I've been taking a closer look at what the height field is, from a laymans
point of view anyhow. Please see the post "What is it?" in the p.t.s-f.
group for a little investigative pov script.


Ken wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message