news:3D5561E0.F372B6EA@tiscalinet.de...
> High!
>
> Marc-Hendrik Bremer schrieb:
>
> > This seems to be the known bug with smooth heightfields. Try
> > "double_illuminate" with the Hf, this should remove the black spots.
>
> This worked perfectly, but there is still something unfixed - in the
foreground
> of the attached image, the light grey surface of the dry river bed looks
> perforated!

I noticed that, too. *Maybee* try to shift your look_at point just al little
bit, if look_at and the position of the camera are in a strait line, there
are some odd artefacts IIRC.

> The scale is 1 unit = 1 metre; the large purplish hill (left on the
attached
> image) for example rises about 350 metres above the surrounding plains
(and
> 1,430 metres above sea level).
>

Oh, okay.


> Before finishing for today, one last practical question: how do I get the
> typical irregular structure of adobe walls? Of course I could use some
turbulent
>
> normal (which pattern?), but I unfortunately suffer from the ambition to
do
> everything as accurate as possible, so you might suggest using an
isosurface...

Hm, I don't know for sure, what an adobe wall looks like (my dictionary
translates adobe with "Luftziegel"). Perhaps have al look at the
Irregular_Bricks_Ptrn in textures.inc. It's probably a good idea to choose
the used object (and method - normal or isosurf) by calculating the distance
to the camera. The mentiones pattern f.e. will work quite well as normal or
as function in an isosurface, that makes it easy to switch between both
methods.

If the walls are roughcasted the granite pattern will do quite a good job
IMHO.

> Yadgar, crying out for an Athlon 1800+ with at least 2 gigs of RAM...
;-)))

I got an Athlon 1800+ recently (much less RAM though) and I can tell you,
that scenes still tend to render slowly.

CU,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message