I like the banding a lot better in this one, It might even looik better with
a 3rd color added for more variation, but I'm not sure if thats realsitic or
not, just a guess :) I liked the 2nd's normal the best but this one fits
better, maybe if you lowered its height or depth (whatever its called) it
might look like a better combination between  sand and rock. The sand in the
distance needs to look smoother I think too, maybe lowering the depth of the
normal would fix that? One thing that has beugged me about all 3 pics iss
the mountainthings in the middle. The ones on the sides look awsome but the
ones in the middle look TOO bumpy. Maybe its because I can see both light
AND shadow on the middle ones and it gives the bumps much more contrast
compared to the mountains on the sides. Perhaps moving the light source
would fix this or lowering the turbulence (correct term?) on the middle
ones. Still looks a LOT better than my few meager attempts at terrain. and
It's a big improvement!

Can't wait to see the next one!

Corey

Post a reply to this message

There doesn't appear to be any sedimentary buildup, which there should be. Still, you
have some great textures.

Grim

Post a reply to this message

"GrimDude" wrote:
> There doesn't appear to be any sedimentary buildup,
> which there should be.

I don't know what a sedimentary buildup looks like.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Corey Woodworth" wrote:
> I like the banding a lot better in this one, It
> might even looik better with a 3rd color added
> for more variation, but I'm not sure if thats
> realsitic or not, just a guess :)

I think it does occur in reality. But adding support for that would require
me to change the way my textures work, so I'm not sure about that. Maybe...

> I liked the 2nd's normal the best but this one fits
> better, maybe if you lowered its height or depth
> (whatever its called) it might look like a better
> combination between sand and rock.

It's not currently supposed to look like sand. Would there be sand in a
landscape like this? I'm in need of reference photos...

> One thing that has beugged me about all 3 pics is
> the mountainthings in the middle. The ones on the
> sides look awsome but the ones in the middle look
> TOO bumpy.

I'll see what I can do...

> Can't wait to see the next one!

Glad you like it. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:15:17 +0100, "Rune"
<run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:

> Cheater! ;)

And darn proud of it too! :)

And as of the vulture, look at "The Making of \"The Wet Bird\""


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

"Peter Popov" wrote:
> > Cheater! ;)
>
> And darn proud of it too! :)
>
> And as of the vulture, look at
> "The Making of \"The Wet Bird\""

Oh I remember how it was done - you want me to be a cheater too!

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 00:59:02 +0100, "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk>
wrote:

>As the cracked look of the texture really was all wrong, I had to rework the
>textures again. This time I've gotten something that I think look a bit more
>right, but I'm still not sure about it.

I like the mountains better than those in take 2, but preferred the
previous floor texture.

The current one somehow looks too... rich. Like it is fertile soil, rather
than completely dried out.

-- 
Marc van den Dikkenberg
--
The PowerBasic Archives -- http://www.xlsior.org

Post a reply to this message

"Marc van den Dikkenberg" wrote:
> I like the mountains better than those in take 2,
> but preferred the previous floor texture.
>
> The current one somehow looks too... rich. Like it
> is fertile soil, rather than completely dried out.

Hehe, obviously I'm not very good at textures. It's not supposed to be soil
at all, but rock...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> As the cracked look of the texture really was all wrong, I had to rework the
> textures again. This time I've gotten something that I think look a bit more
> right, but I'm still not sure about it.
> 
> Any suggestions for improvements (texture-wise or otherwise)?
> 

I think the foreground is not so good in this version.  You might try
using a separate higher resolution heightfield for it.  Using such strong
and large scale normals is always problematic.

The foreground could also be less uniform i think.  Since it's fairly flat
in total it's likely to have some young sediments between more rocky
parts.

Using the same pattern for the texture as for the heightfield might be
useful.  You could make the lower parts more sandy while having the higher
parts made of stone material.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Mar. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Best so far I think. Colors seem to change too much between foreground and
background, though.

 -Shay
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3c93dcb9@news.povray.org...

Post a reply to this message