=====
From castlewrks@aol.com:
I always find placing objects on a heightfield work better if I allow them
to extend through the heightfield, or place them atop a foundation that extends
through the heightfield.  This gets rid of the hanging problem of the corners
of
the structure.

=====
From agage@mines.edu:
The sky is well done, and I do like the stars.  There is some banding in the
height field (vertical lines along the path to the door) and parts of the
building appear to be hanging over nothing...

=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
The cliff seems to be too small - the mansion hangs out over the top.

=====
From dormammu@erols.com:
Nice picture.  The stars look a little too large, tho.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Image fits well with the topic but the 'old mansion' in your description does
not reflect itself in the image, it looks brand new.
The lighting does not seem like night time and stars appear below the horizon.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Although detailed, this clearly looks like a small model rather than a large
house.  Here's why: the camera is so close to the house that there is a
large change in perspective between the top and bottom of the house.
A real camera would be quite distant from the house, with a zoom lens,
and show very little perspective difference top-to-bottom.
Also, why are there stars below the horizon?

=====
From djconnel@flash.net:
I am not sure here what is being conveyed by the
building -- it seems a bit random relative to the topic.


=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
That's what I call a succinct explanation.


=====
From r@dial-up30.webbernet.net:
Sky is ok.  House is far too toylike.  Jagged ramp does *not* look like steps,
it looks like a mistake.  No story.  This comment by clem@dhol.com.