[Molaris]

do we have any planets for download? and how do you go about adding them so FS2/FRED can recognize/use them? I'd love better looking planets to use instead of the stock crap. I've looked around on the wiki and the forums and only really find discussions ABOUT planets, not adding and using them.

Molaris

[General Battuta]

Most modern campaigns use skyboxes, but there's an entire thread devoted to creating new background images. Celestial Objects or something

[X3N0-Life-Form]

And a thread dedicated to creating skyboxes as well (I think).

[assasing123]

problem with planets is that FSO engine dosnt handle real 3d planets very well in map, tho they can be used with some cheap modifications, to be on a realistic scale.

[Molaris]

so the skybox is the best bet? I'm just looking for something to go along with my nebulas and what not in the background to look cool. whatever works best I suppose

[Kolgena]

I recall someone mentioning that if the planet is up close, that it's better to render it to a plane that (iirc) is separate from the skybox. It's what blue planet did with Earth in the missions in which it shows up.

[General Battuta]

I recall someone mentioning that if the planet is up close, that it's better to render it to a plane that (iirc) is separate from the skybox. It's what blue planet did with Earth in the missions in which it shows up.

It's still just one skybox model.

[Jeff Vader]

Cardinal Spear had planets, I think. That is, actual textured spheres in a mission instead of static background images.

[Darius]

Early TBP versions used a textured plane for Earth for the final Minbari War mission.

[MatthTheGeek]

Isn't "textured planes" the definition of a skybox ? just sayin'

[Darius]

Not when it's an actual ship placed in-mission.

[MatthTheGeek]

Right. Forgot skyboxes AREN'T ships in FSO, I'm too used to the trick I had to use in HWBP where the skyboxes ARE ships

[redsniper]

INFR1 had an Earth model for the big EA showdown.

[mjn.mixael]

Perhaps I just don't get it.. but aside from doing actual landscape, what advantage could there possibly be for doing a textured sphere over a skybox?

[The E]

In practical terms, there are none.

Here's a list of problems associated with 3D planet models:

1: Scale. Planet models need to be enormous. This means that you need to use a lot of polies, and very large textures in order to make them look good.
2: Interactivity. If you think about it, the player is only rarely in a position where he should be able to interact with a planet; however, if you place a spherical model in a mission and call it a planet, people will try to fly towards it, and then bump into the surface. Even worse, the AI will do this as well, leading to all sorts of stupid behaviour.
Not to mention that due to 1, planets will look ugly up close.

In an engine such as FSO, skyboxes are always the better choice for adding big scenery stuff in the background.

[General Battuta]

Perhaps I just don't get it.. but aside from doing actual landscape, what advantage could there possibly be for doing a textured sphere over a skybox?

there are zero

[Thaeris]

You know, I have to disagree with that.

I am admittedly perhaps the only person I've encountered that enjoyed modeled planets in Cardinal Spear (FS1/FS Port campaign). And furthermore, I will explain why:

Moving in simulated time and space, it is easy to rationalize that your relative position with respect to another large celestial body might be quite minimal. And skyboxes are certainly prettier than a modeled planet in FSO. BUT, the truth is, in fact, that you are indeed moving. Cardinal Spear made you feel much less lethargic when flying about in your very slow high-powered starfighter by, even though the sizes of the planets were not to scale, ensuring that everything you moved in relation to changed its apparent size and position. Of course, this was only possible because the planets were modeled!

The end result is this - until someone figures out how to make modeled planets look really good in FSO, people will argue against them as they are not as pretty and will possibly break that sense of precieved realism to some. Alternately, they add a depth of realism that skyboxes do not have, as now the environment in which the player exists is also now dynamic. Personally, I think the sense of motion that modeled planets can deliver to the player makes them well worth the effort if the missions in which they exist are properly designed, and the scales of the planets are properly managed.

[zookeeper]

Not to mention that you can make a modelled planet rotate. Even a very very slow rotation rate would greatly help in making the planet look real instead of just a static bitmap.

[General Battuta]

Not to mention that you can make a modelled planet rotate. Even a very very slow rotation rate would greatly help in making the planet look real instead of just a static bitmap.

Hmm, this is actually the first good argument I have heard in favor. I don't think it's a big thing at realistic scales, but I guess it's there

[The E]

You know, I have to disagree with that.

I am admittedly perhaps the only person I've encountered that enjoyed modeled planets in Cardinal Spear (FS1/FS Port campaign). And furthermore, I will explain why:

Moving in simulated time and space, it is easy to rationalize that your relative position with respect to another large celestial body might be quite minimal. And skyboxes are certainly prettier than a modeled planet in FSO. BUT, the truth is, in fact, that you are indeed moving. Cardinal Spear made you feel much less lethargic when flying about in your very slow high-powered starfighter by, even though the sizes of the planets were not to scale, ensuring that everything you moved in relation to changed its apparent size and position. Of course, this was only possible because the planets were modeled!

The end result is this - until someone figures out how to make modeled planets look really good in FSO, people will argue against them as they are not as pretty and will possibly break that sense of precieved realism to some. Alternately, they add a depth of realism that skyboxes do not have, as now the environment in which the player exists is also now dynamic. Personally, I think the sense of motion that modeled planets can deliver to the player makes them well worth the effort if the missions in which they exist are properly designed, and the scales of the planets are properly managed.

At standard FS2 speeds, planets are far too large to successfully navigate around.
At standard FS2 scales, realistic planets will need to use several very high-resolution textures in order to look good.
Without additional code support, you will still be able to ram the planet and bounce off it.
At the sizes you would have to use in order to make a planet realistic, you would pretty soon run into floating point inaccuracy issues.

Now, the point you raise about animations is a good one, but even that can be done with a few tricks as part of a skybox.

It was either StarLancer or FreeLancer that showed everything that can be done wrong when planets are actual 3D models.