Jide wrote:

> That's wonderful! The upper part looks almost like a photo with the
> atmospheric fading. The bottom half isn't as convincing but I can't quite
> put my finger on it, perhaps it's just the lack of detail. I assume you'll
> be adding some clouds later on.

Great looking image! But if we really want realism...

Upper half: Atmospheric fading effect is good, but shadowed parts are 
too flat. This cries out for radiosity. Also, while the cliff edges look 
fantastic, the mountain tops are too pointy. Erosion (thermal mostly), 
keeps cliffs looking nice, but rounds off the tops of peaks. Look at 
structures in the Grand Canyon for example - the cliffs are sharp but 
the tops are rounded.

Bottom half: Grass is unconvincing. Because of the roughness of grass, 
we don't expect a grassy plane to show such crisp underlying terrain 
structures. Also, grass usually only grows in soil, which is more prone 
to erosion, hence smoother. This would look great if the heightfield was 
blurred in the grassy areas. The colour is also a bit iffy.

Great work!

-- Simon

Post a reply to this message