The moon surfaces seem better, did that change? Btw, it may have been of
importance to use two different luminosities for them, would be trickier
but a darker or brighter small moon would have set it off against the
larger well I think.
I think your terrain is outdoing Bryce here, as well it should be :)
The air is pretty thick but helps greatly with the feel of distance.
Otherwise it always appears that a heightfield, etc., is just a relief map
on a table top without good depth cues. Any foreground objects would do
that fine as well. In fact, I can almost make myself believe the mountains
are beach dirt, or some such, heaped up nicely and amounting to no more
than head high. But that would be if no atmosphere showed. If anyones ever
seen enough satellite photos of planets and other distance oriented photos
you know how you can lose perspective easily due to a lack of foreground
objects as well. Or a lack of recognizeable terrain you can mentally scale
down, or is that back up? Which ever...


"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
>         This is the final render of the planet scene, unless, of course another
> idea stikes me. I only added another hf, gave the hfs some textural
> variance, and changed the moons' positions a bit.
>         Comments, critisms and any ideas are always welcome.
> 
> Samuel
> 
> STB### [at] aolcom
> 
>  [Image]

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message