The maker of this panorama cleverly edited the image to show a false horizon where the mountain would actually be. It looks good, but gives the misleading impression that the rover is surrounded by a band of low hills, when the truth is rather different.
Here's a picture of mount Sharp, taken from a different camera than did the panorama:
If you look at the foreground terrain, you'll see that it matches the WSW terrain of the OP. There should be a gobsmackingly big mountain there!
Thanks for the comment, but I really did not have source materials to recreate this mountain
 And yes, I'm well aware that in the litany of First World Problems, "Whaaaa, NASA landed a giant rover on Mars but didn't take exactly the photo I wanted" has got to be pretty high on the list...
This is what we might call a "Fourth-World Problem." :)
and thank you for comments!
It's very frustrating. It's as if NASA/JPL either don't know or don't care where their funding comes from, or how to get the stereotypical "man on the street" interested in what they're doing.
Hey, dumbasses: just before you launch something like this, put the best $1000 digital camera currently being manufactured on it. If the camera doesn't survive because it's not rated for use on Mars or whatever, fine. If it does, then that $1000 is going to pay for itself a million times over in firing up the public's imagination and garnering subsequent political support.
You know what? I'll bet James Cameron would help you out for free.
This stuff matters, whether NASA likes it or not.
And people say the future isn't what it was made out to be.
Where is my flying car? Where is my robot personal assistant? Where is my food replicator? Where is my day trip to the moon? Where is my space colony on Mars?
Just sayin'. :P
Makes you wonder what 50 years hence things will be like, given that the microtrends to which we pay so much attention will likely not continue.
To the creator I say, "Well done!"
Apparently 360Cities uses krpano, a HTML5 panorama viewer on iOS devices. I tried a gyroscope example from the krpano page on my GNex but it was rather buggy (jumpy and unreliable panning, only parts of the panorama visible at a time).
It seems that the fragmentation of Android devices/browsers has proven problematic for the 360cities developers. Since the krpano viewer might only work on a fraction of Android devices I can understand dropping the support for interactive viewing completely.
On another note, I would love to hear the sound of whatever Martian breeze is blowing while Curiosity's wheels crunch over the gravel.
Here the picture is really small and the ads block a large percentage of it.
edit: That said, NASA doesn't do a very good job with photos itself either: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/gallery-ind...
edit2: Ah, nevermind, it was a flash problem! The content is certainly valuable!
The mountain looks small mainly due to camera distortion (but it could also be incorrectly stretched image). But it's not a small mountain -- that's a big one. It is an optical effect caused by the panorama stretching. Zoom in the mountain, and it's exactly identical to the photograph by NASA.
Look at the details; they match exactly the mountain that's already in the panorama. (the little-looking 'hill' in the direction rover of the shadow, and slightly to the right, is actually Mt Sharp)
Mount sharp just looks small in the panorama, due to optical effect. But zoom in using the mousewheel, and you'll see the surface features match Mount Sharp, even though it's a little smeared (low-resolution). Let's wait for higher-def transmissions, it's still a slow dial-up-style link over 500 million miles...
Scroll down, end of page.
I found it much easier to use navigation keys instead of click+drag (which web page suggests).
What an amazing time we live in!
The axial tilt is different. It is basically how far the axis through the poles of a planet is tilted compared to the plane of its orbit. This is what you were thinking of initially - it can very a lot.
Not the kind of budget cut that means "you get less of an increase than you'd planned", but "You get less money next year than you got this year" kind of cuts.
Can we please, pretty please with sugar on top, finally let Flash die? I've seen panoramic image viewers that didn't rely on Flash, they were brilliant. HTML5 video works a whole lot better than Flash, etc. In 2012, there's no need for the bug-ridden mess we call Flash anymore.
Other than that, not bad :D