John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The only drawback I see is that the motion of nearby clumps of grass
> should vary less than it does.  The amount of motion at any point looks
> fairly good, but the distribution of the randomness is a bit tight.
>
> So the small-scale turbulence should be lower, and the large-scale
> turbulence should be higher.

Interesting, and something I didn't see. (I ran a bunch of tests, varying one
thing and another, and wasn't really happy with *any* of them, except the final
one I posted.) I'll take a more critical look at those aspects. There are
actually *three* things that could be altered for each of the two bumps 'wind
turbulences' I used, all of which interact (visually): the intensity,
the size of the bumps pattern, and its speed (relative to the other pattern, as
well as the absolute speeds of both.) From your comments, I take it that the
*intensities* of the two wind patterns could use some relative adjustment. I'll
give that a try.

My own basic understanding (opinion??) of such windy grass is that the higher
the wind speed, the more 'chaotic' it all becomes.  But that's just a guess; it
could be the opposite!

Ken

Post a reply to this message