 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just managed to rewrite ingo's df3 erosion idea for heightfields (I hope i
understood it right, i'm not totally sure) and it works really good!
The following 3 pictures are my first try: the first one is the original, the
second one is after 6 runs and the third after 12 additional runs (each run
taking only 240 ms on a 128x128 HF)
There probably is some more work to do (for example the edges) but IMO, it looks
really promising.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'erode_a1.jpg' (12 KB)
Download 'erode_a2.jpg' (12 KB)
Download 'erode_a3.jpg' (12 KB)
Preview of image 'erode_a1.jpg'
Preview of image 'erode_a2.jpg'
Preview of image 'erode_a3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>I just managed to rewrite ingo's df3 erosion idea for heightfields (I
>hope i understood it right, i'm not totally sure) and it works really
>good!
Wheee, cool.
One remark, compare image one and three. Look for the highest mountain
peak on the right. Despite the erosion, they seem to have the same
absolute height.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote:
>
>
> Wheee, cool.
> One remark, compare image one and three. Look for the highest mountain
> peak on the right. Despite the erosion, they seem to have the same
> absolute height.
>
Sure it has, because i rescale to fit range after the calculation :-) (makes it
easier to program because you don't have to think about range checks).
I will probably also try it without rescaling soon...
BTW, i also tried it with higher resolution HFs and it often gets very grainy.
Changing the water/erosion amount helps a bit, but it's still a problem.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3982091D.28D64DE6@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de>,
chr### [at] gmxde wrote:
> I will probably also try it without rescaling soon...
Please do...it should look much more realistic.
> Changing the water/erosion amount helps a bit, but it's still a problem.
Try applying a small amount of blur after each erosion...
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: ingo's erosion for heightfields (3x12k)
Date: 29 Jul 2000 00:22:01
Message: <39825be9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not conducive to animation as is, I suppose you meant about the graininess.
I was wondering about the lake heights (or depths) since they should be
filling in as erosion goes on making for a higher surface level. Appears
what you have showing here is a base, or sea, level although intermediate
elevations are filling in. So were a disc of water placed in that central
valley then it would need raising along with the HF changes. I'm just
thinking out loud about how it might go for such things.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
>
> > I will probably also try it without rescaling soon...
>
> Please do...it should look much more realistic.
I will try it.
>
> > Changing the water/erosion amount helps a bit, but it's still a problem.
>
> Try applying a small amount of blur after each erosion...
>
Already did that and it helped a lot, even though it's still somwhat bumpy.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Not conducive to animation as is, I suppose you meant about the graininess.
> I was wondering about the lake heights (or depths) since they should be
> filling in as erosion goes on making for a higher surface level. Appears
> what you have showing here is a base, or sea, level although intermediate
> elevations are filling in. So were a disc of water placed in that central
> valley then it would need raising along with the HF changes. I'm just
> thinking out loud about how it might go for such things.
>
> Bob
I think there are some significant differences to ingo's 3d-erosion, behaviour
is also very unpredictable, so i will have to try some
improvements.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
