How to cover the sky with clouds?

Started by CG MANIA, March 18, 2018, 05:05:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

WAS

Quote from: Oshyan on March 20, 2018, 07:00:47 PM
QuoteI think the biggest difference here is simply using Easy Clouds over a cloud density fractal. Clearly, the look with Cloud Layer v3 by default is flat and hazy on top as shown in images or by adding one and upping density yourself (default edge sharpness). The next issue is how the cloud depth works which creates only small peaks. Third issue is raising the cloud depth so when you raise actual peaks, they don't flatten against the boundaries.

Some of the issues you mention are only true of the Global cloud layer, for example the "hazy" look, etc. A default "Generic" cloud v3 looks like this (below), once you increase the depth range to 6000 to match the "Large" Easy Cloud.
[attachimg=1]
Increasing the depth should derive obviously from considering the look one wants (bigger/taller clouds), and one couldn't expect it to equal the look of Easy Cloud or any of the other deeper cloud setups you and others posted without increasing depth. Hopefully that is also intuitive, but I guess maybe many people don't actually know the real-world height of cloud formations...

You can then increase Coverage Adjust to 1 to get this:
[attachimg=2]
However yes, if you want more "dynamics" in the elevation range of clouds, then you need to do more work, similar to what you did. Increasing Coverage to 2 flattens things out a lot as the cloud starts to totally fill the vertical cloud volume, since it has no input varying the height separate from cloud coverage:
[attachimg=3]

What's important to realize, though, is that Easy Cloud includes a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff to help make the shapes more dynamic, and avoid the flattening out with increased coverage. The image and scene I posted before demonstrate this: with a Coverage of 2 dynamics are still maintained. The whole point of Easy Cloud is to try to make things more intuitive and quicker to achieve normal, realistic results without a lot of tweaking or in-depth node network setups.

Now for you, being presumably more familiar with Terragen, the node network, etc. then yes absolutely you can avoid use of Easy Clouds if you prefer. For someone like CG Mania who is clearly just starting out and trying to learn things, I think Easy Clouds are absolutely appropriate.

But actually I would caution *any* user against simply taking the more complex route to something without first trying the simpler approach. You may save time and effort by using built-in presets and settings rather than creating things from components like Function Nodes, and as we work to make Terragen easier to use, this will be increasingly so. The introduction of Easy Cloud is part of that effort, and would ideally not be ignored by even power users. It's intended to help everyone achieve specific, realistic results, no matter skill level.

The key is in knowing what it's good and useful for and using it in those cases, and not in situations where it's not as powerful or configurable as needed. True mastery lies not in avoiding all "easy"/simple/less-configurable aspects of the software, but instead taking the most effective route to the desired goal, which may well include some easy/preset options, along with more custom work to get specific "hero" cloud formations, etc.

- Oshyan

Great explanation Oshyan. Always learning something here. I think what is a little bit harder with generic clouds is making pits that are "whole"  without getting that flat top look from being to filled in. This is where the altitude offset function really comes in handy with taking the whole form you've creating, and varying it's altitudes.

Oshyan

Yes, Altitude Offset can be very useful indeed. If you have very specific results in mind, then using that and other tools in the "Generic" v3 clouds can be necessary. It's just not where I'd start. :)

- Oshyan