tobinator 41 Posted January 10, 2016 Hello, finally I managed to import reallife into the terrainbuilder. Now I got two questitions to some problems that I still have: 1. On the coast of the map are some edges. How can I get rid of them? 2. The ocean has everywhere a depth of -1m. Do I have to change the height manually? Regards Tobi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richie 330 Posted January 10, 2016 1 - smooth with L3DT or you can use BD 2 - Yep manually, took me 3 weeks to carve the coast and set the oceans depth, i made my coast line between 2-10 meters deep, then gradully moved out, the majority of the ocean is -40 meters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tobinator 41 Posted January 11, 2016 1 - smooth with L3DT or you can use BD 2 - Yep manually, took me 3 weeks to carve the coast and set the oceans depth, i made my coast line between 2-10 meters deep, then gradully moved out, the majority of the ocean is -40 meters Alright, thank you! smoothed everything in L3DT and did the ocean manually(it's not much ocean on my map). But there's already another problem: I don't know how these edges can occur. I smoothed the colors for the mask in photoshop: What's the mistake I made? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richie 330 Posted January 11, 2016 what cell size are you using ? say for example you have 10 meters then for every 1 pixel on your image is 10 meters, makes it hard to do smooth blending. Nothing that a few coastal rocks won't hide of coast and some clutter :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tobinator 41 Posted January 11, 2016 yeah the cell size is 10 metres... Now I got a problem :( changing the cell size to like 1 makes my map very small(like 4 square km instead of 400 square km). Any solution for a good result :unsure: ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richie 330 Posted January 11, 2016 Any solution for a good result :unsure: ? Not really, I had the same issue, in the end we started again and decided 5 meter cells was a happy medium, it depends what you prefer and what you're happy with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 46 Posted January 11, 2016 changing the cell size to like 1 makes my map very small(like 4 square km instead of 400 square km). Heightmap cell size is nothing to do with satellite or mask layer resolution... If you make a 1024x1024 terrain with 10 meter cells you get a 10240 meter x 10240 meter terrain (10x10km) If you make a 1024x1024 terrain with 1 meter cells you get a 1024 meter x 1024 meter terrain (1x1km) Thats how you control the actual map/terrain size - by picking the best combination of "grid size" - 512x512, 1024x1024, 2048x2048, 4096x4096, etc - and cell size - 4m per cell, 5 meters per cell, 10 meters per cell, etc.. You juggle these two parameters until you have a terrain of roughly the overall size you want, at the overall GROUND resolution you want.. But changing these numbers does nothing to the resolution of the satellite imagery, which is a different set of parameters entirely... "Draped" over the top of that heightmap grid go the satellite and mask layers - these two imagery layers should match each other in resolution for best results, but aren't tied to those above HEIGHTMAP sizes... For example, if I made a 2048x2048 grid heightmap with each cell representing 4 meters, then my final terrain size will be 8192 meters wide. If I use an 8192 x 8192 PIXEL satellite and mask image, then each pixel will appear to cover 1m x 1m on the ground... "1 meter per pixel"" - (that's considered "normal/good" resolution for a sat/mask pair) If I used a 2048x2048 PIXEL image, then each pixel of that image would be stretched to cover 4m x 4m of ground - "4 meters per pixel"... it would look much blockier and crude If I used a 16384 x 16384 PIXEL image, then each pixel of that image would only be stretched to cover 0.5m x 0.5m of ground - "0.5 meters per pixel" - That would be considered pretty Super-Hi res for a sat and mask pair... In general, 1 meter per pixel is considered to be more than adequate and it's what most people use.... So basically... Juggle heightmap grid size and heightmap cell size until you get the actual physical size of terrain you want. Do the maths.... Grid size x Cell size = physical size of terrain in METERS... (eg: 10240 meters) Then make Mask & Sat imagery of that same number, but in PIXELS... (eg: 10240 PIXELS) That will get you 1 meter per pixel imagery, which is what you want to aim for... B 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
