POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : Procedural realistic mountain ranges? : Re: Procedural realistic mountain ranges? Server Time
3 May 2024 10:04:21 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Procedural realistic mountain ranges?  
From: Thomas de Groot
Date: 29 Dec 2017 07:17:29
Message: <5a463259$1@news.povray.org>
On 29-12-2017 9:42, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> 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?
> 

I don't know about eval_pigment. Somebody else might be more knowledgeable.

I tend to disagree with you about those height_fields. A planetary 
height_field used for a 'pedestrian' view will show horrible jaggies 
imho. Or you will need insane resolution values if you are using functions.

-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

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