The technique certainly has potential. I seem to remember trying something
similar myself a while ago, though I don't think I ever got it looking that
good.

My suggestion would be change the texture on the trees. I'm not sure if it's a
symptom of the "fuzzy edge" technique, but the trees in the foreground really
look wrong. I'd suggest use a more opaque texture (though not totally) with a
high frequency normal to simulate dense foliage.

But, having said that, I don't really think it needs to look good close up, it
seems much better suited to showing sweeping hills covered in thousands of
trees.

Nice work.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com


"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Hello everyone. Here's an idea built from previous attempts (not all my
> own) at making plant and tree life using height fields. I'd like some
> feedback if possible (suggestions, tales of personal attempts, etc.).
>
> Two HFs are used in this image: one for the rocks and one for the trees.
> The trees use the same topology that was used for the rocks (minus a
> feature, plus a feature), with a special angle-dependent texture to
> give them fuzzy edges. Manipulation of surface normal accuracy was also
> needed for this purpose.
>
> There are many things to improve upon, such as making the trees more
> detailed and developing new tree types. I believe the technique has
> great potential. What do you think?
>
> -Sam Benge
>
> P.S. Oh yeah, it took very little time to render.... something like
> under four minutes if I'm remembering correctly.
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message