Mudbox displacement maps in T2

Started by TheBadger, May 17, 2013, 10:25:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

mhaze

The vector displacement node already exists.  Just plug an image map into it right input and follow with a compute terrain.  Works with a .exr file

TheBadger

#166
Quote from: paq on July 17, 2013, 03:18:11 AM
Vector displacement is still very limited imho, you cant go into very extreme shapes.

This is where you lose me a little. what kind of shapes are you finding just don't work? you haven't posted an example for that particular idea.

On erosion, well perhaps not a vector. But this tut clearly shows you can go from mudbox to Terragen through WM or GC. http://wiki.splashdamage.com/index.php/An_Advanced_Terrain_and_Megatexture
That is, I deduce that if you can get to WM, GC from mudbox, than you can get to Terragen from WM or GC.

So I guess perhaps not exactly what I hoped, but still a nice additional option.

QuoteThe vector displacement node already exists.  Just plug an image map into it right input and follow with a compute terrain.  Works with a .exr file
Ok, but Im confused. On page one in paq's first image post there is an image of the node network used to make the first vector terrain for this thread. All of those node (including blues) are or are not strictly necessary? I don't know?
If they are, I was suggesting that planetside make a single node for vectors that do what all of those do. But if not, then why are they there exactly?

[attach=1]

See what I mean?
It has been eaten.

Dune

It's better to use all the loose nodes, as you can rewire the way you want it. It's also interesting to add additional VD nodes with different additions/subtractions of the red, blue and green lines inserted. Kind of sculpting from a base map.

I only wish I could get this going procedurally... still trying... must be possible. I don't want to use VDISP maps if not necessary.

Tangled-Universe

Those blue nodes are not necessary, but you can see that he swapped channels.

The build vector has a main input followed by 3 outputs which are "red" "green" and "blue" respectively.

I suppose that the software he made the vector map in used the blue channel for Y instead of the green channel (like TG).

So splitting the image in its separate channels to then recombine using a build vector allows you to reconstruct the intended vector map as designed in your other software.

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: Dune on July 17, 2013, 04:12:28 AM
I only wish I could get this going procedurally... still trying... must be possible. I don't want to use VDISP maps if not necessary.

There's one thing I haven't understood through this whole topic: how would this "vector displacement" differ from ordinary powerfractal displacement?
That also spits out vectors with displacement.
I don't see the real difference yet, other than that with the vector displacement shader you can weight each X/Y/Z vector individually.

In other words; isn't it already procedurally present in TG simply in the form of a powerfractal?

I suppose these remarks/questions are a simple consequence of my post on the previous page where I stated I find this topic interesting, but the discussion rather fragmented, confusing and not really clear to me what everybody's doing or talking about :)

mhaze

#170
TU, the real advantage over the powerfractal is that you can precisely sculpt the terrain or feature you need to realize an idea.  Most of the time, I spend hours trying to achieve something akin to idea in my head, now I can achieve exactly what I want it in minutes. Think of a vector map as a sophisticated HF. My beach pic in image sharing begins to show what I mean, the piece I'm working on could not be achieved with powerfractals.


Badger I haven't been able to create holes, edit the .exr in photoshop or get subtle details yet.  You have to create large bold shapes. I'm still experimenting with setting so maybe in the future.  Other apps such as mudbox might be able to produce more detailed maps. I only have zbrush to play with but blender might be a good bet in the future.

TheBadger

I see some ways through some of these issues. But I have to try it.

T-U
   I cant say its better. I just say if it works its a nice new tool. And for me at least, it will make some things much much easier. And I agree that if it works like I think I can make it work for me, it will make me much faster. I will be able to spend more time rendering and less time building with complex nodes I don't fully understand. And I suppose it would be true for a lot of others also.
   
You are completely right about this thread not answering fundamental questions though. Probably we should split this thread once we get our first Mud and Z step by steps. Then we can just work on refining that info into really useful instructions and versions.

Mhaze,
QuoteBadger I haven't been able to create holes
But both Chris and Ulco did. So we know it can be done. Right? (Chris used Z, and ulco used PS) Ill test mud, and hopefully T-U will too when he has more time.
And hopefully Paq and J will jump back in when they have some time also.
Between all of us we should be able to figure every little detail?

I think I am just going to shut my mouth now until after this weekend, when I have the time to really dive in and prove my ideas. Or disprove them.
But based on what you guys have all already accomplished I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do what I hope to do.  :-X

It has been eaten.

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: mhaze on July 17, 2013, 05:46:37 AM
TU, the real advantage over the powerfractal is that you can precisely sculpt the terrain or feature you need to realize an idea.  Most of the time, I spend hours trying to achieve something akin to idea in my head, now I can achieve exactly what I want it in minutes. Think of a vector map as a sophisticated HF. My beach pic in image sharing begins to show what I mean, the piece I'm working on could not be achieved with powerfractals.

Yes I understand that concept from the beginning of this topic, that's not the problem I'm having.

It's one of the reasons I found a recent CGSociety discussion so good, where one guy started to ask "what the f.... are we doing for years? Working with polygons, UV's etc. It's all such a pain, why the hell are we still doing it this way?" And I couldn't agree more and I suppose it's quite a bit what Ulco meant with "I want to be able to do this procedurally" because then you won't need to worry about UV's and all those other ancient concepts where this whole industry has its foundations built on.
Ghehe, this almost sounds like a rant :D

I'm mostly very confused about the fragmented app-specific discussion and all the UV-stuff involved.
Possibly together with the lack of examples and properly described workflow.
I'm following this at a distance so to say, as I'm not actively experimenting and that definitely means that it can be quite hard to follow from time to time. For me at least.

The fact is that TG procedural noise is not "directable" and that's why you paint maps.
I can create a "build vector" node and attach a colour-PF to each of its axis-inputs and I would create a procedural vector displacement map.
So it's not that you can not do it, but that it is rather impossible because of the lack of "art direction" you can give to your fractals.

That was partially the point I was making with my previous point.

Tangled-Universe

Thanks Michael, I think that's a great idea to get it all written/worked out for each specific workflow :)

mhaze

I completely agree about the old ways of doing things.  The industry wants precise results fast and there are new ways coming but it will be a while before they get here.  It is not easy to do this in PS we are back to the hours experimenting hence the use of sculpting apps.  I've played with both now and will use both and I've some ideas about how to push sculpting much farther and it will remain my primary approach.  PFs have their uses and I'll continue to use them but in conjunction with more controllable techniques such as VDisp and HF imported and meshes.  I just don't have the brains to do it any other way.  What we need is a voxel app that exports to TG and TG developed to support it. preferably free or very reasonably priced.

Dune

Quoteit is rather impossible because of the lack of "art direction" you can give to your fractals
That is what I hope to change... find a way to control the way a fractal variation can be used in xyz 'vector displacement' by clever multiplying, color adjustment, transforming...

Just getting fairly decent breakers (again, yes, it's been a while) by using sin and cos functions and some VD....

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: Dune on July 17, 2013, 08:35:53 AM
Quoteit is rather impossible because of the lack of "art direction" you can give to your fractals
That is what I hope to change... find a way to control the way a fractal variation can be used in xyz 'vector displacement' by clever multiplying, color adjustment, transforming...

Just getting fairly decent breakers (again, yes, it's been a while) by using sin and cos functions and some VD....

Exactly,..."by clever multiplying, color adjustment, transforming...by using sin and cos functions and some VD"...doesn't really sound like art-directing :)

Of course that's no critique to your approach and efforts, but it's exactly what you are trying to do: making something directable by adding other elements to the equation, but essentially making it more complex and more difficult to direct.

I think fractals are mostly useful for touching up and detailing your displacements, rather than allowing them to guide your main shape (the art-directive way).
Painting a vector map is nice and definitely allows you to get specific results, but like I said before the workflow and UV issues just make me horrify when thinking about starting with this.

Ideally TG should have voxel or iso-surface terrain support at some point which would allow you to entirely sculpt your shape and to not worry about all the other stuff if you don't want to.

Of course I'm acting very lazy here :)

mhaze

Martin the uv and workflow issues are as easy as pie.  I'm not skilled with such things either but managed first try. Have a go it's easy really. 

j meyer

Quote from: TheBadger on July 17, 2013, 06:30:53 AM
.....
Mhaze,
QuoteBadger I haven't been able to create holes
But both Chris and Ulco did. So we know it can be done. Right? (Chris used Z, and ulco used PS)
....

It is not possible to create real holes with VDisp!(as mentioned earlier in this thread)
Chris has created a cavern as you can clearly see when /if you load his exr.
Ulcos example is a cave and I'd guess the seethrough part is cheated in the usual
way(transparency/opacity)somehow.
And Ulcos arch is a sphere actually.
You can't displace a real hole into a closed surface(the TG planet)! No way!

T-U - what uv issues are you talking about?

mhaze

I've just managed an arch by curving up and joining wto starting points.  Going for a run now will post later