On 22-2-2019 19:52, MichaelJF wrote:
> Am 29.01.2019 um 13:33 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Finally. I had to strongly clean up my code as successive additions, 
>> changes, tweakings, had made it - at least working for the Crossing 
>> Border scene - but not for any other one.
>>
>> Here is a test landscape scene, in addition to the bump_map I used 
>> which may not be the best for the purpose. A better one should be 
>> generated one day. I think about that. However, it works fine as-is.
>>
> Hi Thomas,
> many, many thanks for your work. I was distracted a while from the 
> POV-newsgroups by occupational issues unfortunatelly, but not inactive 
> completelly. I soon found a spot in your scene suiting my needs to have 
> a better scene to present my idea to model steam fog. Your texture is 
> great seen at a certain distance, as my steam fog approach is, but at a 
> close distance both approaches have their limits. May I ask you what 
> kind of rock you tried to model specifically? A sort of sedimentary rock 
> I would presume. But you are the geologist and can give hints to your 
> model. As a statistician I can do guesswork only.
> 

Yes, the limitations of my rock approach derive almost entirely from the 
use of a bump_map.A much better approach would be using an isosurface, 
as the layered rocks are better modelled by functions. I think I have 
done things like that in my long dormant (dead?) Geomorph macros, more 
than ten years ago.

The rocks are supposed to be sedimentary deposits, very typical in 
particular for the Jurassic and Cretaceous period of the Alpine regions. 
When I was a student, we called them "pyjama formations", which tells my 
age as I do not see any stripped pyjamas any more in modern stores, and 
with the exception of quaint humoristic movies from a certain period...  :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message