|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> I don't think POV should be that limited, it might be some other
> problem...but you might get around it by using several meshes.
A 300x300 point mesh worked, but looked pretty rough--not enough points
(I'm rendering a 20K x 10K pixel image, so it's very very high res and I
need a lot of detail in the terrain map)
I just tried a 1000 x 1000 point mesh, which I think might be enough
points, but POV choked. (internal error) An 800x800 mesh also choked.
It claimed to generate an error log, but I couldn't find it.
Multiple meshes might be a workaround, but I would be concerned about
getting them to line up without gaps.
> the macros, you don't have to have the mesh resolution the same as the
> image...because it uses a function, you could just use a lower
> resolution for the macro and let the image_map interpolation take care
> of things.
sure. My image map is 5K x 5K pixels (actually, I've got versions from
500x500 to 10K x 10K). I'm not trying to make THAT many mesh points--
that would kill anything :) I guess that's one of the advantages of a
height field--high res...if it's smoothing would work at that zoom
level.
But even a 1000 x 1000 point mesh would probably be good enough. But
that seems to kill POV--I don't think it's memory--the task manager
reports plenty still free and usage still under 300MB. But something
inside POV dies.
> If you need a higher resolution for a specific area, you
> could generate a smaller, higher resolution height field for that area.
no, I pretty much need that much detail across the whole thing,
unfortunately. I'm pushing things to the breaking point, it seems.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |