New Case Case Status
Register Log In


  • RSS Feed

Last modified on 4/23/2016 5:17 PM by User.



  • Sun
    • This is OUR sun which is super cool!  From Venus - .740 degrees or 44.4 arc minutes

  • Starfield
    • We had a program (Starmap) which will take the star locations and make a sky map for us... same thing we used for Rise but it is probably identical to what we can see from Earth
    • Program was from 2003 and was probably the last utility written in Quick Basic
    • I am lucky it was saved as a text file since I can't run QB or Starmap.exe on Windows 8
    • Spent the evening porting the code from QB... renamed the application to Starfield because I had a hard time finding it on my machine
    • Rendered as point-sprites (deprecated in DX10) using GS
    • Need to do a twinkle effect when we are in the atmosphere?  Probably use the alpha-channel to store an "offset" 0-255 and set a global "twinkle" value 0-255 and global "distortion" value 0-1:
      • Star A has alpha 128, we are in orbit (distortion 0.0)
      • Star B has alpha 64, we are in upper atmosphere (distortion 0.5)
      • Star C has alpha 196, we are at mining level (distortion 1.0)
  • Moons
    • Venus has no natural satellites
  • Planets
    • We totally want to see the blue ball that is Earth and we can probably see out to Jupiter?
  • Atmosphere
    • V = 22.81/x where x is in mg/m3 and V is in km 1601-A[1].pdf
    • .001 mg/m3 is 750 km (30-55km)? this is supposed to be "haze" which is 8-11km (FAA definition)!?
      .01 mg/m3 is 75 km
      .1 mg/m3 is 7.5 km linearly no RH (venus)
      .4 mg/m3 is 3.33 km from graph
      1 mg/m3 is 750m 
      10 mg/m3 is 75m at 50-60km
    • 100 mg/m3 is 7.5m (makes sense actually, cumulus clouds can drop to 10m 1520-0469%281950%29007-0054%3Avalwci-2%2E0%2Eco%3B2.pdf)
      Found a formula that was adjusted for real observation data and it was adjusted to "25 / x ^ 0.8" which actually ended up worse than "22.8 / x".
      If we want 6km at .001 we need to use 22.81 / mgm3 ^ -0.19332467829766831127879612859423
      We could do 8 km as the FAA minimum, or 10 km as a accepted maximum
      8km requres the exponent to be -0.15167843276156832690131283319627
      Best model I found is Koschmieder’s Relationship:  3/K(e) which is extinction coefficient... luckily we have a graph for K(e) at the applicable altitudes:
      Using the Ke coefficient we are looking at 300km at 20km
      Using the Ke coefficient we are looking at 30km coming out of 45km (like a thin cloud stratocumulus?)
      Using the Ke coefficient we are looking at 3km at 45km and 70km
      Using the Ke coefficient our worst visibility is 1.194km
      Surface lights up the clouds at 45km (2.6x brighter than surface)
      Sky at 45km is 35x brighter than surface (See zenith colors below)

    • It is believed that the Sun's disk is never visible.



    • If that wasn't enough we have a low cloud layer 1-2km

  • Clouds
  • Wind
    • Above the clouds there is a high-speed "jet stream" which blows from east to west at about 300-400 km/h. This wind is fastest at the equator and slows toward the poles, often giving a "V" type pattern in the visible cloud cover. At the surface there is almost no prevailing wind, with measured surface wind speeds typically less than 2 m/s.
    • So at 40km that is about 50m/s or 180kph ... at 50km the circumference is 38340 km so we can circumnavigate in 213 hours
  • Surface
    • Unfortunately I think the surface of the planet will be visible starting at 30 km which isn't deep enough to crush hulls realistically... I think because of the temperatures we will make it unprofitable and usually fatal for them to dive down to the surface but if someone wanted to land a probe on the ground or land their ship and then die because the engines won't lift off again, air scrubbers will fail, and they will likely burn alive inside their ship.
    • I am inventing a new technique to render the ground with the assumption that we can never actually land on it!!  In fact, we could probably enhance it later but we won't be able to go to the poles without switching to gnomonics again.  But it is SUPER slick ... fast...
    • Original color-corrected pictures from the surface put the RGB closer to 138, 99, 69, the one below is adjusted for the spectrums above
    • To get this ground color you would need to start with an average of 204, 179, 114 for the level 7 map
    • We have level 6 normal data ... the ground is a mix of basalt and galena ... galena is shiny so I imagine we can use the normal map to exploit the scattering angles and highlight a couple areas on the surface?  Maybe mathematically a certain grayscale value is marked as "galena" material?
    • I would like to do an emissive map for the surface as I have heard that there is definitely a glow on the clouds emanating from the surface - up to our artistic interpretation?  Use the false-color global map as a basis for hot spots, dust
    • Also would like to see if we can see crashed landers on the surface