> *gasp*  So you're saying this one plant is made using a 73 megabyte file?

Ups. Yes, that's what I said. But as mentioned it is overkill. The last pics
I posted used max. 16MB which included 25 wings. For this pic I used 33
wings and increased the detail. But I exaggregated it a bit. The front-sided
wings have a level of detail which is enough for a closeup shot. For this
pic I think approx. 25MB would have been enough without any (visible) loss
of detail.

However, since it is generated automatically it doesn't really matter. Just
to speed up parsing (assuming that you have enough memory)

> Yow!  Still, I like the crinkly leaves it has, plenty of detail.

Indeed I concentrated on the details since I want to use a closeup of it in
the final scene. This pic still doesn't show all possible details!
And I'm still not completely satisfied with it. There is still a bug in it I
haven't fixed yet and some ideas for the textures arewaiting to be
implemented. As well as a "super-high-detail" mode needs to be done (for the
mentioned closeup).
But for this pic it is enough .-)

> I agree with others opinions about the watering needed, it still looks
pale
> to me.  Texturing can be tough to do though so no one can blame you for
> that.

Obviously :-)
But I think it is getting closer. It needs to be a bit lighter, more similar
to "sunlight - shining - through". I'm working on it.

> Think you need to group leaves nearer as they get smaller, although I
> haven't checked against a real fern.

You are definitevely right and the macro takes care about this. The
difference is just 0.5cm which is obviously not enough. I'll increase that.
But as I saw on my fern in the living-room (the famous one) the difference
is not that big as I expected. Surprising.

THX for feedback,
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message