I would agree with Hugo.

Of the three, I liked #2 best.

I don't have a problem with the curvature of the grass in #'s 1 and 3, but I would
expect that larger regions of the field would have a more similar direction of the
curvature.

I'm not sure I'm being clear.  Maybe this is better:

A large region (like a few square meters) should have most of the grass bending the
same general direction.  A neighboring region could have most of the grass bending a
different direction, with a gradual shift in direction between the different regions.

Keep some randomness, of course, but less (or maybe a wider) turbulence.

The grass could even be laying down flat (from wind or rain) but it would mostly be
lying in the same general direction.



On a completely different note:

I thought that your technique was basically just "coloring" the ground to make it
look like grass.  But then I saw on the horizon of the nearby knoll (on the left)
that the grass appears to rise above the surface.  I'm just itching to have a look at
your technique.


--
Thomas Bates

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message news:3ca5cdd0$1@news.povray.org...
> Nr 2 is best.. Less waves and more stiff.. Both textures are best at a
> distance - not surprising - but really good, at a distance! The straight
> ones are *not* too straight IMO.. Besides I wonder if not most blades should
> wave almost in the same direction - either due to wind or the sun, that
> attracts them.
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message