Our brains aren't designed to comprehend what an object the size of a planet looks like when moving at large fraction of the speed of light ! We just interpret that as a relatively small object (beachball sized) relatively close (arms length) moving relatively slowly (walking speed). Notice how, when you drop out of SC the planet suddenly seems huge again.
There's no way you could make a planet 'look' 3D and big when your'e moving at those kind of speeds.
It doesn't help that nature is very fractal (self-similar, infinitely deep and repeating) - you can't tell how close something is because the surface features look the same at all levels of zoom. Craters come in all sizes, and they all look mostly the same as each other, the multi-kilometre ones look like the centimetre ones. You could totally take a photo of a pebble and fool someone it's an city sized asteroid. That's effectively what movie SFX do all the time.
I completely agree and found your post a great read! But your middle paragraph indicates you missed the point of my thread. In fact, I just disagree with it. In order to make these things "look 3D" they have to be completely at infinite depth. Our brain registers this as a) being completely 2D and b) separating our pupils to look along parallel lines. So what I'm asking is, is this what's happening? Are these objects truly at "infinite depth" because it's hard to tell.
It's like when you go to a 3D movie. It is never produced at full depth. The "distant vistas" of the movie will always be close so you don't have to separate your eyes too much to see them. This is because they don't want to give most people who are not used to 3D headaches. But the thing is, when you watch the movie, even an experienced 3D user is pretty much convinced that they are at infinite depth. Taking off the glasses and seeing the 2 overlapping images confirms they are not (they are too close together - they should be separated the difference if your IPD). So I'm just wondering if that's what's happening here, and I can't just "take off the glasses" and check because they aren't overlapping images that can be measured.
So I'm having to rely on my brain and as you've pointed out very well in your post, "our brains aren't designed to comprehend" this well, and can be easily fooled by the motion that they are too small. They feel too small to me, even when standing still. But only
just too small so I'm not sure if it's truth or just my brain falling for the tricks you've mentioned
