alexcoppo, let's be rational about things, shall we? You wrote you like rationality, so apply it to this situation.

In the images you posted now you proved your points. Let's focus on the artifacts thing first. I wrote in one of my posts:
"In the tests I made, I found no artifacts. This is simply what I stated. You may find cases with artifacts in your tests. That is ok, from my point of view. We would simply then arrive to the conclusion that artifacts exist in some situations and don't exist in others."

So, your recent image (and also the one of spedler) showed that indeed these artifacts still exist in some situations and don't exist in others. Like I said, and it's true, I don't find artifacts. All this discussion showed that it's my workflow which prevents me from having artifacts (the fact that I practically always zero-edge terrains, either in Vue or in GC2).

So, you see, we learned something from the discussion. This is what discussion is good for. If you run away from discussions, you'll miss chances to learn.

Let's focus on the standard vs procedural. You wrote "standard terrains are totaly inadequate as they severely smooth all the tiny details of the terrain."

I wrote in another post that indeed the standard terrains seem to have slightly less detail but, IMO, your statement is a gross exageration. Don't forget that in your recent image in your gallery, you stated yourself that you used a "highly zoomed view". How many Vue images have "highly zoomed views" of mountain-like terrains? Very, very few. The vast majority of Vue scenes have these kind of terrains in the midground or background. So, why test things that are not useful in practice, for the vast majority of situations?

We already had a similar discussion, when you made 1 pixel terrains a few months ago, remember? Why the heck should we test Vue with 1 or 2 pixel terrains if in practice that is never used? Why should we demand from Vue a certain response if it clearly wasn't built for that, and isn't used for that by anyone? How many times does anyone use 1 pixel terrains? None! So, why test it? Likewise, why test "highly zoomed views" of mountain-like terrains if they are not used in practice?

I prefer to keep discussions in a pragmatic and useful way. I personally have little patience for academic discussions that serve no practical purpose. But that's me, of course.

Just a word about your "discovery" of terrain sharpness, the original reason for this thread. In fact, your "discovery" is not new. You basically use a 2048x2048 or 4096x4096 16 bit tiff of a terrain, apply it in Vue to a procedural terrain, use scale 1.01 and apply bilinear interpolation. That wraps it up, I think. All this was already discussed in many threads and tutorials before. None of this is new. I've been using this exact same technique since Vue6, for many months. So, excuse me if I didn't seem too excited...

You do what you like, of course, leave or not leave. I personally think it's absolutely non rational (the rationality you like) to leave because someone disagrees with you and/or doesn't feel terribly excited with something you "discover". I personally would prefer that you stay because you contribute to the forum, despite your frequent sarcasms about Vue and e-on, which not only serves no practical purpose but rather serves to irritate those who, like me, love Vue and, consequently, their makers, creating a climate which is not good for discussion.