On 24-4-2012 21:59, Alain wrote:
> The height field is set along the x-z plane while your image is initialy
> mapped on the x-y plane.
>
> You need to rotate 90*x so that it extend in the correct direction.
> After the rotation of the image, the hight_field sit in a box extending
> from <0,0,0> to <1,1,1> and the image in a tile from <0,0,0> to <1,0,1>
> extending infinitely along the y axis.

Yes, this is the thing to do when applying an image_map to a 
height_field. However...

>
> Also, it would be beter to apply it before you scale the hight_field.
> That way, the two will be affected at once, and will probably make the
> UV mapping un-needed.

The interesting question here is if uv_mapping is possible on 
height_fields. With the method described and (e.g.) a strong vertical 
scaling, the image_map gets distorted along the flanks of 
mountains/valleys. Am I correct to guess that this would not be the case 
when applying uv_mapping? However, adding uv_mapping results in banding. 
My tentative conclusion would be that uv_mapping is indeed not 
implemented for height_fields, as already shown by its absence in the 
documentation (par. 3.5.7.1 Supported Objects).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message