Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> You're right on the mark with that comment Greg.  The circumventing of a
> need for smooth height fields to do this sort of thing may make the HF
> obsolete, dare I say.  The one drawback is the need to get a fine enough
> 'accuracy' apparently, among other things I might not know about, which can
> slow things up.  The 'eval' and 'method 2' are superb additions.
> Oh, yeah.  Yes, just the isosurface with ridged multifractal function and a
> water plane, some ground fog, sky_sphere too.  A little detailed info:  24
> by 24 unit square isosurface used with the camera traveling about 3 units at
> a height of 0.41*y average above the water level.
> 
> Bob

Even though your scene shows the strength of isosurface terrain very good i have
to disagree about heightfields becoming obsolete.  

IMO, their strength is where you apply many functions to the surface that would
take very long to render as an isosurface and most erosion functions would be
nearly impossible with isosurfaces, because they often use iterative algorithms.

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message