Middle Earth DEM Project

[Redrobes]

Yeah, Im not sure about that either. When I saved it out last night it looked like rivers with the middle of the glacier flow being quite thick filling in the groove where it was flowing so I would expect that the top of the snow to be pretty flat or slightly convex. Perhaps try more depth to it ? I dont know really.

[su_liam]

Monks, are you sure you used the right heightfield? It looks as if you have a constant displacement inside the glacier mask. Basically, it looks as if the existing valley floor has been repeated, displaced upwards.

Also, TG2 uses meters as its units, so that might be a 60 meter displacement, or about 200 feet.

[monks]

Maybe Seer can shed some light on this...but I'll tinker some more...s'all good!

Suliam-Yes, it looks like that to me as well- the convexity is not there. No, I converted to feet.

monks

[monks]

hmm, does this look better?

http://www.skindustry.net/medem/file...2/render34.png

I'm going to replicate the cam pos you got in your df shot Robes -see how it looks.

monks

[Steel General]

Holy poop! That looks more like a photo than a render.

[Redrobes]

Monks, I have the same view using DF. It does seem as though it was pretty thin and concave. I did cut down the viscosity to make these so maybe if I had left it higher then it would have been more bulbous and convex.

Shall I try another run ?

[monks]

I think what I have in that latest shot look pretty close to yours there but I'm noticing that I'm not getting the nice protrusions of the mountain through the snow like you have on the ridges and peaks.

http://www.skindustry.net/medem/file...nder35crop.png

http://www.skindustry.net/medem/file...2/render37.png

The concavity is not really a major problem. At the moment I'd like to get those protrusions. I noticed as well that this dem I'm using is corrupted- see the rear of Mindol, where has all that terrain gone?

Could you try another run with a little less glacier coverage and a bit more powdery snow?

monks

[Redrobes]

I have another going up now - give it quarter hour from now...

The new one is with thicker viscosity so it drops down from the sides less but is more bulbous. I have the shot of it in wilbur and you can see its got depth in the V bits.

My image is a rough guide with a quick texture calc so it would depend on the snow thickness. What I am thinking is that maybe the viscosity of the last one was so thin that it never got bulbous at all and that you applied it too thick thinking like I did that it needed to be more bulbous and convex. So it was too thick causing what was thin snow layer to become thick. Here are the shots of the new one and wilburs visual of it. This is using default gts viscosity now - I shouldn't have changed it in the first place but I was not getting any glaciers at all for a while. I found out why but it was unrelated to viscosity.

Took so long to upload those images that the FTP has finished now.

Edit -- Oh yeah, I forgot to zap the excess liquid water off the map before saving. I can do another one later though if thats an issue.

[monks]

that looks superb in df- imagine what can be done with these maps...!

I opened the last one up in Wilbur too. Everything seemed fine. I think this is almost certainly me misunderstanding the nodes in TG. I'm converting the heightmap to an image mask in Wilbur. I think I need both a heightmap and an image mask to control the surface extents...that's just one thing I'm not sure about. I think it's time to have a good chat on the TG boards about this.
The excess water can be removed no probs I think.

monks

[monks]

Looks like we have no bites on this one on the TG boards...so we're back to tinkering. Robes, did you upload the second glaciers you ran?

monks