Classic Erosion plugin

Started by Daniil, November 03, 2017, 05:14:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

WAS

What are the Height Map resolutions for this plugin? I notice for the free version (I'm I'm using currently) the Height Maps says its limited. It's set to 512, but can be bumped to 1024. Is this normal behavior and extended resolutions hidden, or is the limitation not working?

I also have been experimenting with this plugin and wonder, is it actually eroding terrain, or just applying predefined erosion based on height of the original terrain? I seem to have a bad habbit of similar shapes with completely different terrain. Still trying to figure out how to erode anything like anyone else. Lol

luvsmuzik

Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
What are the Height Map resolutions for this plugin? I notice for the free version (I'm I'm using currently) the Height Maps says its limited. It's set to 512, but can be bumped to 1024. Is this normal behavior and extended resolutions hidden, or is the limitation not working?

I also have been experimenting with this plugin and wonder, is it actually eroding terrain, or just applying predefined erosion based on height of the original terrain? I seem to have a bad habbit of similar shapes with completely different terrain. Still trying to figure out how to erode anything like anyone else. Lol

You have to assign the maps to RGB channels. I did it on surface layers assigning slope and altitude, etc...
Link for more details...blinkfrog general instructions with examples
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23764.msg240241.html#msg240241

WAS

Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
What are the Height Map resolutions for this plugin? I notice for the free version (I'm I'm using currently) the Height Maps says its limited. It's set to 512, but can be bumped to 1024. Is this normal behavior and extended resolutions hidden, or is the limitation not working?

I also have been experimenting with this plugin and wonder, is it actually eroding terrain, or just applying predefined erosion based on height of the original terrain? I seem to have a bad habbit of similar shapes with completely different terrain. Still trying to figure out how to erode anything like anyone else. Lol

You have to assign the maps to RGB channels. I did it on surface layers assigning slope and altitude, etc...
Link for more details...blinkfrog general instructions with examples
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23764.msg240241.html#msg240241

It seems those are mainly for masking/coloring your erosion after it's finalized.

luvsmuzik

Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 06:03:12 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
What are the Height Map resolutions for this plugin? I notice for the free version (I'm I'm using currently) the Height Maps says its limited. It's set to 512, but can be bumped to 1024. Is this normal behavior and extended resolutions hidden, or is the limitation not working?

I also have been experimenting with this plugin and wonder, is it actually eroding terrain, or just applying predefined erosion based on height of the original terrain? I seem to have a bad habbit of similar shapes with completely different terrain. Still trying to figure out how to erode anything like anyone else. Lol

You have to assign the maps to RGB channels. I did it on surface layers assigning slope and altitude, etc...
Link for more details...blinkfrog general instructions with examples
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23764.msg240241.html#msg240241

It seems those are mainly for masking/coloring your erosion after it's finalized.

Pretty sure it isolates the maps for either color or distribution. I hooked wear map into a complicated displacement setup as a mask and wear was only applied there. I also generally run Erode again after i set up the channels. The paid version has larger resolution maps, but even the 1024 is good.

WAS

#49
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 06:03:12 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
What are the Height Map resolutions for this plugin? I notice for the free version (I'm I'm using currently) the Height Maps says its limited. It's set to 512, but can be bumped to 1024. Is this normal behavior and extended resolutions hidden, or is the limitation not working?

I also have been experimenting with this plugin and wonder, is it actually eroding terrain, or just applying predefined erosion based on height of the original terrain? I seem to have a bad habbit of similar shapes with completely different terrain. Still trying to figure out how to erode anything like anyone else. Lol

You have to assign the maps to RGB channels. I did it on surface layers assigning slope and altitude, etc...
Link for more details...blinkfrog general instructions with examples
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23764.msg240241.html#msg240241

It seems those are mainly for masking/coloring your erosion after it's finalized.

Pretty sure it isolates the maps for either color or distribution. I hooked wear map into a complicated displacement setup as a mask and wear was only applied there. I also generally run Erode again after i set up the channels. The paid version has larger resolution maps, but even the 1024 is good.

Oh I see. Will have to give it some more testing. I've been thinking of trying to see if we can set aside money for the paid version but I use free TG4 so not sure if the benefits will be worth it. I rarely send of projects for full resolution renders, and my buddy I used to have render stuff is super busy and like helps run a town now and just simply isn't even on Skype anymore let alone Facebook. I think 1024 resolution probably works well within my quality restraints.

Seems the 1024 maps are more a basic shape-form to than apply your own stuff too for the free version.

WAS

#50
Here is an example of simplicity. Is this limitation due to the quality of the heightmaps or settings? I see nothing to ramp up flows. The flows are just huge, and rounded off, having little aesthetic use. They also seem to not follow the wear map very well, starting/ending further away from crease points.

In the second image, X's mark crease wear points, and the circles represent misaligned flow maps. The question marks are flows which just don't make sense (or missing).


WAS

#52
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 08:16:19 PM
Are you wanting to do this?
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24021.msg242566.html#msg242566

Similar yes, but more tropical than alpine. Rain wear rather than glacial.

luvsmuzik

Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 08:16:19 PM
Are you wanting to do this?
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24021.msg242566.html#msg242566

Similar yes, but more tropical than alpine. Rain wear rather than glacial.

Not sure what is going on with yours. I did a rivers with one lake example and it did okay. I did a lava flow one and it did okay too. I only had the beta and free version a couple of days before I went ahead and purchased it. I don't think that matters much though I am not sure. I am not an expert, but I do like to experiment.

WAS

Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 08:32:46 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on March 19, 2018, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on March 19, 2018, 08:16:19 PM
Are you wanting to do this?
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24021.msg242566.html#msg242566

Similar yes, but more tropical than alpine. Rain wear rather than glacial.

Not sure what is going on with yours. I did a rivers with one lake example and it did okay. I did a lava flow one and it did okay too. I only had the beta and free version a couple of days before I went ahead and purchased it. I don't think that matters much though I am not sure. I am not an expert, but I do like to experiment.

Huh. Yeah no matter what I do the flows map is just really primitive looking, and a lot of the map is so light it doesn't show in the actual terrain, and all flows intersect with round spots and end in round spots. Going to test on a SS shape in a moment.

Daniil

Hello WASasquatch,
thank you for trying Classic Erosion.

Some answers to your questions:

1. Full version supports resolution up to 16384.

2. No, this algorithm doesn't use any predefined patterns. There is simulation only.

3. I am not sure what you want to achieve, so please excuse me if I am wrong. Are you trying to get usual eroded terrain? I can see you have enabled Rivers mode in the settings, this is very special mode which prevents usual fluvial erosion and is used for rivers generating only. So if you need just eroded terrain you should disable Rivers mode. If you want both fluvial erosion and rivers on the top of that you need to use two plugins in the chain, the first in usual mode, the second with rivers mode enabled.

Daniil

WAS

Quote from: blinkfrog on March 20, 2018, 02:17:44 AM
Hello WASasquatch,
thank you for trying Classic Erosion.

Some answers to your questions:

1. Full version supports resolution up to 16384.

2. No, this algorithm doesn't use any predefined patterns. There is simulation only.

3. I am not sure what you want to achieve, so please excuse me if I am wrong. Are you trying to get usual eroded terrain? I can see you have enabled Rivers mode in the settings, this is very special mode which prevents usual fluvial erosion and is used for rivers generating only. So if you need just eroded terrain you should disable Rivers mode. If you want both fluvial erosion and rivers on the top of that you need to use two plugins in the chain, the first in usual mode, the second with rivers mode enabled.

Daniil

I think I understand a bit. I'm trying to get smaller eroded rivers. I also notice if you decrease the river side, the river map will break altogether and show nothing in the map (if you disable the rivers you'll get some sort of map, which is not the rivers map when flow is selected for map output, when selected it's blank) requiring the plugin to be deleted and remade.

It all seems a bit confusing and I'm not sure if it's the map resolution limitations or what but can't seem to make anything that is remotely like other peoples work. If that's the case, it's not a good evaluation of the plugin. I can't tell what I'm doing at limited scale to know if it would be applicable at large scale.

Daniil

#57
WASasquatch,
It seems I understand what you want. I think what you need is not permanent rivers, but channels that left after heavy precipitation. The difference is that "precipitation" rivers don't have any particular "start" as they are formed from the smaller streams which are just raindrops gathered together. These streams disappear after precipitation is ended, whereas "permanent" rivers usually start from some headwaters, for example, underground springs and flow permanently. Current rivers mode targets rivers from headwaters, and headwaters are placed randomly. That is why rivers are placed not exactly where you want - they flow from random headwaters.

As for rivers due to precipitation and channels that are formed by these temporary streams. Current erosion model doesn't suits well for this because of some physical simplifications, but you can still get some good results using specific settings.

Don't use Rivers mode (disable if enabled), you need "common" erosion.
You need to use low Duration (less than 0.25), low Erosion strength (less than 0.5) and high Downcutting (close to 1.0 or even higher). Use low Base level (or even zero) to get sharper channels, also you can to experiment with Random sedimentation parameter to add some randomness to channels, but this can result in worse results.

See attached image.

I've used these parameters:
Duration = 0.1 (you can try even lower values, say, 0.05, but sometimes you need to set Erosion strength higher in this case, or to use Downcutting that is higher than 1.0)
Erosion strength = 0.15
Softness = 1.0
Downcutting = 1.0
Base level = 0.12
Random sedimentation = 0.5
Also I've set Erosion scale parameter to relatively high value (1000), this sometimes can help.

Result is almost unmodified terrain but with channels that left from temporary streams, formed during heavy rains.

Daniil

WAS

What I mean by precipitation erosion is something like Koolau in Hawaii



Constant precipitation flow has cut channels out of the mountain from peak to base. Though this is a bit more extreme an example than I intended. I was able to do something with maps that is somewhat close just wish the flows could be smaller, based on a scale or something.

Daniil

#59
WASasquatch,
Ah, ok. The word "rivers" distracted me.
To get deep cuts you need to use high values of Downcutting parameter. Hint: you can, and should use values higher, than 1.0, for example, 2.0, 4.0 or even 10.0 or 50.0. Deposition may look strange with these settings, to compensate this you can set high value of "Base level" parameter, I found that 0.4 from Downcutting is good, for example, Downcutting = 10, Base level = 4, but it requires more experimenting.
In the attached example I used these settings:
Duration = 0.2
Erosion strength = 1.0
Rock softness = 0.05 (to get thinner gullies and to change its distribution to emphasize the ones with more intensive flows)
Downcutting = 20
Base level = 8
Also I used quite aggressive thermal erosion here to make "walls" a bit more smooth and solid looking.

Daniil

P. S. I am pondering on making "Downcutting" parameter range wider, say, up to 10 or 20, and to make it non-linear and weighted towards lower values. It won't affect the behaviour and old projects compatibility, but will make using higher values easier. Possibly the same for Base level parameter.

P. P. S. Possibly I am wrong about  such high values of Base level. It requires experimenting, possibly it is better to start with 1.0, and then try higher values.