> One problem is that this doesn't work with displacement. Decreasing bump > height based on AA means losing the height information for the displacement. > To avoid this, it would be necessary to go back to big hires poly meshes > instead of displacement. Maybe not a bad idea, because then the slope > information is more accurate too. The camera can probably get closer too. > And you see the surface in real time. > Thanks for the detailed tips, I got them stored safely! > -Mark H
Yes , I would concur that actual meshes would be the way to go , simply because displacement mapping ends up handcuffing you in so many ways . Great for simple "nice rendering" scenario's however . I really have no idea how other landscape S/W's make it all happen , but for RS , I would think a big mesh , and then have RS take a look at it's resulting polygons , set up a database of how you think an actual landscape might be broken up into catagories (certainly more than lo/hi flat/sloped) and then have RS see which polygons suit which catagory . Average out neighbouring polygons and apply . However , as I said several mails ago , it would seem to be a big effort and it would be great if a kind of 'group' was formed to attack this project so as to eliminate all the duplicated wasted efforts on a learning curve of this magnitude . BFN Garry Curtis http://www.niagara.com/~studio
