Annoyingly nice illustrations. Actually, you just made the case for sky-texture better than I could have
..best to use a background colour that matches the sky...
You are right - now that I think about it, I also tried an off colour that gave all sorts of horrid reflections. Gradients - typically between dark and light blue - work quite well, though...reason for choosing a square, is that it leaves me with plenty of headroom at the top....
Yes, that it of course a point - it may be easier to work with. By the way, in my test texture I have somehow put 10 and not 9 lines to represent the 90° to zenith. While it still illustrates the distortion, it needs adjustment if anyone wants to use it for measuring horizon objects such as a high mountain.
As most smartphones have compass/plumb/level functions (usually a separate app is needed), the angle to the mountaintop can be calculated quite easily as can the alignment of the background texture (starts to the right in the 2D plan, East if compass is due North). That way, it is possible to create a surprisingly accurate horizon around the model which can be completed with other objects close to the building.
But I need to emphasise - that Cec' approach with extensive use of 3D objects is much better for the beautiful renderings where the sun and shades caress the landscape. The rougher texture-sky-treeline approach has a more practical merit: When I work in the 2D plan I want a simple, instant way for the 3D window to display the view around the building. For instance, will it be possible to see mountain X through window Y from my favourite chair.
A rough technique for real life projects where rendering is not the objective, but the point is getting the construction details right through planning with various tools (as mentioned in threads 6162 and 5953).
ok
