> The WM thing, for me, was the 8k x 8k pixel file size which is slightly > smaller than I would prefer but I could live with it, anyway it's what > caught my eye. > Neil Cooke
Hi Neil : I could only guess that 8K would more than likely be for a terrain that one may be flying a camera over . I know that you're probably _THE_ high res artist on this list , but 8x8K rendered pixels and 8x8K maps and meshes are 2 different animals , of course . I would hazard a guess that RS could probably , with some finessing , give a user suitably high detailed meshes (for stills) at 1x1K . In my experience it seemed to depend on how close to the mesh you placed your camera . Shots from space ... lower res , closeups of a ridge would re- quire a user to isolate said ridge and re-interpolate in WM (if it offers that functionality) . Bringing an 8K map into RS in order to zoom into a tiny area of that map and maintain detail might be overkill ... as in 'kill your machine' . Sorry if I'm totally missing what it is you're saying . Garry Curtis http://www.niagara.com/~studio
