Just back from a presentation here at UCL by the visual effects guys from Framestore who did the CGI for Gravity. Pretty cool to get a behind-the-scenes look, so to speak. Gives you more appreciation of the film when you see how much effort is involved to put together just a single scene (lighting, texturing, reflections, animation, switching between live-action capture and rendering), and how it comes together to produce a convincing end result. To be fair, they have a lot more time per frame than Orbiter (apparently the most expensive single frame took 380 hours to render) and a lot more computing power than the average Orbiter user (15000 processors in continuous action).
I did ask them for their ISS model, but they didn't want to give it to me
Any pictures ?
Yes, but it still strikes me as saying my garden wall is a bit like that one they have in china.not much different to Orbiters current one
Well, the 3D modell would likely look not much different to Orbiters current one, just more triangles for some trivial rounded surfaces. After all, the number of people making the 3D-Modells is much more limited than the number of CPU cores.
What we do in a few thousand triangles, would then be a few million, plus extra triangles for special rendering effects, a different kind of shader calculation, etc...
According to the website, they put 100 million polygons into the model, foregoing displacement maps entirely in the final product. So, a couple of extra triangles here and there, I guess.
I'd say one thing that bugged me slightly was the scene where George Clooney lets go of Sandra Bullock and drifts off. What is pulling him away from her? If she just lightly pulled him, he would start moving in her direction and he would be saved.
I liked the explanation that it was because the ISS is in LVLH attitude. Ever try to do a spacewalk in LVLH attitude on Orbiter? Same basic idea, your orbitnaut usually drifts away from the vehicle you're spacewalking from pretty quickly.