Scales Scales Scales

[Pryme8]

So, what if I wanted to smoothly transfer my scene from lets say... space, to a planet to its surface to a tree, to a microscopic level to a macroscopic level? for ever and ever and ever in each direction?

And then have the elements and the controls, stay constant and scale for what ever level of scale your on lets call its w on the vec4.

I made a little diagram to kinda explain:
Is this too loony toons and would be better to be simulated? Or could this be an interesting idea?

Also I think I messed up on the visual the green line should go the opposite way and approach 0 but never meet it as things get bigger not smaller.

 

 

[Wingnut]

Quick comment.  Is your last number wrong?  Should it be 1:0.01 instead?  *shrug*

But yeah, if you nano-scaled your scene, your position settings would be like... vector3(.00000023, .00000008, .00000012), etc.  It gets hard to work-with, yes? 

I say scale-up the tree until its much much bigger than your scene, then slide your model of Paris into a wormhole in the tree bark.    (I'm just having some fun, P8.  I really have no idea how/why you think-up these things.)  

Regarding scene scaling, some folks might ask... "To what end?"  As mentioned above, if your scale is too large, then many digits in your V3's.  If scale is too small, same thing.  But heck, let's test.  http://playground.babylonjs.com/#2MSQZ

Lines 92-95.  Node is the master parent of all (the surrounding box).  It is down-scaled to lice poop sized.  The numbers are many digits... and we are starting to see some minor rendering issues.  Still... we shrunk our Basic Elements scene... quite tiny.  More tiny than I expected to be possible.

Anyway, back to deciphering P8.  Anyone know where he's going with this?  I sure don't. 

[Pryme8]

we would have to come up with like a 5D location system and the numbers would have to reset each time you enter a "new dimension"
vec5(x,y,z,w,d);
So lets say we have and object at vec5(100,50,100,50,0); an object at vec5(100, 50, 100, 10, 1); and an object at vec5(100,50,100,80,-1);
They all have their own "size" and stuff blah blah, and according to their 3d position are all in the same place.

Ok now this is where it gets tricky so we are at dimension 0 so only the objects that are in that "realm" are being rendered with their scale being effected by their depth in the dimension value w.  as we pass through space and go inward or outward w approaches 0 or 100 once it reached one or the other the entire dimensions shifts and what is "valid" to the scene changes, there could also be leak over where effectively you could still see the step above you but it would be so large it would run off the camera clip, and you would have to make sure it renders under everything else that is active, and the step below should be so small that there is no reason to render it unless you are approaching its dimension, or would effectively be to small to even see until you have traveled through it some.

You would reset all of your positions back to an acceptable range when ever you go between d ranges and use the d range as a scale/value offset basically.

Like an Infinity symbol depending on which way your traveling its positive or negative, but it always loops back to 0 and 1


 

[Nabroski]

Hello 

i would experiment with camera.fov += 0.1 ... 

i can simulate such things, maybe, draw a kitchen go out of fov,

and draw the earth universe on an other layer with out fov, thats the way i would do it, but im also a noob in shaders.