|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <3B18CE85.88574B1C@exmail.de>,
Robert Gunther <rgu### [at] exmail de> wrote:
> Is it better using isosurfaces?
Isosurfaces don't have the resolution problems of height fields, and are
far more flexible, but can be a lot slower. One problem with height
fields is that you are limited to upward-facing surfaces, vertical or
very steep surfaces usually show artifacts, and you can forget about
overhanging parts of the terrain...no caves, unless you do some fancy
work with multiple height fields.
You weren't specific about your problems with the terrain...is it
texturing, the shape of the land, triangle artifacts...
--
Christopher James Huff - chr### [at] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tag povray org, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |