Quote - Did you match the terrain resolution to your 16 bit TIFF? And, how big was your source file in pixels? Your results differ from what offrench posted, but then you post processed your image.

First of all, I am not a pro, but neither am I a complete idiot.

I used the GeoControl2 project file mentioned in the tutorial pages at the beginning of this thread. I generated a 1024x1024 16 bit TIFF. I created a 1024x1024 standard terrain and a procedural one, both using the same TIFF. W.r.t. postprocessing... obviously I post processed the whole image, so the differences are all due to Vue handling of terrains.

If you have GC2 and Bryce, just try to create a .PGM and import it into Bryce. You will see that the terrain is highly detailed.

The moral of this story is very simple. Vue, when creating standard terrains, performs an unwarranted low pass filtering which eliminates the highest frequencies of the terrains. I suppose that this is a relic of an old age, like the 256x256 default standard terrain size, when computers had much less resources and, if you tried a very coarse terrains without smoothing, you would experience dreadful artifacts.

I have done another test (which may be I will post next week): I created, using WM2 Beta, a kind of unsharp mask filtering on the terrain values. Using this enhanced TIFF, which counters Vue smoothing, standard terrains are as detailed as procedural ones. People who have a 16bit capable image editor can try this way even if they have not (yet) own WM2.

GIMP 2.7.4, Inkscape 0.48, Genetica 3.6 Basic, FilterForge 3 Professional, Blender 2.61, SketchUp 8, PoserPro 2012, Vue 10 Infinite, World Machine 2.3, GeoControl 2