Rocks, sand, dirt

Started by Martin, December 04, 2016, 11:05:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martin

Quote from: luvsmuzik on January 05, 2017, 09:38:04 AM
Hehe....great stuff, but those clouds in "well it's something" are more to my liking than in the improved displacement one. I like both images, but I really want to dive into those soft thick ones, and I do not think that is what you were going for.
I am not criticizing, just do not want your terrain lost in the mist. Improved ground cover in titan, like the small stones added!

Oh well don't you use Terragen 4?
I mean with the new cloud system it literally takes 3-5 minutes of tweaking to get some amazing cloud effect. I'm in love with the T4 clouds really haha

ADE

now I see this, I aint been in here much lately......good rocks btw

Martin

Getting better, I have to fix a few errors here and there but it works now.

luvsmuzik

Did we find get altitude clip? Much better camera angle here. Very nice.

Martin

Quote from: luvsmuzik on January 05, 2017, 03:02:15 PM
Did we find get altitude clip? Much better camera angle here. Very nice.

Oh , what's this "get altitude clip" ? :O

I just used two strata layers with masks, so it's not uniform.

luvsmuzik

Quote from: Martin on January 05, 2017, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on January 05, 2017, 03:02:15 PM
Did we find get altitude clip? Much better camera angle here. Very nice.

Oh , what's this "get altitude clip" ? :O

I just used two strata layers with masks, so it's not uniform.


I thought maybe you had flattened the tops of your displacements to avoid the spiking. This thread may or may not interest you. However the clip works if you want a level mesa. Since you have tower like displacements, probably not needed here.

http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21784.msg219109.html#msg219109

Martin

#126
Quote from: luvsmuzik on January 05, 2017, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Martin on January 05, 2017, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on January 05, 2017, 03:02:15 PM
Did we find get altitude clip? Much better camera angle here. Very nice.

Oh , what's this "get altitude clip" ? :O

I just used two strata layers with masks, so it's not uniform.

Ah thanks! I'll check it out! I dont really need it now though, but it will come handy!

I thought maybe you had flattened the tops of your displacements to avoid the spiking. This thread may or may not interest you. However the clip works if you want a level mesa. Since you have tower like displacements, probably not needed here.

http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21784.msg219109.html#msg219109

AP

I can barely keep up with all of this.    8)

Martin

#128
PLanet with lights, luminous clouds

Any tips how to use compute terrain- normal's patch size? I usually leave the terrain normal patch size at 20. But After making a new scene I realised that was the problem with a lot of the displacements. 2 works better. But I know that in the past small patch sizes also caused a lot of errors. If I have a displacement with small and big details as well...How to determine the right patch size? Guess? Tweaking? Smaller the better?

Also I'm still not sure how often should I use a compute normal node. After every bigger displacement? Like if I have a fractal noise as a terrain-I need a compute normal-terrain. After that I have strata. And voronoi billows displacement..Then Voronoi cell noise
Displacement. Should I put a compute normal after all of them?

Dune

The less compute nodes the better, they all take time. If you need lateral displacements or displacements that specifically act upon earler displacements a compute terrain or compute normal would be needed. It's easy to check out what the differences are, just add one of them where you would think it necessary, zoom in and 'd' (disable) the compute node; see what happens to your displacement.
Same with patch size; it's meters, so if you work in big displacements a small patch size is often overkill, but if you go small, a 1m patch size or even smaller would be needed.
With displacement intersection (and smoothing) the patch size also determines the calculated (averaged) smoothness, so with bigger values the (snow) fields will be smoother/grander. 

Martin

Quote from: Dune on January 06, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
The less compute nodes the better, they all take time. If you need lateral displacements or displacements that specifically act upon earler displacements a compute terrain or compute normal would be needed. It's easy to check out what the differences are, just add one of them where you would think it necessary, zoom in and 'd' (disable) the compute node; see what happens to your displacement.
Same with patch size; it's meters, so if you work in big displacements a small patch size is often overkill, but if you go small, a 1m patch size or even smaller would be needed.
With displacement intersection (and smoothing) the patch size also determines the calculated (averaged) smoothness, so with bigger values the (snow) fields will be smoother/grander.

Thanks!
I've made some tests.
I think there are a lot of instances where I should've use more compute normals. That's why I have some random errors on my displacements.
Though when I tried to put 4 compute normals in my more complex scenes it slowed down the render a hundred times indeed. And because it was tweaked to work without the normals, I think I'l get a lot of new errors.

Oshyan

Using a smaller patch size is mainly useful for smaller detail representation. It should not hurt your larger features, in general, though they may be "negatively" affected by the smaller-scale features that show up when you reduce patch size. So basically the default of 20 is fine unless you're finding you're limited in how you're able to represent and/or act on smaller scale displacements.

As far as how many Compute nodes to use and where, as Ulco said, technically you should use one new one every time you modify the displacement *if* you want any subsequent displacement to be based correctly on the new displaced shape of the terrain. However in practice you can often use fewer Computes, and it is indeed desirable to do so to avoid high render times. There are a couple ways you can do this, for example combine your noise functions beforehand in color space, and find ways to get the shapes you want in a single displacement pass.

This can be especially effective if you break your workflow up into different scales, so the large scale displacement is created from a single displacement input that may be made up of the combination of several other shaders for example, but is only being displaced once. Same with the medium and then smaller scale displacements. This can allow you to get nice and complex shapes with overhangs and other unique and important features, without having to have a ton of compute nodes.

Sometimes it is not practical to do this and/or the result will be different from how it would be if you added one large displacement, then another on top of it, however subsequent large displacements can often cause overlapping geometry anyway, which is another problem that creates large render times and undesirable render artifacts.

So basically think creatively to try to create the shapes you want in as few steps as possible, especially when it comes to displacement. You can combine non-displacement data easier and "cheaper" than recalculating subsequent displacements with Compute nodes. So try to take that approach. And, as Ulco also said, when in doubt try adding a Compute node where you think it might make a difference and then see if you like the change or not.

- Oshyan

Martin

Quote from: Oshyan on January 06, 2017, 04:37:26 PM
Using a smaller patch size is mainly useful for smaller detail representation. It should not hurt your larger features, in general, though they may be "negatively" affected by the smaller-scale features that show up when you reduce patch size. So basically the default of 20 is fine unless you're finding you're limited in how you're able to represent and/or act on smaller scale displacements.

As far as how many Compute nodes to use and where, as Ulco said, technically you should use one new one every time you modify the displacement *if* you want any subsequent displacement to be based correctly on the new displaced shape of the terrain. However in practice you can often use fewer Computes, and it is indeed desirable to do so to avoid high render times. There are a couple ways you can do this, for example combine your noise functions beforehand in color space, and find ways to get the shapes you want in a single displacement pass.

This can be especially effective if you break your workflow up into different scales, so the large scale displacement is created from a single displacement input that may be made up of the combination of several other shaders for example, but is only being displaced once. Same with the medium and then smaller scale displacements. This can allow you to get nice and complex shapes with overhangs and other unique and important features, without having to have a ton of compute nodes.

Sometimes it is not practical to do this and/or the result will be different from how it would be if you added one large displacement, then another on top of it, however subsequent large displacements can often cause overlapping geometry anyway, which is another problem that creates large render times and undesirable render artifacts.

So basically think creatively to try to create the shapes you want in as few steps as possible, especially when it comes to displacement. You can combine non-displacement data easier and "cheaper" than recalculating subsequent displacements with Compute nodes. So try to take that approach. And, as Ulco also said, when in doubt try adding a Compute node where you think it might make a difference and then see if you like the change or not.

- Oshyan

Thanks for the detailed answer!
Combining the displacements into one colour map was the way I worked until now. But some of the bigger displacements has changed the terrain too much, so I've got errors. That's why I started using several displacements. One colour mix for the big displacements, one for the cracks, and one for the med-small noise.
Though after testing, I realised I get better results with only the original compute terrain normals. Maybe only one compute normal after the bigger displacement, but even that can cause more errors than what it fixes.
With the newest valley picture , a small patch size in the compute terrain  have fixed a lot of odd displacement errors. but when I used the same smaller patch size for rocks earlier, it made the rocks into spikes. So it's a bit tricky for me to find out what to use yet.

Martin

I've always been mixing a lot of different maps into one displacement map:

Martin

self luminous alien plants, and planet with city lights.