Alps study

[FrankB]

ok, that worked, but it's hard to control. I want the snow to cover larger patches, but have a more granular patch size for e.g. displacements, and somehow blend it all nicely. I've got something working but not quite there yet.

Working with Alpines ain't the most simple thing in the world. And not the quickest either

Thanks so far,
Frank

[RArcher]

Nice work with this so far Frank.  Getting the snow to look "right" has been a major challenge for me when working with the alpine fractal.  I know I've discarded a dozen projects or so the last couple years because I've never been happy with what I want.

To my mind what I would try to do is create more thick snow and less thin snow with more mountain rock visible.

[Henry Blewer]

Convincing snow is difficult on a flat area. I look forward to see how you do this. It would make a great pack to sell.

[Dune]

Perhaps the problem is that the alpine displacements are computed, and can therefore not easily been smoothed after compute terrain. I think it would be different if the alpine were smoother, computed and tiny displacements added after compute terrain,and smoothed again in the displacement intersection. Or am I seeing this wrong?

[Goms]

I think you need to use more than one compute node here... or consider another way to the right shape of mountains not using the alpine fractal.

[FrankB]

I'm currently tweaking the alpine and adding other displacements, then do I high-res heightfield output and load that instead.

[Goms]

I think this might be the best way. I use a heightfield in my "jump"-picture (which is still under development!) And it works better than the alpine fractal.

[Tangled-Universe]

Goms, this fits a bit with our discussion recently where you proposed to have an option to choose which compute terrain node you would like to use for intersect underlying or other features.
In some cases that would make life much easier.