Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Really cold --- er, cool --- Pardon the pun.

When seeing it render, i thought it looks warmer than the old one (ice seems to
melt on this one, doesn't it ?)

> It's just occured to me that there aren't any overhangs in the ice at all.
> I thought it was also isosurface like the land, so any chance of getting it
> to undercut in places using some form of the iso?

Both mountain and ice are heightfields, so there can't be any overhangs.  I will
probably try some single floes in the foreground using isosurfaces sometime.  

> I think the greenish tinge compliments it well.  A couple of the near-left
> chunks of ice seems to show the underwater part more than the others.  And
> then there's that very different one nearly submerged...  not sure what to
> think of that but I like it.  Can only dissect at this, it's a great scene.
> 

Thanks.

I use a bozo pattern to the higher parts of the ice heightfield, it's probably a
bit to strong.  

The one floe in the middle *is* submerged, except a small part on the near
side.  It would be probably better partly under water like the two ones on the
far left.  

The difference in the underwater parts is probably cause by the light coming
from the right.  

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message