| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Wobbler

Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Posts: 2221
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Note from Castle Paradox Administration: | | This content has been removed by the user. Contact the original author and link them to this post if you wish to view the original content. Only the author can remove the tags hiding this content. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr B
Joined: 20 Mar 2003 Posts: 382
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
A moon that close would rapidly decay in orbit due to atmospheric drag and you'd have a VERY pretty meteor shower. Assuming that anyone was left alive to enjoy it..!
That's not really a problem, but if it's that close the moon should be elongated. The gravitational effects (the tidal effect) would create constant grinding in the moon, giving it a molten core (assuming it does not already have one) and zillions of earthquakes. Which would look pretty cool on a moon, lava spilling all over and such.
That being said, the only thing that bugs me about it is how diffuse the shadow of the moon is. I am almost certain that it would have a very sharp edge. It's true that shadows become more diffuse the farther away the occluding object is, but on the scale we're looking at here it would look very sharp. It's pretty much all penumbra -- need more umbra.
Fix that, put in stars, and I will be very happy with it. Of course, a lava-earthquake moon would look very nice.
Come to think of it...with the light coming from the direction it is, the moon's shadow shouldn't even be on the planet. Unless this is in a binary system, in which case the dark side of both the planet and the moon should be somewhat more illuminated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joe Man

Joined: 21 Jan 2004 Posts: 742 Location: S. Latitude 47°9', W. Longitude 123°43'
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now make a planet exploding. _________________ "Everyone has 200,000 bad drawings in them, the sooner you get them out the better."
~Charles Martin Jones
Last edited by Joe Man on Fri Dec 13, 1957 1:21 am; edited 2,892 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Linkmax I'm an idiot.
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 202 Location: Oly
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PHC wrote: | | Congratulations on being able to follow a tutorial I guess. |
It's nessecary for me to do so a couple of times before I get the hang of it.
| Joe Man wrote: | | Now make a planet exploding. |
I'll try when I get better.
And Mr B, I'll keep that in mind for the next time, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gizmog1 Don't Lurk In The Bushes!

Joined: 05 Mar 2003 Posts: 2257 Location: Lurking In The Bushes!
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First things first, no, a moon that size can't really orbit that close. It'd have to be moving REALLY REALLY REALLY fast, and an orbit that fast would never last, not to mention some really weird effects it'd have on the planet itself. Secondly, you probably wouldn't see any stars looking at a planet, due to the fact that it'd be reflecting a lot of light. Your eyes wouldn't adjust, you'd see maybe the brightest stars.
And actually, that sun lens flare doesn't look bad at all. Without the Atmosphere between us and the sun, that's probably about what it'd look like without some kind of filter. To make it too big and detailed would make it look unrealistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LongeBane

Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 312 Location: Tomorrow
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I dont think a star shines like a lens flare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Linkmax I'm an idiot.
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 202 Location: Oly
|
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you look at it from a camera point of view, it does.
And next time, try to give better input than just a one liner, it doesn't really help.
Oh, and Giz. The moon was a last minute add-on, so I didn't expect it to be perfect, or even close for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fenrir-Lunaris WUT

Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 1747
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That sattelite is well within the Roche limit for an object of its size. Clearly though it and its planet are tidally locked to one another, so its certainly feasible that it COULD happen. It's probably not a stable configuration, although if the planet itself were small it should be. Kuiper belt objects and all. Is this Pluto?
Well done, I've always wanted to do this myself. Let's see some weather effects, storm fronts, hurricanes, and other effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Linkmax I'm an idiot.
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 202 Location: Oly
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, I was thinking of making the moon crash into it when I get better at it.
And it's not based on any planet really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nepenthe

Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 132
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you looked at the sun through a camera, yes, you'd get a lense flare. The problem is that Photoshop's filter looks absolutely nothing like a lens flare. _________________ My art (and random photos)! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LeRoy_Leo Project manager Class S Minstrel

Joined: 24 Sep 2003 Posts: 2683 Location: The dead-center of your brain!
|
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point, Nep... I always wondered what bothered me about it.
You know; some say that Earth's moon was once this close to it, but it eventually spun out further and further. They say the moon gets 2 feet farther from Earth every year. _________________ Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...
---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. " |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|