Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Looked really neat, just seemed a lot more low area fill-in going on than
> there was high-point sloughing resulting in a overall rise of the terrain.
> But far as how it goes about it looked good top me.  Maybe if it were
> somehow excavated away in the lowest parts it might be better, as if it's
> carried away, rather than stuck in the one region like a bowl formation
> does.  But I'm just expressing unknowledgeable opinion.
> 
> Bob

I'm not sure whether i understood everything you wrote, but right now, the
overall height is always scaled to fit the whole range after each calculation.  

As i already said it does not simulate physical processes, even though, you are
probably right, that there are some problems with nearly flat areas like the
bottom of basins.  But i think it gets along with local minima much better than
John Beale's Water Erosion, even though you probably cannot compare it. 

BTW, the in the avi, there is an additional high peak on the left not visible in
the camera, which affects the overall height of the terrain.  

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message