Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote:

> "Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3acc871f@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
>> wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than
> sufficient
>> for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

> Huh?  :-)  Oh!  You think the water is an isosurface!  Ha ha.  Well no, it
> is not.

Ah!  I assumed that they were on the same object.  Oops.

>> Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
>> water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd
> want
>> rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
>> these features in this instance.

> The blurring is taking place of mere normals or displacement (isosurface?).
> Figured I'd give it a try for effect.  I have to change the amounts the
> three water textures have I can tell because it doesn't have smooth and
> rough areas like it had before.

Ah, ok, experimenting.  Hmm.  Not sure what to suggest.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message