About to pull the trigger on WorldCreator, opinions needed

[Profane]

Hey there !

I have been doodling with demos for quite a while here, testing which program i should get to "extend" my terragens capabilities.

I'm 99% sure i'm gonna go with WorldCreator [If you have reasons, do tell why i shouldn't].

But i'm wondering about one little thing, the license.

If i get WorldCreator from Steam, it's gonna cost me 92,99€ and it's only limitation is the resolution, which is 4096 by 4096.
But if instead i get the Indie version from their site, it would cost me 149€ and have no restrictions resolution wise.

I feel like 4096 4096 is more than enough for a hobbyist, at least from my perspective.. But i would love to hear what you Terragen wizards have to say about this ! Share your thoughts !

And once again, feel free to ask any questions that pop into your mind. Also i'm not a native speaker here so apologies if my text is somewhat confusing.

Any and all input is more than appreciated !

[mhaze]

Go with World machine not world creator!

[Profane]

Go with World machine not world creator!

I saw people prefer it over worldcreator on this forum but i honestly can't see why. Any specific reasons ? For me it looks a bit more complicated software.

[mhaze]

It's far more flexible.  WC has better erosion but is for me harder to use creatively.  WM has far more options and a good macro library. There are some good tuts out there for WM and once you get the basics it's very flexible.

[Profane]

It's far more flexible.  WC has better erosion but is for me harder to use creatively.  WM has far more options and a good macro library. There are some good tuts out there for WM and once you get the basics it's very flexible.

Hmm, interesting. After watching countless of tutorials i agree 100% that World Machine seems to be more flexible and allow more room for creativity. But for the sake of realism and details, i honestly feel like World Creator still takes the spot. Tho still haven't decided.

[TheBadger]

IF you had a mac it would be an easy choice because WM is not on osx.  lol. Anyway, that's why I don't have WM. But I have GC2, which I hate. But I thought WC looked pretty good. Still, I hate GC2 so much I still have not bought WC.
And I know that what I said is of no help whatsoever... But

The truth is in this case, you can have both. Just save a little more cash. They both do things the other cant, but with TG you can probably make them work together very well.

I have found, sadly, that to do 3D on your own terms, you have to have multiple programs for everything. But you are just talking about a niche... this is relatively cheap.
It really sucks when you are talking about full 3D soft like Maya, max, Houdini, Modo. Then there are the sculptors like Mud and Z and others. I have found that I need at least 2 no mater what.

Just be glad that you are interested in terrain and spend the money. At least you wont be in debt... should not be... And then you can kick ass twice as much. Or not, but at least you will still be able to pay your rent

Anyway, these kinds of threads are useless. There are hundreds maybe thousands just like it on the net, and they are always wrong... Because they are always a trick question. There is NO better choice.

I say all this as someone who has gone through it just like most everyone else. The real question is, How much can you spend? And the answer is, as much as you have you will end up spending. So just pick the one with the prettier logo. And then buy the other one too.

And yes, I am trying to be humors. But I am also completely serious. 3D is just expensive.

Just my opinion 

[Profane]

IF you had a mac it would be an easy choice because WM is not on osx.  lol. Anyway, that's why I don't have WM. But I have GC2, which I hate. But I thought WC looked pretty good. Still, I hate GC2 so much I still have not bought WC.
And I know that what I said is of no help whatsoever... But

The truth is in this case, you can have both. Just save a little more cash. They both do things the other cant, but with TG you can probably make them work together very well.

I have found, sadly, that to do 3D on your own terms, you have to have multiple programs for everything. But you are just talking about a niche... this is relatively cheap.
It really sucks when you are talking about full 3D soft like Maya, max, Houdini, Modo. Then there are the sculptors like Mud and Z and others. I have found that I need at least 2 no mater what.

Just be glad that you are interested in terrain and spend the money. At least you wont be in debt... should not be... And then you can kick ass twice as much. Or not, but at least you will still be able to pay your rent

Anyway, these kinds of threads are useless. There are hundreds maybe thousands just like it on the net, and they are always wrong... Because they are always a trick question. There is NO better choice.

I say all this as someone who has gone through it just like most everyone else. The real question is, How much can you spend? And the answer is, as much as you have you will end up spending. So just pick the one with the prettier logo. And then buy the other one too.

And yes, I am trying to be humors. But I am also completely serious. 3D is just expensive.

Just my opinion 

Thank you for your opinion. Tho i would have loved to hear what other program does better than the other.

Also, i had no luck with google to find clear and simple answers on their differences. All i could do was to watch youtube videos and try to spot the differences my self, that's why i started this thread. If i had luck using google and stumbled on enough information about this subject, i wouldn't have started this thread 

Agreed. Work with what works best for you and see where you can carry it from there and yes if you can buy both, then use both to compliment one another.

Guess ill go with both, tho thinking about starting with World Creator. Seems... less niche for my use. I can actually see doing most of my terrains with this.

Tho i would love to hear one more thing, the main thing. What do you guys think about the resolution limitation on the steam version ?

[TheBadger]

it's only limitation is the resolution, which is 4096 by 4096.
But if instead i get the Indie version from their site, it would cost me 149€ and have no restrictions resolution wise.

As far as the resolution of the steam version. What you can do is make those terrains seamless and just stitch a few together.

Yeah, its a good solution for the money. But As for me, I would think that at some point you are going to want more, and may end up upgrading anyway. 4096 by 4096 is not really very high resolution if you are going to print any renders. But more detail can be added in TG too, so...

Personally I have some strange resolution madness, and I demand that I have unlimited even if I never use it. But I am an internet weirdo.
I personally do like what I have seen from WC, if you like the UI and you like the results it gives you, then you should start there. I don't think there is much of a chance that you will regret it. And like I said, you will want WM too, especially once you get really good with WC and TG together. Your ambitions and specific needs will increase, its just natural progression.

Don't forget that they have sales off and on too. If money is tight (which I fully understand) and you can wait, then you wont have to compromise so much because of cash.

[Profane]

it's only limitation is the resolution, which is 4096 by 4096.
But if instead i get the Indie version from their site, it would cost me 149€ and have no restrictions resolution wise.

As far as the resolution of the steam version. What you can do is make those terrains seamless and just stitch a few together.

Yeah, its a good solution for the money. But As for me, I would think that at some point you are going to want more, and may end up upgrading anyway. 4096 by 4096 is not really very high resolution if you are going to print any renders. But more detail can be added in TG too, so...

Personally I have some strange resolution madness, and I demand that I have unlimited even if I never use it. But I am an internet weirdo.
I personally do like what I have seen from WC, if you like the UI and you like the results it gives you, then you should start there. I don't think there is much of a chance that you will regret it. And like I said, you will want WM too, especially once you get really good with WC and TG together. Your ambitions and specific needs will increase, its just natural progression.

Don't forget that they have sales off and on too. If money is tight (which I fully understand) and you can wait, then you wont have to compromise so much because of cash.

I understand your irrational love for resolution. I am like you. But i think i can work around it this time.

And yea, about sales. Steams summer sales start tomorrow and i have my fingers crossed for a sweet deal from WC. It has been as low as 60$ in the past. Who knows, maybe i'll get lucky !

Thanks for helping out !

[archonforest]

Reading all this above I got interested in VM and looked up the prices...then I got shocked! For 99 bucks I got a dual core support??? This is ridiculous
Guess I just stay with TG and wait till they have the erosion stuff...grrr...this VM guys pissed me off like...

[TheBadger]

WC. It has been as low as 60$ in the past

If that is the case (or even close) please post about it here when you find out. For that money I would buy it without a second thought.

[Oshyan]

Although Terragen 2 and 3 support virtually unlimited heightfield sizes, from what I see of people using heightfields most people don't actually use above 4096 by 4096 (many people aren't even using heightfields at all, relying on procedurals). I think in the case of Terragen this is largely because you can add additional procedural detail after import, so the need for ultra high base heightfield terrain resolution is much less than it might otherwise be. With the coming possibilities of Daniil Kamperov's "procedural erosion" plugin, there may be even less need for super high resolution base terrains...

So I think if you have to spend 50% more mainly for "unlimited" resolution, it may not be worth it if your main use is for Terragen...

- Oshyan

[archonforest]

Daniil Kamperov's "procedural erosion" plugin...

- Oshyan

Whennnn.....

[Oshyan]

Out of my hands I'm afraid. Daniil is working on a fancy new algorithm (the original one was good, but had some limitations). But you'll at least be able to get a proper look at the results (in motion) soon.

- Oshyan

[Profane]

WC. It has been as low as 60$ in the past

If that is the case (or even close) please post about it here when you find out. For that money I would buy it without a second thought.

Currently it's on sale for 79,04€ but if it gets a daily deal then i think it might go as low as 60€~. I'll let you know if it does [if i remember, no pinkie promises].

Although Terragen 2 and 3 support virtually unlimited heightfield sizes, from what I see of people using heightfields most people don't actually use above 4096 by 4096 (many people aren't even using heightfields at all, relying on procedurals). I think in the case of Terragen this is largely because you can add additional procedural detail after import, so the need for ultra high base heightfield terrain resolution is much less than it might otherwise be. With the coming possibilities of Daniil Kamperov's "procedural erosion" plugin, there may be even less need for super high resolution base terrains...

So I think if you have to spend 50% more mainly for "unlimited" resolution, it may not be worth it if your main use is for Terragen...

- Oshyan

Thank you, this makes me way more confident about the resolution. I was already pretty sure that i wont be rendering any 10k x 10k monsters, but now i'm settled. Thanks for the info !