Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> [...] but it's really
> not simple, and there's a lot of standard landscapes that I still have to
> see in hobbyst's 3D (like
> http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/c/claude/2/11paris.jpg).
> Perhaps I should only say that the current limitations in CG landscaping are
> much more important than for indoors scenes or "package-shot" scenes. I've
> seen a lot a photorealistic scenes of this latter kind but very few
> photorealistic landscapes (and again, I'm not saying that photorealism is a
> good criteria to judge an image).

I also think that most CG landscapes you see are often of lower quality
than indoor scenes, but i don't see much of a difference between hobbyist
and professional work.

To me it seems the key element is 'control' here.  Landscape elements,
both the terrain as well as vegetation, clouds and other things have such
a high complexity that creating them without significant algorithmic
elements is nearly impossible.  But the classical techniques of 3d
modelling (patches, metaballs, etc.) are totally human controlled and lack
these elements.  Purely computer generated structures without any
possibility for human influence on the other hand will also not be of much
use.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message