Hi(gh)!

Am 27.12.2017 um 21:52 schrieb Leroy:

> As a last resort:
> I have 3 programs at my site that helps make height fields and place objects on
> them. They where All wrote for my old Win98, but they run on my new WinXP.
> The first program lets you use contour lines to make a height field image in
> tga(8bit) or ppm(16bit). The next one lets you rough up images made by the
> first.
> The last one Lets you place things on a height field made by using the Image
> from the first two.
> I'm here at https://leroyspovstuff.yolasite.com/

Not really useful, at least not in its current development stage - no 
zoom view and therefore no chance to exactly place the cursor. Perhaps 
it is because I used Windows 7 rather than XP, I don't know...

The fine editor (the second program) is not even downloadable at all!

Nevertheless, thanks for your tip!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.12.2017 um 13:08 schrieb Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Resuming my "Whatmough" planet project from 2011, I would like to know 
> if is possible to create realistic mountain ranges (on a continental 
> scale) with believable drainage patterns using procedural functions. I 
> tried ridged_mf(), but got nothing even remotely resembling this.
> 
> Another (but very time-consuming) approach would be "painting" 
> topography manually, using 16-bit grayscale PNG heightfields. Are there 
> any heightfield editors for this bit depth around?

I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional (32-bit), 
Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, so that software 
exclusively written for Windows 8 or newer unfortunately would be of no 
use to me.

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 28.12.2017 um 08:55 schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> A long time dream indeed. Third party programs approach that dream; 
> alas, the better ones are not free.
> 
> I own GeoControl, which has been succeeded by World Creator from the 
> same makers. As far as I know, it is one of the best programs for a 
> reasonable price. http://www.bitethebytes.net/bitethebytes/

Does World Creator export to 16-bit PNG as used with POV-Ray? As I need 
to build VERY large heightfields (to be wrapped around spheres as meshes 
afterwards), I would need the Professional Edition - which at 289$, at 
least for the moment, is out of reach for me.

> 
> L3DT is another one - which I never tried - but with a free version. 
> http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT/downloads/standard.php

Sounds very promising, but again only with the Professional version - 
which, on the other hand, at 34.95$ for the "Indie" license is 
affordable to me. But I never ordered anything from the US - there maybe 
a couple of pitfalls... I remember having ordered two organ player's 
textbooks from Switzerland (a non-euro country), which were priced at 5 
SFR each one (about 7 euros back then), but including shipping and 
exchange fees, it ended up at a whopping 22 euros...

> 
> And then there are:
> http://planetgenesis.sourceforge.net/ (free)

I will give it a try... just downloaded it! The planet on the web page 
did not look very realistic (when it comes to height distribution)... 
but at least it exports explicitly to POV-Ray and uses 16-bit PNG 
grayscale images!

> http://www.daylongraphics.com/ (not free)

Also not too expensive... and it works with POV-Ray!

> http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm (free)

Perhaps also worth a try...

> http://planetside.co.uk/ (free)

Terragen! An old friend, which I used already back in 1999 and which in 
fact was the basis for my very first animations!

And the version 4 looks almost like a system usable for Khyberspace on 
its own... at least with its commercial sub-versions, which of course 
are exceptionally high-priced but probably worth it all!

But even the free version is VERY promising! I just downloaded it...

> http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html (free)

Amazing! Almost perfect... or purrfect, as an ailurophile like me would 
put it! I've not only downloaded it, I already started to play around 
with it! However, the POV-Ray 16-bit TGA export turned out to be faulty, 
but that's no big issue, as it also exports to 16-bit PNG!

> http://www.world-machine.com/index.php (not free)

I did not try this yet, as I probably will be occupied with Wilbur for 
the next weeks!

Thank you very, very much, Thomas!

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

On 12/28/2017 06:10 AM, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:

> I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional (32-bit), 
> Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, 

I wondered if there were povers still using 32 bits.

--
dik

Post a reply to this message

On 28-12-2017 14:23, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
> 
> Am 28.12.2017 um 08:55 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> 
>> A long time dream indeed. Third party programs approach that dream; 
>> alas, the better ones are not free.
>>
>> I own GeoControl, which has been succeeded by World Creator from the 
>> same makers. As far as I know, it is one of the best programs for a 
>> reasonable price. http://www.bitethebytes.net/bitethebytes/
> 
> Does World Creator export to 16-bit PNG as used with POV-Ray? As I need 
> to build VERY large heightfields (to be wrapped around spheres as meshes 
> afterwards), I would need the Professional Edition - which at 289$, at 
> least for the moment, is out of reach for me.

I do not own World Creator, so I cannot answer that question. GeoControl 
(the ancient version that I have) does not but has a well-behaved tga 
export.

> 
>>
>> L3DT is another one - which I never tried - but with a free version. 
>> http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT/downloads/standard.php
> 
> Sounds very promising, but again only with the Professional version - 
> which, on the other hand, at 34.95$ for the "Indie" license is 
> affordable to me. But I never ordered anything from the US - there maybe 
> a couple of pitfalls... I remember having ordered two organ player's 
> textbooks from Switzerland (a non-euro country), which were priced at 5 
> SFR each one (about 7 euros back then), but including shipping and 
> exchange fees, it ended up at a whopping 22 euros...

With a credit card or similar that should not be a problem, otherwise...

> 
>>
>> And then there are:
>> http://planetgenesis.sourceforge.net/ (free)
> 
> I will give it a try... just downloaded it! The planet on the web page 
> did not look very realistic (when it comes to height distribution)... 
> but at least it exports explicitly to POV-Ray and uses 16-bit PNG 
> grayscale images!
> 
>> http://www.daylongraphics.com/ (not free)
> 
> Also not too expensive... and it works with POV-Ray!
> 
>> http://www.cyberfunks.de/page/terrabrush/index.htm (free)
> 
> Perhaps also worth a try...
> 
>> http://planetside.co.uk/ (free)
> 
> Terragen! An old friend, which I used already back in 1999 and which in 
> fact was the basis for my very first animations!
> 
> And the version 4 looks almost like a system usable for Khyberspace on 
> its own... at least with its commercial sub-versions, which of course 
> are exceptionally high-priced but probably worth it all!
> 
> But even the free version is VERY promising! I just downloaded it...
> 
>> http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html (free)
> 
> Amazing! Almost perfect... or purrfect, as an ailurophile like me would 
> put it! I've not only downloaded it, I already started to play around 
> with it! However, the POV-Ray 16-bit TGA export turned out to be faulty, 
> but that's no big issue, as it also exports to 16-bit PNG!
> 
>> http://www.world-machine.com/index.php (not free)
> 
> I did not try this yet, as I probably will be occupied with Wilbur for 
> the next weeks!
> 
> Thank you very, very much, Thomas!

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.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

Am 29.12.2017 um 00:54 schrieb dick balaska:
> On 12/28/2017 06:10 AM, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> 
>> I forgot to mention that I use either Windows XP Professional 
>> (32-bit), Windows 7 64-bit Professional or Debian Linux 8.9, 
> 
> I wondered if there were povers still using 32 bits.

Windows XP only on my slow ancient 512 MiB laptop...

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Am 29.12.2017 um 09:42 schrieb Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann:

> Which leads me to the next question: Does POV-Ray's
> eval_pigment() also handle 16-bit grayscale pngs correctly?

Absolutely. Everything you can use in a pigment, eval_pigment() will
handle correctly - for technically feasible definitions of "correctly".

Beware however the gamma monster. When using images as terrain elevation
maps, you'll typically want linear values. Ideally, the generating
software should use linear encoding and set the `gAMA` chunk
accordingly, but not all software is that well-behaved. To be on the
safe side, specify "gamma 1" in the image map. (Unless the generating
software uses non-linear encoding.)

(When using images in genuine height fields or bump maps, "gamma 1" is
the default. But for eval_pigment() you'll need to load the image as a
pigment first, in which case POV-Ray defaults to whatever gamma is
indicated in the PNG file, or sRGB if the file doesn't contain gamma
information.)

Post a reply to this message

On 29/12/2017 08:42, 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 agree with Thomas. The difference in scales between domestic and 
geographical is too great for the resolution of heightfields.
But the link below might help. It is Gilles Tran's Spherical height field.

http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=24


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message