so, after some experiments with raytracing, i’ve finished my telescope.
it consists of one primary main mirror, one secondary mirror in the center, one front lense and three eyepiece lenses.
the telescope on an equatorial mount (just for fun, not necessary)
a view trough the eyepiece
no changes at the cam, just turned it towards the observation object (to compare the size / to get the magnification)
http://vulture.g3th.net/files/teleskop4.blend
and the .blend-file (yes, there’s no better way than take a look yourself )
do not move the cam, it’s only adjusted for that position, but you can change the cam angle.
and you are free to optimize it, it was only a raytracing test, i did not spend much time in the fine-adjustment. the weavy effect is caused by the shape of the optical components, because the aren’t really round (nearly, but not enough… :-? )
Let me get this straight… are you saying you ‘built’ a working telescope in Blender by modelling and arranging lenses?? I didn’t think that would be possible. :o
i didn’t think that either, but it works, you see but without depth of field, scopes like schmidt-cassegrains or maksutovs (with a second mirror in the front) dont work and the sec. mirror must be very small… if someone gets a solution, post it
Let me get this straight… are you saying you ‘built’ a working telescope in Blender by modelling and arranging lenses??
great. /me digging up my binas (book with all kind of science data for use at school) and my physics book. i see if i can find calculations to calculate lensvalues. expect some formulas.
edit: i found IOR values of some matter including glass, diamond, water and ice. im still searching for a formula.
)
but without depth of field, scopes like schmidt-cassegrains or maksutovs (with a second mirror in the front) dont work and the sec. mirror must be very small… if someone gets a solution, post it 