Google Earth Revives Ancient Rome

[Ludovicus]

I worked on this project doing topographical research and 3d modeling and texturing for almost a year and I'd like to address this issue. While it is true that the Plastico was originally developed as a propaganda piece, with the hills and monuments being about 20% higher than they are in the physical model than they were in reality, the digital terrain is based on scientific data and the buildings were calibrated to the digital terrain. The Plastico rarely represents insulae that were greater than 4 stories tall, but we know that many were as tall as 6 or 8 floors. In Rome Reborn 2.0, all of the insulae were procedurally created and are typically more accurate than the ones depicted on the Plastico. Keep in mind that Gismondi continued to work on his model through the early 1970's, much after the end of Fascism.

 

That's good to hear, thanks much for the heads-up.

I really will take a good look at it as soon as I can find the time.

 

Do you know by any chance what the relation between domus and insula is or (even better) their numbers as included in the project?

I would be very interested to know what data were used to determine it. This is another thing lacking in the plastico, too many palaces, not enough 'common' homes.

 

Yes, I noticed the same thing. Where are all the mud brick insulae? "Archaeology Today," a decade ago, had an interesting article or two on housing patterns in Rome. Rich domus could be found next to crowded housing for the poor. Super high density, it was. That's why the imperial fora were so attractive with their large open spaces.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Ludovicus

[Komet]

That's a good question about the domestic structures. The Regionary catalogs contain a listing of the the important monumental features of each of the 14 Augustan regions of the city. Unfortunately it is impossible to know the precise number of houses or insulae in each region because no one really knows what the definition of an insulae is. The word means different things in different contexts. Sometimes insulae refers to a block; sometimes a building of apartments; sometimes an individual apartment. It's impossible to put a precise figure of domestic structures into each region, so a lot of the "filler" architecture is conjectural. The Google Earth model of Rome does not contain accurately modeled brick insulae because it is technically impossible.

 

They're in Rome Reborn 2.0.

 

 

http://www.romereborn.virginia.edu/gallery.php

[cornelius_sulla]

"Google has added a new twist to its popular 3D map tool, Google Earth, offering millions of users the chance to visit a virtual ancient Rome."

 

Google Earth Revives Ancient Rome

 

Wicked bro!

[Maladict]

-snip-

 

Impressive work, though because of atrociously slow loading I've only been able to see the terrain and monuments layers.

I get the impression that the selection of monuments was made to limit the more conjectural buildings, although a few seem to have slipped through.

Also, some buildings have interiors while others haven't. Is there a rationale behind this?

Edited December 2, 2008 by Maladict

[Komet]

-snip-

 

Impressive work, though because of atrociously slow loading I've only been able to see the terrain and monuments layers.

I get the impression that the selection of monuments was made to limit the more conjectural buildings, although a few seem to have slipped through.

Also, some buildings have interiors while others haven't. Is there a rationale behind this?

 

Yes and no. The model wasn't created all at one time by one institution. It started out a decade ago as the brainchild of Bernie Frischer and Diane Favro while Bernie was still with the UCLA Cultural VR Lab before he moved to his current position of director of the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at UVA, taking the project with him. The original project included much of the Forum Romanum, some of the buildings had interiors. I guess that was probably based on funding, level of knowledge of what the interiors were like, and time. Eventually, other monuments were added by various institutions. UCLA added the Colosseum and I think the Basilica of Maxentius. The basilica is only a few years old, I think, (it predates my work on the project), and may have been completed by UCLA while IATH maintained the project. The basilica is a technically better model than a lot of the older, original stuff, and has a very well done interior. Much of the generic architecture you see, including the Palatine and most of the temples not in the forum, and practically all of the Campus Martius were derived from laser scans of the Plastico several years ago, but post-dating the original UCLA models. There is a much better quality version of the Circus Maximus in Rome Reborn 2.0. That was completed about a year ago by people at a university in Bordeaux, France. I believe there are also plans to license several high quality bath complexes from someone else, but I'm not certain. It has been about six months since I have worked with IATH, so I am out of the loop. One of their next big projects is a reconstruction of Hadrian's Villa, which I hope to work on.

 

Edited December 2, 2008 by Komet

[Ludovicus]

This seems more like what Rome must have been. I see the browns of the closely packed insulae. Komet, thanks so much sharing this image.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Ludovicus