![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the list of programs that use heightmaps as it doesn't really add anything to the article and is a magnet for spam.-- Drat ( Talk) 12:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I introduced language relating a heightmap to a voxel field. Someone writing on my talk page suggested that the relationship might be controversial. Here I address some of the concerns:
-- Damian Yerrick ( ☎) 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am still not conviced. The only thing I got is that you're working on a very high abstraction level. Everyone can see a manifold surface representation can be turned in a volume representation. Referring to a specific implementation (a voxel rendering system) does not seem like a good idea to me, especially when considering amost everyone is using polys. I don't see any addressing in the above, but it help me took a decision. I'm being bold and removing voxel references.
MaxDZ8
talk
11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see merging heightfield here, and I'll probably do it three minutes after I submit this comment. But Digital elevation model is a more complicated case, as it refers specifically to the use of heightmaps in GIS. -- Damian Yerrick ( ☎) 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't that different things – at least in theory? Aren't heightmaps images/representations of heightfields?-- Speck-Made ( talk) 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's open to debate. There's always a level of abstraction in which this similar concepts blur togheter. For example, are machine instructions and operations the same thing? In some context they are, in others they're not.
Another example: is
humanity the same thing as
mankind?
I don't think this minor naming issue to be a problem at all and I'm rather sure there's nothing like a definition which comes from an authoritative, trustable and widely recognized source.
Cannot we just live with more flexible concepts?
MaxDZ8
talk
08:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a hatnote linking to "Depth map" because "depthmap" automatically redirects to this article. I am not feeling brave enough to edit depthmap redirect because I am the author of "depth map". I am not sure if depthmap should be made a disambiguation page, be made to redirect to "depth map" or just be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicos ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be a section describing the limitations of heightmaps - the most critical of which being the inability to model overhangs or caves, since each point must have only one height value. I could discuss some of this myself, but it would probably be considered original research and taken down. Not sure where a good source for that would be. Lurlock ( talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The term "height field" is used in meteorology jargon but this article doesn't even hint at where to find its meaning in that field. 207.180.169.36 ( talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the list of programs that use heightmaps as it doesn't really add anything to the article and is a magnet for spam.-- Drat ( Talk) 12:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I introduced language relating a heightmap to a voxel field. Someone writing on my talk page suggested that the relationship might be controversial. Here I address some of the concerns:
-- Damian Yerrick ( ☎) 15:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am still not conviced. The only thing I got is that you're working on a very high abstraction level. Everyone can see a manifold surface representation can be turned in a volume representation. Referring to a specific implementation (a voxel rendering system) does not seem like a good idea to me, especially when considering amost everyone is using polys. I don't see any addressing in the above, but it help me took a decision. I'm being bold and removing voxel references.
MaxDZ8
talk
11:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see merging heightfield here, and I'll probably do it three minutes after I submit this comment. But Digital elevation model is a more complicated case, as it refers specifically to the use of heightmaps in GIS. -- Damian Yerrick ( ☎) 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't that different things – at least in theory? Aren't heightmaps images/representations of heightfields?-- Speck-Made ( talk) 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's open to debate. There's always a level of abstraction in which this similar concepts blur togheter. For example, are machine instructions and operations the same thing? In some context they are, in others they're not.
Another example: is
humanity the same thing as
mankind?
I don't think this minor naming issue to be a problem at all and I'm rather sure there's nothing like a definition which comes from an authoritative, trustable and widely recognized source.
Cannot we just live with more flexible concepts?
MaxDZ8
talk
08:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a hatnote linking to "Depth map" because "depthmap" automatically redirects to this article. I am not feeling brave enough to edit depthmap redirect because I am the author of "depth map". I am not sure if depthmap should be made a disambiguation page, be made to redirect to "depth map" or just be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicos ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be a section describing the limitations of heightmaps - the most critical of which being the inability to model overhangs or caves, since each point must have only one height value. I could discuss some of this myself, but it would probably be considered original research and taken down. Not sure where a good source for that would be. Lurlock ( talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The term "height field" is used in meteorology jargon but this article doesn't even hint at where to find its meaning in that field. 207.180.169.36 ( talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)