Some terragen images I found

[TheBadger]

I was looking for TG images on other forums.

I thought I would post this link to a TG render that I thought was really impressive given the subject. Actually I have been building assets for a similar use of TG. Despite this not really being TGs stated purpose.
http://martchi.cgsociety.org/art/terragen-marcello-deschino-voyage-en-toscane-3d-881126

Personally I think it looks really good. Im sure we could get into some real picky nuances of rendering where this image is concerned. But just going by my initial feelings when first seeing the images, I thought WOW, thats really nice.

For me I prefer the way TG is set up "out of the box" over how other programs work, for creating my scenes and images.
I like TG because (ignoring nodes for the moment) it presents an immediately understandable and relatable place to start working in.

When you first open a new scene in TG what do you get? You get the whole world as a blank slate. You get a sky that already works as a volumetric sky. And you get the Sun, which produces 'real' light from the onset. So all you have to do to get started in import a model and there you are. Now of course there is lots more work to do as there should be. But mentally, what you have to do is much easier to understand and visualize because you are doing that work in an environment that already makes sense. This opposed to creating worlds in Maya for example, where what you start out with has nothing what so ever to do with how the "world" looks or acts... Its a dark box you begin in, and thats where you stay. Im not saying this as a crit of maya really, just trying to explain why I try to do things in TG that are usually done in a program like maya.

The scene in the image link above would definitely have benefited from be rendered in a program like maya/mental or v ray. There are many reasons for that, all technical, and all of which are understood by most others better than by me. But I have to say, that from a pure creative standpoint (in terms of what helps me to be creative), I feel that TG presents a blank page that no other soft (that I have run into) provides.

OK, so on the render. Well, I guess that is all or nearly all bump. no real displacment on the surfaces. Probably, I am just guessing, but that scene would likely render very fast. The only thing that is in it that I can see that would cause a render to go somewhat slow would be the volumetric light... Which by the way is another great out of the box benefit to creating in TG vs others, ecspecially when coming to 3d from places like videography and photography... And being born in a volumetric world 

All of these things above are open for argument. But the parts about the starting place and the out of the box real world I get with TG are very fundamental to my continued use of TG. I mean even as I learn and start to get better with other softs, I stubbornly continue to try to use TG in ways that its not expressly meant for.

So in terms of the image above, what in TG is lacking that other softs have? I see displacement, and maybe just the amount of control one gets over how the light works with surface materials. But What else if anything?

I wanted to ask in terms of what I see in this image and already wrote, about future displacement power (yeah I know, nag, nag, nag). Will the SDK, allow developers to give us more displacement power and materials control (stuff like real skin power.. forgot the term for the moment ). OR is that stuff dis/sss something that can only be done in the TG coding? I mean, what are the real limits of an SDK in the hands of someone who knows how to use it and has the ambition to try and reach those limits?

I know that (because PS said so) that the SDK is a focus now. Thats great!.. In as much as I can understand it
But I gota say (yes again and again) Im dying for the displacement we need. And the related things having to do with real displacement. Will that be in the next update, or are we still a ways off? OR can the SDK make that possible somehow?

And lastly, this image makes me again think about creating whole complete animated scenes in TG (Im sorry I just can't help it!!) But look at it! Cant you just imagine figures going back and forth on those roads? So I wanted to nag about the better file format for importing object sequences.. Is that something that an SDK can help with in any way, or is that simply a mater of supporting the new file format?

Sorry to nag you Matt and Oshyan. Im sure your are doing what you need to. But I really do prefer the way TG works to how the other soft works. So yes I understand that there are other programs that are built to serve some of my needs better already. But given my explanation of why I prefer TG, you can't really blame me for wanting more from TG. OR can you ?

Anyway, I don't really have anything to complain about on TGs primary use. Thats pretty freaking great already. Sure there are little things like more noises to use, and wind. But really TG meets my needs for what it was meant for already. So.. there you go.

Be gentle now.

[Dune]

I don't want to belittle Martchi's work, but it all comes down to texturing. The shapes might very well be very simple, you can't really tell.  If you take a simple plane and texture it with a good photo, you get a very realistic image, won't you?

And as for displacement versus bump, IMHO where it is a flat plane bump will (perhaps nearly) do as good as displacement. I think only on the sides that angle away from the camera, real displacement makes a big difference. Though I looked at some trees lately and scrutinized the sides, and often that seems relatively 'bumpless', whereas the front may be ribbed.

And, for a scene like this you can switch off RT objects and get a really displaced object (never mind the simple and bad example). But I do agree a per object choice would be really the best feature to have! Top on my wishlist, anyway.

[TheBadger]

I cant agree with you at all about bump being nearly as good as real displacement. It does have its place for sure, but given the option I would always choose real displacement over bump unless it was painfully impractical. I know that it is a good practice in a workflow to have your scene set up for a specific shot. But I really prefer to set up a scene so that I can use the same scene/file for multiple shots. So I don't want to find a great view and have to worry about corners or whatever else.

About your image. Im not sure whats happening there. If that is real displacement then you should have some exploded seems? Or its super high polly, which is one of the things I am worrying about.

As far as RTO per object, Fine. Yes! whatever works. Just please give it to me! Im not clever enough to find all the tricks and work arounds. I really just brute force my way through things. But working super high polly for everything is a bit tiring.

But if the images are all texturing in the OP is not the question. My point is that as good as it looks, it would be really fantastic if the bump was real displacement. And animating that scene as I wish to do with mine, well bump is for games. I don't know game making.

Anyway, I know that everyone already knows all of this. I just wanted to harp. I really want the power. And Im very curious if the SDK can effect any part of the dis stuff. Or if the Dis stuff is going to come near when the SDK does, or will it be a bit longer than that.

I guess that when the SDK is finished then we will still have to wait for development from 3rd parties. But I also have the impression the 3rd parties are working along with PS as it is developed. So maybe some plugins will come out just as the SDK is released to the public... And what might those plugins be?!?!

Maybe those plugins will be so cool that Ill forget about my displacement ranting for awhile , they would have to be pretty cool though.

[Dune]

Maybe this is a better example. Of course I agree with you that real displacement is way better, but as you can see here in the areas that are not bending away from the camera, so to speak, real displacement is about as good as bump. Only at the edge of the object, real displacement gives real 'bumps'.
Left is 0.0075 bump with RTO off (indeed, some edges visible), next is 0.01 with an offset of 0.005 (RTO off), next is bump at 0.01 (RTO).
And yes, some exploding edges can occur, but if you play it carefully, and use the offset, you might get good results.

RTO per object would be ideal.

[Kadri]

Regarding displacement i don't understand the problem Michael.
If you don't use "ray trace objects" you can have real displacements on imported object.
With "Ray trace objects" it is more like bump mapping.
So if this is Ok you can use only the micro polygon rendering and displace all the way(until the objects fall apart) as Ulco said already.
See the attachment. I found the texture on the web and used it in this very basic OBJ file.

Edit: Just one note.
        With higher displacements the shadow of the displaced object might be a problem.
        It doesn't act accordingly so you have to try and see if it is a problem in your objects or not. 

[TheBadger]

Hi kadri,
Well this is all old news, but to answer your question, I know about RTO on/off very well. The problem is RTO on looks better for nearly everything, leaving me with just bump as a safe way to go. Or I must render twice in order to use displacement on my objects and raytrace on my plants, like in my mushrooms.

The reason I have not finished some of my projects that I have shown parts of is the displacement stuff. My maze world thing was a pretty big project for me. But if you remember you told me I should just use an object rather than displace the terrain in the way I was. Well I think you were right. But then displacing the object becomes a problem. And I cant simply model or sculpt the displacement (even though TG can handle the size of the file it would get) building it in polygons would be impossible! Just too large!.. I model at real scale as closely as I can.

Now obviously I can render in maya, it has mental ray. So most everything I want to do I can avoid these problems. But as far as I can tell, the only thing that I like better about that is the displacement stuff, and probably materials. Otherwise It much better and nicer to work at real scale with a real planet in TG, for me.

Anyway, I believe I could finish most everything I started out on in TG soon after we have real displacement. But maybe its me that does not understand something. So then try this...

Make a rectangle in a modeling app. 5 sides, (no need for a bottom) low polly, only 5 polygons.
Now find a good displacement texture of a old stone wall something near like this http://a.builddircdn.com/product-images/manufactured-stone-veneer/manufactured-stone-veneer_10757_250.jpg

Now render the wall with a near- to mid-ground POV where the render will show at least 2 sides, but three would be better. Photo real is the point.

Remember that the object is the point so don't just use bump and stick it in the background. Also, Why not use the new power of populating on objects? In fact now that you have your 5 sided wall, add some nice ground plants around it.
The problem is clear.

But again, does the SDK have the potential to fix this? Applying TRO per object may be just perfect. But now im just beating a dead horse.

but if you play it carefully, and use the offset, you might get good results.

Ulco, that is the perfect summery of what I complain about. Who can work like that on a large project? Sure if all you are doing in one image then fine. but not for using TG as a proper tool to tell a story. Try using a hammer that sometime works if your really carful. The house you are building would suffer and so would you.

Now that horse is really dead 

Anyway, Maya has tons of bugs, just tons of 'em. TG is really much more stable on my mac. But maybe if all these other tools get added TG would break too? No way for me to know.

[Kadri]

Not sure if we are on the same frequency but the middle ground looks like
you export the displaced objects from Maya and use those objects in Terragen.
The objects might be too heavy for this maybe. Depends on what you want.
You already did mentioned that i see now Michael.

Or the vector normal maps you mentioned in the other thread if they work like you want of course.

I said this earlier too and i mean it in a friendly way really but your approach is the real problem -if you ask me.
Make a plan-scenario and build the objects accordingly.

I haven't worked in a VFX house.
Someone from that standpoint could give you better advice.
But the end product matters. And the time in you build it all.
Nice high poly objects are good for showing your modeling skills.
But if you want to make an animation it should be made and render fast besides looking good at the same time .

I am sure you make very nice objects and displacements.
Not sure but i think some of them will be shown at 5 pixel high or behind some other objects even
only for that you feel comfortable and the possibility to use other angles in another animation.

Still curious how it will look

[TheBadger]

but your approach is the real problem -if you ask me.
Make a plan-scenario and build the objects accordingly.

Yes, I think you are right. But I blame Planetside. Terragen was my first 3D app. And TG lets me get away with a ton of things other software won't. So Now I demand that I be allowed to get away with anything at any time! Its Matt's fault I tell you! Besides my hope is to build one scene model and use it for all shots.

But seriously, I'll say it again, if programers are going to make things that make non-programers believe that anything is possible, then programers can't get updest when their non-programer users ask for miracles! 

Anyway. Per object RTO, when when when?

K, I will bury the horse now. His name was chuck, and he will be missed.

[Kadri]

[Oshyan]

Well, I'm just finally getting to properly replying to this (though I read it a little while ago). Sorry for the delay on that.

I have to say this was a real eye-opener. Mike, I think you know that at times I have really wondered why you stick so doggedly to accomplishing things entirely in TG, when your goals are clearly quite lofty and complex and could in some cases be accomplished better with other apps. Now I know! And while it may make your life more difficult in some ways, I *get it*, I finally get it. Which is cool. I really didn't understand for a long time.

Your perspective is actually quite interesting, it makes some sense to me in fact (the benefits of starting in a scene that includes "realism by default"), and it makes me wonder if others share your feelings about it. It's an aspect of TG we haven't really focused too much on overtly because I think we take it largely for granted, but you're right that it's mostly unique to TG. Even other landscape software starts comparatively simpler: where our base scene is a planet at minimum (and in the current version there is already terrain), others have a flat plane or nothing at all; we have a fully realistic, volumetric atmosphere and sunlight model out of the box, others use a simple gradient atmosphere and ambient/global light, or none at all; GI is enabled by default in TG, and not in most other applications.

Some people probably see the higher detail (and render cost) features being enabled in the default scene as a problem, and for some uses they might be. But it's an important point that it makes it easier to achieve realism out of the box, and that's really our goal.

So... I don't blame you for wanting to work in TG as much as possible. However there are some limitations that are unavoidable for now, and some that will probably remain for a while yet.

The kind of displacement improvements I think you're talking about, the ability to render raytraced, displaced objects, are still a ways off unfortunately. The require some fundamental changes to the render engine. Being able to selectively render objects or populations with or without the raytracer is certainly much closer (not to say it's coming tomorrow or anything, but compared to full raytraced displacement it's a good deal closer is what I mean). And this is unfortunately not something that the SDK will allow anyone else to fix, as far as I understand, because it's a limitation of the underlying render engine (I suppose there might be complex ways around it, but it would involve entirely separate, external rendering of displaced geometry, so even if it were possible, it'd be a big deal to tackle, and the results may be non-ideal; in short, not likely). Skin shader-type stuff might be more possible, but would require someone to develop a custom rendering shader that worked with the existing render engine and the data TG provides. I'm not sure how hard that is, honestly, nor how slow it would be to render, but I guess the latter might be the real issue.

Animated model support is something we're definitely interested in and you may see some progress on that sooner than later. I don't have any other details for the moment, but if there's progress in that direction, you'll know, I'm sure.

P.S. In the meantime, for objects you might otherwise displace, try just exporting them as full geometry. TG can handle some pretty high poly counts...

- Oshyan

[j meyer]

".......Your perspective is actually quite interesting, it makes some sense to me in fact (the benefits of starting in a scene that includes "realism by default"), and it makes me wonder if others share your feelings about it....."

That's actually a point that counts for me aswell.
One reason I like to do test renders with TG when sculpting.
And why I like to render the finished Model with TG.

There is always room for improvement of course,on either side.
That's why we keep nagging you guys.