Hi Infinite. Does the softness really has something to do with the dense point cloud integration? As a matter of fact, from what I've learned, the dense point cloud generation has always been an intermediate step in mesh generation, even in earlier PS versions. The problem is that we weren't able to access to it. Did you check the number of polygons or any other detail that might be responsible for the difference in models? This new workflow is great because we can get much better results with more modest configurations. In my portable, for instance, I was not able to pass "medium" quality meshes and it took ages to render. Now I can get, at least High quality point clouds and the results are a lot, lot better than earlier versions and a lot faster to obtain. It's precisely the opposite of your example - meshes have a lot more detail, sometimes breathtaking, and prominent geometric objects, such as houses and similar objects, are much more similar to the real world. But, as you said, I'm using Heightfield and working with aerial photography. Maybe there are some differences in the Arbitrary option that you are certainly using as preferred option.
Cheers
