Modeling Problem

[TheBadger]

Hello.

I need some help with a modeling project I'm working on in Maya.

I am trying to make walls that basically look like this http://vimeo.com/9318353


here is a test render of one of the possible routs to take [attach=1]
It is a object with color, bump, and spec. As you can see the bump is good in the back, and terrible in the front, as expected.
Displacement maps are a fail all together in this case.

What I need and want, is to have as little (as possible) geometry for each stone in the wall, and use maps just for color and fine detail. But because there are so many walls and so many stones I don't want to actually model the individuals.
I found this script for MAX : http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/stone-placement-tools Dose anyone know of any script for Maya that could do basically the same thing? I have looked and looked!

I also found this tutorial for MAX :http://www.3dknot.com/tutorials/3dsmax/making-realistic-stone-wall/ Dose anyone know of a tut like this for Maya? I have looked and looked.

Modeling walls is easy. Modeling walls the way I need them is proving to be immensely difficult. And I cannot ask someone else to do it for me, because I really need to do it my self.

Please help if you have some ideas, I am really stuck. 

Thanks.

[Kadri]

In lightwave it is very easy like in TG2 you can place a texture on the wall and get real displacement.
Of course the quality depends on the map etc.. It should be done in some way in Maya probably .
Here is a link that uses normal maps in Maya .This is different but the result is the same.
The tutorial is for low poly gaming , but the techniques are the same and i hope it helps somewhat:

http://www.3dm3.com/forum/articles.php?action=viewarticle&artid=150

Edit: This looks more like the same way in Lİghtwave :

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_ym_O_qyfk

[j meyer]

You can get pretty convincing results that way:
http://www.pixologic.com/zclassroom/homeroom/lesson/environments-with-tate-mosesian/
of course you'd have to translate it to mudbox,but that shouldn't be a problem.
Hope that helps to get ideas.

[Tangled-Universe]

Just in case, don't forget that you can't displace your wall object when using RTO in Terragen.
If you do so then the displacements will be converted to bump, which is why it looks terrible up close (perhaps?).

[TheBadger]

Hey guys. I think I explained my self poorly, but you should be used to that by now 
But I do need your help so please let me try to better describe the problem.

So first, I want to avoid using bum and displacement all together, for the major parts of the model. I would use displacement or bump for very very fine detail and color. But the stones in the wall I want to be actual geometry. The problem is how do I do that without actually modeling individual stones that would number in the hundreds if not thousands?

I coud make it in mudbox, but then I will have 20million polygons, or have to use maps from mudbox.

What I need is a way to do it that lands some place between the problems of a sculpting program and using maps to "fake" geometry.
I found this script for 3Dmax : http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/stone-placement-tools which looks rather great! It automates the labor.
But like I said I use Maya.

In the example I posted above (rendered in TG2) the walls are just rectangles with UVs and a texture image applied. Bump is not good as you see, but displacement was not working well at all in this case.

I have many shots on my shot list that I will need to get very close to the walls, and I know that real geometry is best. But actually modeling every stone would be a crazy thing to do, I think.

@T-U
I know. I would prefer not to displace at all, especially because I have to turn ray trace objects off! It is a real dilemma for me. I need to make animations of my projects now, and rendering twice, once with RTO on and once with RtO off is to much rendering. The reason  I like RTO on is because to my eye, just about everything looks much better.

@j meyer
Thats a pretty nice looking tut! I saved it to my sculpting folder. But i think the same problem remains for this project.

@Kadri
My textures may be the problem. I am not to happy with them as they are. Maybe I should buy some really nice ones on line and see if that helps.

Maybe I should just switch from Maya to max?
* Max seems to have much more on line help than does Maya?

[Kadri]

How you should make it depends on what you want to do.

You do not have to make all the displacements in Maya or another software  all yourself Michael.
Make one wall part and duplicate or instance it in Maya-or whatever you use, in the shape you want it and bring the object in TG2 Michael.
I would use the heavy polygon areas only on places that absolutely does need it.

Like J meyer said there are other alternatives too.

Or make it low poly and see how good TG 2 can handle texture displacements on objects etc.
I used this last method as Martin said but they were not for closeup renders .

[Kadri]

... I would use displacement or bump for very very fine detail and color.
But the stones in the wall I want to be actual geometry.
The problem is how do I do that without actually modeling individual stones that would number in the hundreds if not thousands?...

What i was talking about in Lightwave and in general as displacements is actual geometry but made with a texture as displacements on objects.

When you use "Ray trace objects" in the render node in TG 2 you get only bump maps . That is not real geometry.
But when you do not use "RTO" you get real displacements on objects , namely actual geometry on your object in TG 2.
Similar real displacement versus bump map techniques are in other softwares too. Lightwave , Maya etc.
Not sure maybe you know this Michael but from your writing it looked like you are a little confused about those things.

[TheBadger]

^^ I get you Kadri, but the problem remains:

@T-U
I know. I would prefer not to displace at all, especially because I have to turn ray trace objects off! It is a real dilemma for me. I need to make animations of my projects now, and rendering twice, once with RTO on and once with RtO off is to much rendering. The reason  I like RTO on is because to my eye, just about everything looks much better.

The walls have ivy (or will) and there will be other plant objects from walli's collection. Remember this thread Kadri, : http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,14048.0.html

Plants always look better to me with RTO on. But if you look at this image http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,14818.0.html I had to render once with RTO on for everything, then once with RTO off for the displacement on the stems and surfaces of the caps, on the mushrooms. Then in photoshop I masked. For a still its fine I guess, but for an animation its a deal breaker.

[Kadri]

OK. I do not understand your real problem then probably Michael . Others might be more helpful

Edit : Saw your edit now. Have to think

[Kadri]

From your other posts i remember that your objects and textures were too heavy in poly count and resolution.
It depends on your image resolution but i think you can get anything you want with a good planing before .
If you think that big movie pictures with zillions of effects etc are rendered with these kind of software you can certainly make what you want.
They cheat everywhere they can.
Make your strategic planed model in Maya or wherever you want and use it with RTO  on in TG2(if this is where you want to render).
Use your software to reduce polys where the camera will not see anything like the far side of the wall .
Even delete that sides fully etc. Nobody knows what is on your mind.
Show us what the software can handle and it will be good i am sure.
Because you want a epic scene you are probably over thinking this Michael.
I do not see a problem here other then using the software in reasonable limits.
I might be wrong and miss the point of course .
Anyway i am curious what you will make Michael

[TheBadger]

Hi Kadri, I found this : http://www.3dknot.com/tutorials/3dsmax/making-realistic-stone-wall/

I am trying to port the instructions to maya. If it works great. If not I'll think about getting windows so I can use Max and the plugin i posted above... That would make me so sad though. I have gone so long without having to deal with windows, it would be a shame to break my stubborn streak now.

[Kadri]

Your main problem is only a easy way to model a wall it seems?
I wouldn't change my preferred software only because of this Michael.
Modeling that wall is actually easier then it seems.
If you do not want to use other software maybe the fastest way
might be displacing the wall with the desired texture and then fine tuning by hand-if necessary.
How many parts do you want to make ?
I would make a part and then changed it here or there make 2-3 different ones and randomly distribute them.

[TheBadger]

Your main problem is only a easy way to model a wall it seems?

Yes. Because of course I can do it now, any number of ways. But I need a really efficient way to do it, and none of the obvious ways will work for what I want, I know because I have tried.

To answer your question, there will be many walls Kadri. Poly count is not an issue for me in TG2, it can handle what I am planning. It has dealt well enough with everything I have done to it so far. But still, where doing the modeling is concerned, I want to at least try to keep it as low as possible.

I guess what I would say is that I want a wall like this : http://vimeo.com/9318353 in the lowest poly count possible, where all of the individual stones in the wall are real geometry without displacement. And where I can quickly and easily (relatively speaking) replicate the wall section with a number of variations to the stone patterns.

Its not as easy as it sounds, once you use the words quickly and easily. I just don't have the time or energy to also now try and learn how to write scripts or plug-ins. HA HA! I would probably just drop dead for trying.

[TheBadger]

OK, I give up. There is no way to do this manually that will not be a huge drain on time and energy. I will use maps from mudbox.

Last question guys.

If I bake all my maps (like normal maps) can I then use them in TG2, which does not use normal maps?
I am not even sure what baking is, really. 

[Kadri]

...
If I bake all my maps (like normal maps) can I then use them in TG2, which does not use normal maps?
...

No you can not use normal maps in TG2 as you said but you can use any kind of image that you use as a displacement map.
I did not tried to use a normal maps directly as a displacement map in TG2 (if that is  what you ask) .
You could get kinda displacements . But i think it would not be like using a appropriated grayscale displacement map.
But then you have the same problem you mentioned above. You can get real displacements only with RTO .

A basic Regarding baking:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?116259-what-is-texture-baking

Michael take it easy you are trying to learn many things at ones 

I used that process in Lightwave for one of my objects in the past.
It had procedural textures on it like TG2's power fractals that we can not export directly too for example.
When i baked the texture it counted for all the lights and shadows and whatever the object had on it  and exported it as one texture that i used as a standart UV map.
Maybe as you read this you can see that it has to be used carefully because you could end with a texture that has the wrong lighting on it then the scene you intend to use etc.

As a side note you could theoretically use an animated texture(image sequence) too for example like the animated OBJ sequence option.
But in a old thread Matt said he himself is not sure if it works without problem but should be from the command line. Here:
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,3825.msg40331.html#msg40331
I do not remember a used example ...
Not much a used method but it could be handy in some cases like water animation or time laps kinda effects etc.