[X] My Assistant

[djellison]

Thought I'd start a new thread for stuff done with the HRSC DEM's....

http://www.rlproject.com/HRSC/2039/2039_0000_flydown_hi.mov (8.3 meg)

http://www.rlproject.com/HRSC/2039/2039_0000_flydown_lo.mov (3.0 meg)

[djellison]

The texture for Eberswalde took for ever.

Just for you Nige - comparing 1x and 3x elevation at Nili Fossae (one of the MSL landing site proposals). Sat down, did the maths, made sure it was the right total altitude and that the difference between max and min altitiude matched the file headers.

I've actually set both of these rendering in full. The problem is getting the cameras to match exactly. (you can stretch a terrain vertically quite easily, but not the path that a camera takes) so not the exact same view, but it's the same frame number from two very similar animations.

You can probably guess which is the most accurate I can make to the actual, and which is 3x exag of that

For reference, this entire swath is 119.7km wide, 1059 km long - has a max altitude of -857m and a min altitude of -6866m (which I turn into adjusted altitiude based on the hrsc2tif idl module adding a value to make them all positive) - So a terrain altitude 'range' of 6 km from highest to lowest on the whole swath. i.e. 0.6% of the length - hence why they can be a bit dull.

Those swath dimensions refer to this entire box in which the map projected image sits - http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/mex/mex-m...88_0000_gr3.jpg - I create an alpha channel for the terrain to remove the crap off the edges, as the displacement process goes nuts with the edge of the elevation map ( hence all the little funky jagged hedges around the edge of most of these )


Doug

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[ElkGroveDan]

I think for maximum esthetic value you need something between 1.5 and 2.5. 1 is certainly too flat and 3 is rather tortured.