Warp wrote:
>   Note, however, that there's evidence that heightfields don't always
> render correctly (perhaps precisely because of bugs in this optimized
> code). "Smooth" heightfields are not always so "smooth", even though
> equivalent smooth meshes are.

  Actually this isn't necessarily true. Height_field uses a rather
different algorithm for calculating normal vectors than a mesh. In
some cases this produces *better* smoothing than an equivalent mesh
gives. However, in some cases it doesn't seem to work perfectly.
I just tested this.

  In the attached image the upper heightfields are made with the
height_field primitive, and the lower heighfields are meshes created
with the HF_Square macro.
  The non-smooth versions are obviously identical. The smooth versions
have a considerable difference, the height_field being better.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'hftest.jpg' (64 KB)

Preview of image 'hftest.jpg'