Second Opinion...

[dandelO]

I think I know but I'm using an old CRT for a few weeks and all my stuff looks rubbish and blurred and, the wrong colours.

What do you prefer? ...

[attachimg=#]

Or...

[attachimg=#]

Same terrain/pov/underlying rock colour, different mud/grass shaders.
This is viewed at about 90 metres above the ground.

Does anything look wrong? Or need fixing? I honestly have looked too long on a bad, old screen and I have to stop.

Oh, by the way, one of them is my planetary grass v.2.5(currently public) - One is an update which I'm hoping will finalize this shader at v.3.

Opinions, anyone?

[Hetzen]

You know what? A mixture of the two, the first on gentle slopes, the second on rougher terrain maybe? Nothing wrong with either. Both are good for making things a little more 'patchy'.

[PG]

Yeah that's a good idea, Hetzen. Have the rougher grass near the mountainous parts and the smoother one on some rolling hills and valleys nearby.

[dandelO]

I'll give that idea a go, they differ now in how the patchiness is applied. The old grass(top image) uses luminosity for patchiness, this isn't very handy for night scenes.
The new one has 'better' mud, grass layer translucency and correct colour-only patchiness. And it is racked up correctly as a child of a single surface, instead of the colour/luminosity/displacement functions of the old one. I'll try and keep the colouring of the flat one, lose the patchiness luminosity somehow and join 'em together with blended distribution, see what happens... Cheers, folks!

[MacGyver]

Do that magic stuff It all sounds weird to me... yeah, it's late I guess

[Falcon]

From 90m above ground, the first one is the more realistic image. The second one was my initial choice until I read that distance. Scale the second one down and you have a winner.

[Tangled-Universe]

I'd choose the second, more color variation and you can't seen the underlying fractal contrast of the terrain.

From 90m above ground, the first one is the more realistic image. The second one was my initial choice until I read that distance. Scale the second one down and you have a winner.

Another reason why I chose the second. It doesn't matter at which altitude the camera is placed, it's all about how it looks. You already said it yourself "until I read the distance". It's not these exact numbers and punctualism on scales which should drive your work on still images, it's about how it looks. If my grasses look great and it looks like they're shot from 2m above but in fact the camera is at 30m height then I really don't care about it. Nobody will notice it.

When working on animations in combo with 3rd party apps it's another story of course.

[dandelO]

Really, this is to try and get the grass looking good from all heights. The old grass shader is fine from about 7m, to 30-40m Y-height above. After that, I think it becomes too uniform. This and the fact that, when used in low light, the luminosity patchiness needs adjusting/disabling.

The second image's still looks ok at low altitude POV, I think. I'll show some test renders.

I like the idea of blending the two shaders but that makes the network view very confusing, I'm doing it, none the less. I've got a few other ideas, final tweaking for a few days when I have the time.

The scale of the light/dark patchiness fractals are too big in the second image, I'll lower this.

[rcallicotte]

Do you see the lines in the first one?  I believe those are caused by having the first nodes set too far apart (not enough fractalization). I've often wondered if there are better ways to remove those line than crank up higher fractals.

[arisdemos]

Aside from all the elevation considerations I agree with Hetzen and TU that the image needs some of the number one image aspect, that of a more level and smoother grassy flats look in the foreground. Looks like masking both terrains together might get more of a 3d quality, and some more large lichen textured rock outcrops (boulders?)in front might possibly add some additional color and interest. Just a thought, hope this initial concept works into what you are looking for.

[dandelO]

Calico, the lines are from the terrain fractal, just a simple power fractal, unedited.

What did surprise me was the way No.2 grass kind of disguises the fractal lines.

Here's a couple of low pov snaps, 7.5m above...

[attachimg=#]

and...

[attachimg=#]

The old one really suffers close up, the underlying mud is washed right out and only appears in the distance, also, luminosity makes the patchiness. The newer one has translucency and proper colour patchiness, I'm leaning towards the newer one, is the colour too primary-green, though?

[Henry Blewer]

If you make the sunlight closer to the horizon (i do this too often) the green will darken and look fine.