come with pretty good dynamics/physics simulation. I would say that for rendering animations like this, you mostly look at the object/local motion, not the world motion (eg. orbital). Therefore, the motionpath generated from Orbiter would be mostly involve simple zero-g movements/rotations (besides launch), so this could also be simulated fairly well within the 3D software.

 

[Coolhand]

yes it can... and can't... there's nothing i've ever seen where someone could really fly something and have it behave like it should. A lot of it's up to the talent of the animator and how much time they have to get it right.. a lot of computer animation lacks 'weight' for example if i were to animate a ship taking off, say a dg on its hovers and then make some manuvers i could fly that and record it.

So it's essentially motion capture, not a new concept and not one that will be going out of fashion any time soon.

 

[T.Neo]

instead of using a realtime physics simulator.

Yeah, the differance here is between actually simulating it and merely simulating the visuals.
Filming need not look like the results.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

a lot of computer animation lacks 'weight'

Indeed! I remember this very much from the BBC 'Walking with Dinosaurs' series: excelent modeling/texturing/overlays but very often those giant dinosaurs looked like as if the weighted less then a duck. That was the only major downside of that otherwise excellent documentary. But in this case, a lot of motion doesn't have to be animated by hand: the internal dynamic systems can be used instead.

So it's essentially motion capture, not a new concept and not one that will be going out of fashion any time soon.

Yes, I'm pretty much 'into' motion capturing at the moment (we create/sell motion capturing systems for C4D). Maybe that's why I'm a bit biased towards using 3D software instead of Orbiter for this purposes

But again, not all of the animation paths for projects like this need to be drawn/created by hand or through mocap. Using those dynamics (mass/forces/gravity fields/particles/collision) systems is quite good for jobs like this. Anyway, Urwumpe's idea was to try this with Orbiter, so that could also be a fun project on itself.

 

[T.Neo]

Indeed! I remember this very much from the BBC 'Walking with Dinosaurs' series: excelent modeling/texturing/overlays but very often those giant dinosaurs looked like as if the weighted less then a feather.

Really enjoyed WWD, really go me interested in dinosaurs when I was younger
Never really noticed that, now that you've noted that, I guess you're right.
I think there may be a tendancy for a lifeform to "wobble" as it walks, slightly over-correcting it's stance. We don't move perfectly.

Another thing about animation, any computer graphic, is it seems to have a "glossiness" to it, almost as if it lacks finer details.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think there may be a tendancy for a lifeform to "wobble" as it walks, slightly over-correcting it's stance. We don't move perfectly.

You especially notice this in manned rockets - a large part of the vibrations is caused by the inaccuracy when the rocket engines gimbal to stay on course.

Another thing about animation, any computer graphic, is it seems to have a "glossiness" to it, almost as if it lacks finer details.

For that, God inspired James F Blinn to invent Bump Mapping.

 

[T.Neo]

For that, God inspired James F Blinn to invent Bump Mapping.

Sorry if I sound like an idiot or something, but what is bump mapping?

 

[Urwumpe]

Sorry if I sound like an idiot or something, but what is bump mapping?

A way to use a grayscale texture (The bump map) to describe small bumps on a surface. The value of the bump map basically describes how far this point on the surface is away from the usual plane of this surface, and how the shadow thus would have to look.