Soo... what's your guess at what the default displacement amplitude should be? Lol Cool resource but the PNG files load stretched out and too pointy.
Attached are two examples at disp 1 and disp 0.5. Neither represent the structures IRL and are really vertically stretched and pointy. Is this just their system?
These "mountains" are supposed to be foothills here in Mount Vernon.
not sure what you are asking, do you have a reference image? the displacement 1 looks to be more good
Apparently not. I should take some if I ever get out again any time soon.
Tried to google but because of the tulip festival here, apparently that's where all the focus is. Hard to get shots with the foothills.
But yeah, even when I get displacement down to a "foothill" stout look, the peaks are all well, really peaky. We do have rugged alpine mountains more interior, but these river-side foothills are not mountainous like this, and pretty much completely timbered.
I tried the different interpolation methods but didn't seem to make any difference. I think it's just the heightmaps themselves and how they were created. Didn't have this issue with actual geotiffs from other sites.
Update: Ok, well I did find some info that some scans of mountains that ARE completely covered with timber, can yield approximated results that can be inaccurate. This may be part of it. The weird plateau effect may literally be tree clearings.
There's a difference in lineair and non-lineair as well.
Quote from: Dune on May 20, 2020, 02:09:02 AMThere's a difference in lineair and non-lineair as well.
Yeah I tried that too, didn't seem to effect the file. I think these are just too low quality, coupled with it being a lidar strip of a forested foothill with logged patches. Mount Baker in the same area itself looks good, but as you get into the surrounding cascades the same sort of stuff is happening with crazy peaks and anomalies, which just must be the forests, as Baker itself doesn't have any on it's upper half. Disp was off though like before and stretched up.