> 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