I think there are such combinations on earth to support a similar
vegetation, but it doesn't seem to be a good approximation to many viewers
expectations.
And this is what is important for me. Thank you for your arguments, thea are
really helpful.


Norbert Kern


"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4106b464$1@news.povray.org...
> William Pokorny wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> > overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much
older,
> > dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> > cover we see and the fallen trees.
> >
> Really?  You believe that there is no possible combination of natural
> factors which affect top cover could ever possibly result in a localized
> stand such as this?  Soil makeup, mudslides, underground streams,
> windstorms, rainfall, flood, climate, season, light exposure, fire,
> pest, disease, plant interaction,...maybe because I am no naturalist,
> nature seems to allow more possibilities than I can usually account for.
>   I agree that with that much apparent light exposure it would likely
> not be so completely bereft of scrub or variety in tree size anywhere in
> the camera's view.  But while the relative openess and reduced range of
> species seems unusual to me, it does not seem impossible.

Post a reply to this message