Ah, so I missed the basic premise of that post, but got the gist of it from what you were posting. Interesting.
I recently visited "actual stellar sizes" in a website I created that I began work on years ago, just never finished. A good friend of mine who is a teacher was discussing it, so I decided to finish it. I ended up creating graphics that were specific sizes in pixels, and rendering all the planets to correct sizes, with only a modest percentage of error. It was an eye-opening experience. Then I decided to render actual distances in a web browser .... boy, going from left to right in a web browser to view Pluto's actual distance was a pain in the proverbial bottom.
http://www.cshawnsmith.com/stellar_comparison_chart/index.htmlI was originally inspired by this website:
http://www.merzo.net/, which compared fictional and real-world ships to their actual dimensions. Eventually, I'm going to add the galaxy as a whole, along with the more common stars and known planetary systems using Hipparcos catalogues and the most recent Kepler mission studies. But this is a very long-term project that doesn't have much impact one what I'm doing currently, except as a mind thought for a couple of projects you know about.
My biggest gripe about relative sizes in fiction was when I watched an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, when they encountered the Dyson Sphere. They did a modestly good job on depicting the size of it (it was ALMOST flat, even from orbit), but they screwed everything up when they went inside and showed the Enterprise orbiting a star that was only about three times the size of the ship. I understand the need for simplicity, but come on, they could have made that sfx shot a LOT more realistic.
I just hope one day I can fly toward the sun in Outerra, and have it literally white out my monitor, blow up a few chips on my motherboard, and make me curse for not waiting for technology to help me get closer
Hehhehe
(*edit* Fixed broken link)