Jide wrote:
> 
> It's propably better that way for speed. 

Probably not, rendering the isosurface will be much slower than the
heightfield.  

> I generated my height_field with
> function 1000, 1000
> and parse time was about 2 minutes IIRC (Athlon 1,4Ghz). 1000,1000 doesn't
> get you a lot of smooth water :)
> 

My animations used 256x256 and 512x512, generated with a separate program
that is faster than povray in this aspect (only a few seconds per frame)

The nice thing about an isosurface would only be that you don't need large
data files and it's possible to render arbitrarily sized water surfaces.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message