> That is more likely a difference in the way the function image type 
> works.  Since your heightfield is realtively low resulution such a 
> difference shows up more strongly than usual.  

I see. Still funny it's not mentioned in the "changes from 3.5 -> 3.6" 
list since it apparently isn't a mere bug fix or speed improvement.

> You could try using an 
> isosurface instead and see if it also leads to a difference - probably not.

Yep, I will try this, thanx. I hope it won't render significantly slower...?

	Torsten

Post a reply to this message