Here is a Terraformed Mars. This terraformed Mars is a bit different then other peoples results, as I spent time looking at topography maps, and region maps of Mars, and planned out what biomes would actually have water. If we terraformed Mars from it's northern pole, we wouldn't have oceans or lakes on the bottom half of the planet, as it would be a desert, and water would have long dropped from clouds going over terrain before ever reaching the areas, and what little does fall isn't enough to accumulate anywhere before evaporating.
I tried to do dust clouds and weather clouds, but I am not happy with them. I may export a spherical cloud map to composite in with more natural shapes. Though I do want to make some clouds that resemble a dead Mars too.
Big thanks to Stormlord for the Maps. I have upscaled all maps used here to 32k via AI. The texture map is extensively altered in Photoshop using isolation and painting to fix other bad areas of the texture. I also did a delit version too but not as satisfied with that result.
PS Ridiculous I can render the planet and maps in 4 minutes, but with clouds, it takes 18 hours. Come on. >.< Why can't scalars be warped without hitting the renderer like a ton of bricks?
Yes indeed, the clouds don't look natural.
I think the way is to create a painted cloudmap (procedural looks shitty to be honest).
But the rendered mars looks great, athough it is terraformed.
Try a real one with stratosphere and clouds Jordan.
By the way... did you render a comparison between the original 23K and your upskaled 32K Version?
Would love to see the difference...
STORMLORD
Quote from: Stormlord on July 03, 2021, 01:34:38 PMYes indeed, the clouds don't look natural.
I think the way is to create a painted cloudmap (procedural looks shitty to be honest).
But the rendered mars looks great, athough it is terraformed.
Try a real one with stratosphere and clouds Jordan.
By the way... did you render a comparison between the original 23K and your upskaled 32K Version?
Would love to see the difference...
STORMLORD
I have not done a difference though you'd likely see no difference at 2k at these distances considering scale of both textures. I'll do a comparison of a suborbital shot.
I am having issues doing a true mars atmosphere. The way colours are hard coded I can't actually do the direct and ambient colours we need. May be able to get blue borders with atmo and do reds with a haze layer masked. Too much a perfectionist for my own tastes.
Here is a much closer render between 23k and 32k. The AI certainly smoothed some of the original camera noise, but maybe a little too aggressive on actual crater details. Some look better, and some don't. But overall I like it better as the original un-doctored bumps show too much grain in what would be smooth flats from orbit.
Crazy detailed. Strange to see Mars with water bodies :o
Thank you for showing the difference WAS. I think it must decided from case to case which map is better.
I stick with the 23K Map (which is really great).
STORMLORD
Cool project. Lot of work there if you hand-painted the maps. Nicely done.
Quote from: sboerner on July 04, 2021, 10:37:50 AMCool project. Lot of work there if you hand-painted the maps. Nicely done.
Thank you! Yeah it was a lot of work. Painting and masking, and selctions, etc, is all in slow motion at 32k resolution and 25gb documents. Lol
Quote from: WAS on July 03, 2021, 12:53:47 PMHere is a Terraformed Mars. This terraformed Mars is a bit different then other peoples results, as I spent time looking at topography maps, and region maps of Mars, and planned out what biomes would actually have water. If we terraformed Mars from it's northern pole, we wouldn't have oceans or lakes on the bottom half of the planet, as it would be a desert, and water would have long dropped from clouds going over terrain before ever reaching the areas, and what little does fall isn't enough to accumulate anywhere before evaporating.
I tried to do dust clouds and weather clouds, but I am not happy with them. I may export a spherical cloud map to composite in with more natural shapes. Though I do want to make some clouds that resemble a dead Mars too.
Big thanks to Stormlord for the Maps. I have upscaled all maps used here to 32k via AI. The texture map is extensively altered in Photoshop using isolation and painting to fix other bad areas of the texture. I also did a delit version too but not as satisfied with that result.
PS Ridiculous I can render the planet and maps in 4 minutes, but with clouds, it takes 18 hours. Come on. >.< Why can't scalars be warped without hitting the renderer like a ton of bricks?
Very interesting !
Mars with this ocean reminds me of Mahnmut's work on his excellent « Green Mars » series
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,15070.30.html
Oh wow, I that's a great series. I hadn't seen that one. Wet canyons are actually pretty cool looking. I used depth to create my oceans, so the altitude didn't really fill those canyons, and getting them filled meant Olympus Muns was just a bump out of the ocean, which looked odd. Seems he took note of water drift too, and didn't fill every crater or divot of the planet away from the main oceans.
Terraformed Mars this time with natural colour mapped Mars, flat this time, and a revised vegetation area, also used AO, Edges, and Reflectivity on this one like my last Mars.
What a nice ozone shader example!
Very good, well done.
But what about the night-side?
Should it look only darker or is it completely black? I really don't know, but it looks to bright imo.
STORMLORD
According to Matt's new Rayleigh lighting model, it must be correct. Which I think it is. The upper atmosphere in the dark side would have access to ambient light from the twilight area I think. There is a bit of light curve with planets too (gravity).
Check out the image I attached, same lighting angle (different POV), see how there is faint light passed the terminator, I think this is realistic. It isn't absolute night here until hours after sundown.
Very nice render. The big 'scratch' almost makes me think a giant other body grazed Mars.
Cool project and great results!
Quote from: WAS on July 12, 2021, 12:04:36 PMTerraformed Mars this time with natural colour mapped Mars, flat this time, and a revised vegetation area, also used AO, Edges, and Reflectivity on this one like my last Mars.
WOW ! Very interesting take on Mars... Good stuff, and a thought provoking image.
cheers,
crisb.
Hi,
nice take on Mars.
I just heard my name, thanks for the flowers.
It is astonishing what kind of data became available in the last years. (https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/search/map/Mars/Topography/HRSC_MOLA_Blend/Mars_HRSC_MOLA_BlendDEM_Global_200mp_v2)
I am just trying to cut this mega-map into chunks that TG and my PC can stomach. (<2gb seems to be the trick)
Until now I have mostly used equirectangular maps in spherical projection that fits the sphere by default.
can anyone tell me how to project a partial planetary map in a way that fits neatly with a global map?
By the way, I am quite sure that gravitational bending of light is completely negligible compared to atmospheric effects (talking about earth-size planets)
Best Regards,
J
Oh Mars is certainly massive enough haha. Even tiny dwarf planets do this, and you could observe this terminator yourself if you have a telescope. Here is a shot from 2013 with the sun side facing away from earth. You can see the large terminator area where its twilight and ambient light in the atmosphere, and not direct light on the surface. Actual lit side of mars is facing away from us, but look how far light travels, and noticeable twilight terminator along this radius. No reason to not assume there would be a terminator on a sphere alone, buy especially with an atmosphere catching ions.
Also I'd just wait until Matt fixes TG then go to all that trouble slicing up the image to defeat a introduced bug.
Hi, thanks for your reply.
I do not doubt that light travels beyond the terminator in the atmosphere, but that is mainly atmospheric refraction and scattering (no ionization needed for that), the impact of gravity is minute in comparison. 1.75" (arc seconds or 3600th of a degree) for the Sun, much less for Earth or Mars.
Would be great if TG could handle 10 gb maps one day, (although I know that is much to ask and not necessary for most applications). Until then I will try to get my map-sections working.
Best Regards,
J
Maybe this will help: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/04/26/astroquizzical-can-planets-bend-light/amp/
This isn't a theory or something I have, but something we literally observe, and study.
And refraction in the atmosphere is interaction of ions lol if light is captured, in anything, it is creating illumination. Our atmosphere, clouds, reflection of surfaces, etc. Thats why there is a terminator of twilight on these planets, and not say, the moon (where you literally have a falloff to lack if light altogether unless you have a lit hill facing a dark gully).
This 2gb issue is a introduced bug, relatively recently, and this wasn't an issue before.
Hi again.
The only thing I questioned was the size of the gravitational lens effect concerning terrestrial planets. Of course every mass changes the path of light, even you and me.
As mentioned, the bending of a ray of light that passes directly by the sun caused by the suns gravitational pull is about 1.75 arc seconds, the bending caused by Earth or Mars is much smaller.
As you stated in your last post, the twilight surrounding the terminator (which is just the division between light an dark side of a celestial body, with or without twilight) is caused by scattering, refraction and reflection in the atmosphere, which again are caused by interactions between light and particles , which may be, but do not have to be, electrically charged (ions).
Sorry, I did not come here to argue. I saw that you commented on my old Mars thread and thought maybe you where someone to ask about that new map.
Glad to hear that the 2gb-limit may be resolved soon.
Farewell,
J
The emission at the source (sun) is irrelevant to what I am talking about. Rayleigh scattering is heavily influenced by gravity on the minute scale, let alone super massive, and as already cited, and you can find not only this but rays themselves are bent by planets. This all attributes to luminosity and is detectable even in other solar systems.
Hello again,
It sounds to me as if we where having two different conversations. Sorry if I did not make myself clear, English is not my first language.
I mentioned the sun not as the lightsource, but as an example for a celestial body that is much more massive than earth or mars and still bends the light (say of a distant star) that passes directly next to it only by the tiny amount of 1.75 arc seconds.
The article you linked above just states that in the case of massive exoplanets their gravitational effect can influence the lensing of their host stars in a way that enables us to detect the planets presence using very fine measurements.
It does not say anything about atmospheric scattering. The only visible way in which gravity attributes to the illumination of a terrestrial planets nightside is by keeping the atmosphere in place to do the scattering.
If you still want to lol about how much I have my physics wrong, feel free to it, I do not intend to reply any further, sorry to have started it in the image sharing thread.
Nice images anyway.
Cheers,
J
I think you should learn more about Rayleigh scattering than gravity etc. Even 1.75 arc seconds, for one is pretty extreme, and sol usually influences about 0.87 arc seconds. But this is still extreme. This is how we can identify objects behind our sun, or vice versa, objects behind distant stellar objects. This bending of light is ultimately very exaggerated.
Regardless I have been more talking about Rayleigh scattering of light rays. However Rayleigh scattering is influenced br gravity as well as atmosphere. This is observed on a microscopic and super massive scale (planets). This transmission of light exceeds the terminator zone of direct surface light.
Second image is a 0.85 arc second ray passing the sun. Pretty extreme, isn't it?
Additionally here is an xray of Venus and Mars showing radiance. The scale is in arcseconds from Earth. The circle is the actual boundaries of the planet radiuses (showing atmospheric shielding of the surfaces) atmosphere density plays a huge role in transmission light emission.
Hi WAS.
The tone of a conversation is hard to communicate in the written word, especially when disagreeing. So let me first tell you that I still do not want to argue. We both spent some time building visions of a terraformed mars, so I think we may have quite some interests in common. I like your version 2, it shows my favorite view of the valles, volcanoes and chryse region! :)
Thanks for the pictures, concerning the light bending, now I think I do understand the misunderstanding.
The second picture you quote is a really exaggerated schematic of solar gravitational lensing. The angle between the straight and bent ray in the pic is about 25° as measured from the screen. The actual amount of bending (as you quoted it) is 0.87 arc seconds, that is 1/3600 *0,87 /25 = 0,000009667 or about 0,001% of the angle depicted in the image.
You are right saying that the density of an atmosphere is most important for scattering, and mostly determined by gravity.
Best Regards,
J
It is not declared as exaggerated. It is declared as a 0.87 arcsecond, and shows us why we can catalog stars behind the sun, and infact use the sun and these augmented and split rays to analyze exoplanets. Your assertion is that we can't, because this is "exaggerated". But in fact it isn't, and this is exactly we we observe these things. We can infact observe stars directly behind the sun, showing how extreme this bend is over huge distances of influence by Sol. This arc will be sustained around the super massive influence of the star, creating continual bend at a 0.87 arcsecond degree (along the entire length of the influenced rays, which creates more bend over distance).
It seems to me you are interpreting this as a single event at a point, when its a gradienting event along the whole spheroid of influence. Greater the mass, the more bend of rays traversing that distance of influence
Update: added this video, also from NASA which demonstrates the extent of bending rays from another star as Sol passes them. This whole event is gradient of effect, and the close the rays to the star, the more bending, and also focusing (passing through our solar lense).
Nice work Jordan! I just want to add that a also thinked in how Mars atmosphere would look to human eye.
Seeing the images taken by Mars Express and Viking1 really gave me a good idea about what to do in Tg
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/_1200x2192_crop_center-center_82_line/20160126_23843525423_5fd03caf55_o.jpg.webp
https://newatlas.com/space/esa-spacecraft-mars-mosaic/
So, from remplace the atmos with several cloud layers, to create a beige atmos with tiny blue cloud layers to simulate nitrogen scatter, i tryed several things with at least curious result. Unfortunatelly a parse error destroyed the scene :(
Easier to just use two atmospheres and shadow mask them (it will be leagues faster than trying to ramp up v2 quality). That image however is a processed composite, exaggerating atmospheric content (reds have been muted slightly and blues saturated; compositing may come in form of atmosphere xrays), for visualization, it doesn't look like that to the naked eye at all.
I did an atmosphere study here: https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,29372.0.html
The blue effect is also caused by Rayleigh scattering of short wavelengths in the blue spectrum. It's just reversed on Mars, where it should be red, and not blue due to atmospheric density and ability to scatter.
PS that study is old and I have updated since, just never posted them apparently? I'll render one out now.
Here is an updated atmosphere that I was working on.
These maps are Mars in "Natural" colour, with two different albedo levels.
Update: Added a version with true colour maps as well.
Quote from: WAS on August 07, 2021, 01:48:24 PMEasier to just use two atmospheres and shadow mask them (it will be leagues faster than trying to ramp up v2 quality). That image however is a processed composite, exaggerating atmospheric content (reds have been muted slightly and blues saturated; compositing may come in form of atmosphere xrays), for visualization, it doesn't look like that to the naked eye at all.
(..)
Well i know it haha, if you see at my render, i dont tried to create those exaggerated blue hazes, but as you said before
Mars atmos is not just red, there is some light blue/withe traces on differents zones, thats why i prefered use clouds.
I need to try to get (or create) those files again...
Your study also remains me these images taken by Viking 1, this one also have exaggerated details, but no color retouching:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132160802@N06/28159597150/in/photostream/
If you use clouds, for haze-type stuff you can put Sample Jitter at 0 and you'll get much faster renders, and less grain. Just figured that out for some tests in my Nu2 Lupi scene. If you're using density shaders it will produce a more exacting look to the noise, without the jitter scattering.
The last 3 are great again. I could not decide which one is the best.