Started by Denis Sirenko, April 24, 2018, 06:46:48 am
Quote from: Oshyan on April 23, 2018, 05:45:38 pmI'm honestly not sure how your cloud-based star method works, so I can't say exactly what the issue might be. I guess your clouds are luminous though?- Oshyan
Quote from: Kadri on April 24, 2018, 12:20:24 pmI think the main problem is the jittering setting in the cloud. But in case that i have changed other things and if it works or not, have a look for yourself.
Quote from: Matt on April 25, 2018, 02:47:30 amThis isn't a good way to render small points. Clouds are rendered using ray marching, which is great for slowly changing functions such as clouds but very bad for searching out tiny points of light in a vast volume of emptiness. It would be much better to use a populator to scatter luminous objects. If you're trying this volumetric approach to try to work around limitations of casting light from the populator, then you need to know that those limiations will also apply to a cloud-based star function.Matt
Quote from: WASasquatch on April 25, 2018, 02:19:12 pmThey may act the same way at the base code level, but what is iterated through each element is a totally different effect.
QuoteWe have already added stars to our nebulas/galaxies via clouds, and they work, actually very well. Light being cast doesn't go on forever at appropriate intensities, etc. With your example, you can plainly see the graining discussed, as well as the actual lighting artifacts. It also appears your light sources aren't actually coming from the objects in the first example.
QuoteOverall, it's just not an appropriate method or look, where clouds are.
QuoteI understand you want to declare [glowing clouds] a method that isn't appropriate due to how things function, but for final results, it's the only method appropriate besides manual light source placement.
QuoteI haven't played with GI much, I did with my first stars and literally no adjustments fixed seams, but those stars were absolutely tiny, and not 10+ meters from 1000m scales.
QuoteA populator would be amazing. And for still work, which frankly, most people do in TG, it's amazing. Though as shone with my offset example, the stars positions remain true even at a offset of 5000m. Additionally, you can use this method for global volumetric clouds, an actual cloud layer above your planet. Similar to using the background object but actually luminous and positions vary based on your position on the planet (though in the real world these variations would be much smaller. Probably obtainable with super huge scales or a very thin depth to prevent "depth".
QuoteThe second example looks promising. But, unfortunately, the methodology just doesn't translate well. It still creates pixelation out of the clouds, and playing with GI on a per-project basis was always a turn off for me.
QuoteThe stars themselves do not look good, and are not varied in size appropriately, leading one to insert many populations masked for appropriate procedural stars, as well as many more for depth. I see you used the terrain node to create some depth but this doesn't seem to be working well?
QuoteEspecially for a cloud depth of 20000m. Rock populations at this point would be adding 10x the work, in place of something that seems to be working despite the debate. Couple of the stars literally inside the nebula seem to do no close range glowing, it's all one solid carpet of luminosity at it's max distance on the the upper most drop-off.