Started by CG MANIA, March 18, 2018, 05:05:02 pm
Quote from: ajcgi on March 20, 2018, 11:31:31 amI often play with the depth modulator too. That helps with variety.[attachimg=1]
Quote from: Oshyan on March 20, 2018, 05:18:34 pmIt's interesting that this created an entire discussion. To me, using Terragen for years, it is fairly intuitive. You create a cloud layer, adjust a few settings, and you get a result very similar to what is desired here. It sounds like what is desired that is *different* from the default cloud layer is more coverage (and a camera position above the clouds). I would first start by putting the camera where I want it to be because only then can I adjust cloud parameters and see if it is giving me the result I want (you cannot adjust cloud settings from the ground and be confident it is doing what you want *above* the clouds). So I move the camera up, camera movement is fairly clear too, right? Now I'm above the clouds...OK so now so let's see about coverage... Well, there is a Coverage slider in the cloud layer, so I just increase that until there are no more gaps in the clouds but more like a continuous "carpet" of clouds. Using a value of 2 actually worked fine, but lower values may work well also. A value of 0.8 or so was patchier but matched some of the other attempts people have posted here. This is the image I get from Coverage of 2.0 with Easy Cloud Large Cumulus (I adjusted sun position to match the Vue reference):[attachimg=1]Basically I arrived at this result by thinking about what kind of cloud types and sizes I wanted - to match the reference I thought a Cumulus would be good - and then creating that type of layer, moving my camera to a good position, adjusting sun, and then changing cloud settings in the Ray Traced Preview mode until I had what I wanted. Pretty straightforward. Of course the clouds fade out in the distance, but this is just because the layer is Localized (it is hoped this is clear from the Radius value, but I can understand that the "Localize" checkbox being grayed out may make that part unclear).So certainly one issue with what CG Mania tried is using Global Clouds. Perhaps it is not clear enough in the cloud preset list, but they are intended for *global* views (i.e. from orbit). Maybe those presets should be at the bottom of the list because they should be used much less often and are less realistic (they are good for orbital views, but not for anything near the ground).It's also a good idea to pay attention to the range of values in the sliders, even if you want to enter values manually. In this case the Coverage maximum (for Easy Clouds) is 1.6. That means we are suggesting that the *maximum* value you'd want to use is 1.6. You can always use higher (or lower) values than the minimum and maximum in the slider, but in most cases the slider suggests a "normal" range of appropriate values. I would guess that a value lower than 2.0 would work fine for Coverage here, for example.Now I know of course that I am very familiar with how TG works, so I know how to do this. I'm not trying to make anyone feel stupid here, I hope I haven't, I imagine all of you would have taken a simpler approach if you knew what to do. So the failure here is that the simple route was for some reason not intuitive. Thus what I want to know is which of these steps was *not* intuitive to the original poster (CG Mania) and many of the rest of folks here (who did achieve nice results but took more complicated approaches, needlessly complicated in my view). We want to make workflow better so it's vital to understand where people get lost!- Oshyan
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.