[zeen]

The reason you don't see realistic models very often is because objects we use as for reference (planets) are too tiny compared to the space between them. Earth would be nothing more than a speck of dust in a football sized model.

That said, here's a model with proper proportions of distance: http://www.solarsystemscope.com/ - Flash required, click anywhere, click on the gear icon to the left to select realistic size and model. Zoom slider is to the right. Note, the sizes and colors are wrong, most planets would be pretty much invisible in a realistic model.

Here's a neat non-interactive one from NASA: http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/

[itry]

I dont understand the flash one.

The nasa one gives me this: http://i.imgur.com/E6JW3Ks.jpg

Too bad they show all those stars in the background. So its a bit hard to say what is what. But it looks like the sun and the planets are quite visible. But are the proportions really correct? It looks like the sun is not much bigger then the plantes.

[glitch]

Well, there are two issues here.

(1) Correct proportions of the distances between objects (namely the planets, planetoids, and the Sun), and (2) the correct proportions of the objects themselves.

The links (A) http://www.solarsystemscope.com/ and (B) http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/ show correct proportionality in DISTANCES BETWEEN OBJECTS but NOT the objects themselves.

For correct proportionality for both the distances and the objects themselves, see http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.h...

The problem with http://codepen.io/juliangarnier/pen/idhuG is that both the distances between objects and the objects themselves are not proportionally correct.

[disputin]

I find that flash one fantastic, with the stars. I'll be returning to it often.