|
 |
On 5-6-2016 22:40, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>
>> Good work!
>
> Thanks - though it was just a quick mock-up.
>
>> Maybe the USGS data are a bit too /global/ for this scale?
>
> Why yes, as I found out.
> The only data set I can find of that area is a 1 sec arc that covers something
> like 69 miles square.
> Once I figured out just HOW BIG the map was, corrected the scale, oriented
> myself, found my way through it, and zoomed WAY WAY in to where I actually
> wanted to be.... :O
> I had to convert the original color png to a 16-color, and that brought out all
> the elevation data, but at that resolution, it looks like Hell.
Yes, those are huge. It has been more than 15 years ago when I last
played with USGS data (I must have a couple of CD-ROMs with DEM data
gathering dust somewhere) and they are great for overviews but not
detailed enough for close up. We always want better of course ;-)
>
>> A bit of extra roughness added to the png should do the trick.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Any recommendations for data sources, fixing up what I've got?
> "extra roughness"?
I think I miscalculated here :-) Now I seem to remember that the png are
processed elevation data, not something you can modify out of hand. Just
a thought: use the png inside a function with some randomisation?
However, I am afraid that would totally change the resulting landscape.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
