Bob wrote:
> 
> Original post is quoted below my reply here.
> 
> Heightfields can be made to have no pixelization appear unless the camera
> is right near the surface. I gather this is what you are doing though and
> of course you would always see the individual "squares" if the camera
> either zooms in or is real close no matter what the original resolution
> was. Seems a problem of proximity if anything. Basically what you describe
> you want to use is further refinement of the resolution or a enhanced
> tesselation, ie. more division of the pixels, or more correctly the
> vertexes. Since these would originally be flat squares I'm guessing the
> production of a HF creates triangles having these as vertex points
> instead; meaning a image used to make the HF, if black and white pixels in
> a checkerboard pattern, would become a HF of as many peaks and valleys as
> there are pixels. So it is feasible I would suppose to subdivide what
> exists in some sort of interpolation manner.
> 

 Personaly I believe some simple adjustments to the finish statement itself
would resolve this problem. If you have a high diffused value specified then
you will of course have some portion of the HF object somewhere sending light
back towards the camera. Back off on the the diffuse value and pick up the
difference with an ambient component. Phong and specular highlights will also
cause this problem to occur. I don't see a need for these with sand though
and if present should be eliminated.


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message