> The landscape detail in image one is not apparent in the latest image.
> Perhaps increasing the contrast would bring out more of the detail. Also, I
> liked the clouds in image one.
>

Well, in the latest image, the overall detail of the heightfield is lowered
(instead of using 400x400 pixels, it uses 40x40), thus there is not
much to be seen of the slope-maps. What about the colors, I thought
you meant them?
And, the latest image is just a rough compostion, the clouds use lots of
tracing time (50 discs..., all throwing shadows... refraction...reflection....)

>
> The water looks a just a little artificial to me as well. Are you using
> light-fading?
>

Which water? The "real" ocean, or the tiny one? On the real one, I don't
use light-fading, and there is also no specular or phong highlighting in use,
but only exponential and variable reflection.
The tiny ocean is lit by a fading lightsource, but perhaps the color isn't
fitting?

>
> Of course all of this is just my opinion.
>

I hope so, that's what I asked for! ;)


--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message