Reactor wrote:
> Suddenly I am reminded of playing with the 'flow' command in hf_lab in an
> attempt to build eroded height fields... I had limited success.

That's been my experience with everything I've tried. World Machine has 
good erosion, but the free version limits the size of the map :( 
Christian Froeschlin has a good idea for making use of the limited 
files. The way POV now handles 16-bit grayscale images makes his idea 
even easier to implement, I think.

> I am very
> interested in your technique(s), though.  I've wondered whether a decent
> erosion routine could be made into functions for use with isosurface based
> landscapes.

Anything can be done, but at what cost? Isosurfaces are already slow, 
and to incorporate erosion... well, I hope you won't be using your 
computer for a while :)

I'd rather make it work with height_fields, but in a more dynamic way 
than it is now. I don't know how to do this yet, though.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <THI### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
..
..
..
> Anything can be done, but at what cost? Isosurfaces are already slow,
> and to incorporate erosion... well, I hope you won't be using your
> computer for a while :)
>
> I'd rather make it work with height_fields, but in a more dynamic way
> than it is now. I don't know how to do this yet, though.
>
> Sam


The reason why I am interested in isosurfaces as landscapes is their resolution
independence and the fact that they permit overhangs.  As fast and simple as
the heightfield is, certain landscapes cannot be done well with them.  I've
developed a fascination with canyon landscapes recently, and I'm always on the
lookout for alternate techniques.

Attached is a picture created using meshes (which does ok except getting the
texture to match the rock layers is very difficult.)

-Reactor

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cliffscene6ft.jpg' (81 KB)

Preview of image 'cliffscene6ft.jpg'

"Reactor" <rea### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.48a09d3e4025b6ec9bfe5600@news.povray.org...
>
> The reason why I am interested in isosurfaces as landscapes is their 
> resolution
> independence and the fact that they permit overhangs.  As fast and simple 
> as
> the heightfield is, certain landscapes cannot be done well with them. 
> I've
> developed a fascination with canyon landscapes recently, and I'm always on 
> the
> lookout for alternate techniques.
>
> Attached is a picture created using meshes (which does ok except getting 
> the
> texture to match the rock layers is very difficult.)
>

Nice one indeed! Good work.
The texture is indeed not truly right here. UV mapping?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:

> Nice one indeed! Good work.
> The texture is indeed not truly right here. UV mapping?
>
> Thomas

No, unfortunately.  I was having trouble with the Wings uv mapping export at the
time.  I might revisit it at another point, but it was really an experiment into
finding a good way of making overhangs in landscapes.  The next thing I want to
try is something my brother described: a six-sided heightfield in which 6
images determine the shape of the landscape.  I am not sure how to implement
that yet, but that and another idea of blending heightfields and meshes are
things we want to test out and see if they would be feasible.

-Reactor

Post a reply to this message

"Reactor" <rea### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.48a1e2994025b6ec993f4ab30@news.povray.org...
>
> No, unfortunately.  I was having trouble with the Wings uv mapping export 
> at the
> time.  I might revisit it at another point, but it was really an 
> experiment into
> finding a good way of making overhangs in landscapes.  The next thing I 
> want to
> try is something my brother described: a six-sided heightfield in which 6
> images determine the shape of the landscape.  I am not sure how to 
> implement
> that yet, but that and another idea of blending heightfields and meshes 
> are
> things we want to test out and see if they would be feasible.
>

I see. I have not been overly enthousiastic about Wings uv mapping. Nowadays 
I prefer Silo to it (not free, however).

In the past, I have made objects composed of different heightfields, unioned 
and differenced together. In particular, a six-sided tower! That works very 
well indeed. Overhangs can also be created by heightfields placed 
vertically. Differenced with a horizontal heightfield on top, and you have a 
(ragged)cliff.

I think that blending of heightfields together and/or with meshes is not 
difficult in itself, the problem is the seam which will often show up as a 
fairly straight line under some viewing angles. That can be hidden to some 
degree by an appropriate global texture or by carefully placed objects in 
the line of sight, but it is tricky.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Some sort of trees seen from below, against the sunny sky..?

Post a reply to this message