5 ms·
What this thread is really missing is a simulation. I can't promise its the enterprise (as the performance constraints are crippling), but here's a bunch of cub
by 20k 2y ago
What this thread is really missing is a simulation. I can't promise its the enterprise (as the performance constraints are crippling), but here's a bunch of cubes instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTw0pJvTkGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTw0pJvTkGw
It seems that what you see is the object flattened on the shadow in front of you, and it remains flattened. Apparently past me didn't implement redshift on objects, but its likely extremely redshifted
Edit:
Here's a second better clip, showing this more clearly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npC6lCwYUN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npC6lCwYUN0
- SiempreViernes 2y agoI guess we see a bit of light coming from the top and sides that would normally be hidden, but that ray tracing is making the renderer very sad because sometimes you sample from the back of the polygon that doesn't have texture? Or something like that, there's definitely something funky going on with the view of the top surface that's unrelated to GR.
- 20k 2y agoIts hard to explain exactly what's accurate here when you're looking at the precise shapes - part of the problem is that this rendering is extraordinarily complex to do in real time, and it relies on the size of the object (tris) being 'small' relative to the curvature of spacetime There's actually no texturing here at all though, if you see a face disappear its because general relativity is hard. The extra disconnected pieces are something to entirely ignore as well, and occur because tris become nearly parallel with rays leading to long intersection lengths (as well as numerical issues), leading to the local flatness assumption breaking down
- IIAOPSW 2y agoReplace Starfleet Captains with The Borg and suddenly your simulation is perfect.