POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : Procedural realistic mountain ranges? : Re: Procedural realistic mountain ranges? Server Time
3 May 2024 01:24:56 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Procedural realistic mountain ranges?  
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Date: 29 Dec 2017 03:42:58
Message: <5a460012$1@news.povray.org>
Hi(gh)!

Am 29.12.2017 um 08:51 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> You are welcome Yadgar. Glad to be of help. I hope you will find what 
> you want. If there is something fundamental that I have learned since I 
> started modelling (with POV-Ray of course!) back in the nineties, it is 
> that for each scale you often need a different tool/procedure. It is 
> almost impossible to use the same output for a planetary view /and/ for 
> a landscape. Both need different approaches.

Not necessarily... at least when it comes down to heightfields. Of 
course, for an Earth-sized planet with a circumference of about 40,000 
kms, a decent looking heightfield without needing vertical exaggeration 
should be at least 400,000 by 200,000 pixels, the larger the better - 
but this full size is mostly not needed, as it is only worthwile at 
"pedestrian views" - and then you need only a tiny fraction of the whole 
planetary surface. Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's 
eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.