On 2017-08-05 06:15 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Answer: Too much fog! ;-) I spent hours trying to get a combination of regular
> and groud fog that looked reasonably correct-- but it's still not right. (I may
> do away with it altogether; some New York City aerial photos I've seen are
> crystal clear, all the way to the horizon!)

Probably because they chose the photo shoot date very carefully.  I have 
never seen a clear horizon when I've visited in NYC; usually, I could 
not see more than 10 miles (15 km) or so.

>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> You could also try to group buildings in blocks, alley-distance apart, with
>> blocks separated more widely. Maybe vary the height distribution using a
>> large-scale pigment to select the maxima - you tend to get clusters of tall
>> buildings in many cities.
>>
> I hadn't thought of that-- and you're absolutely right. For example, Manhattan
> definitely has various-size cluters, mainly because of the depth of bedrock in
> various parts of the city. Some areas just can't sustain the heavier loads, even
> with pilings. That's a detail for my own city that I completely neglected-- and
> it would add to the realism. Thanks!

IIRC, the NYC code requires its skyscrapers to have some kind of recess 
or step architecture to minimize the wind effects at ground level.  This 
limits how close the actual towers can be to each other.

Post a reply to this message