General Question Orulex Height Map

[othoudt]

I really like the Orulex add-on even though it might ask too much from my system (AMD 3200, 2G Corsair Ram, ATI 2400 AGP video card) for good surface appearance in both the foreground and in the distance but having terrain more than makes up for that. What I am wondering is whether Orulex is exagerating the topography the way NASA does in all it's maps of other planet surfaces. The first topographical map of Valis Marinaris on Mars appeared to show the area to be the wildest vertical terrain I had ever seen then I noticed in the notes below the image that vertical heights had been exagerated by about 100X. While flying a low pass over lunar mare (6km) it seemed that the terrain was mostly semi-mountainous (rolling hills 2-3 KM in height) instead of a fairly level "sea".

Am I just misinformed about the vertical nature of the lunar seas or is Orluex exagerating the elevations? If Orulex is exagerating the elevations is there a way to unexagerate it? Thanks.

 

[atuhalpa]

What heightmap are you using? And yes, you can remove the generated "noise" by altering the terrain config files. I am not an expert with orulex but I do know how to set it up for a realistic rendering of the moon's terrain. As an aside I prefer orulex 1.0 as the 6 sided box/crease lines that the later iterations have are not present.

 

[othoudt]

I have been using luna lvl8 heightmap (is there another?) and I have been playing with World Studio and I have found that by setting the "Constant" from 6250 down to a value of 1 the terrain around Brighton Beach looks much more like I would expect it to. In fact I think the terrain could be a little flatter but since I've never been there or seen photos from ground level I can't be sure.