Anyone have any amazing cloud .tgd files to share?

Started by moodflow, December 30, 2006, 02:39:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MeltingIce

Quote from: Yongkiatk on December 31, 2006, 12:28:18 PM
Hello there Melting Ice:

I tried out the cloud scene you posted

http://imagehost.meltingice.net/viewer.php?id=viu1167517281a.jpg

but culdn't get such nice deep / refine render like yours. Any tips on that?

Regards,
Hmm, well since I bought TG2 I set the anti-aliasing at 5, but I don't know how much of a difference that will make.  I added a lot of contrast in Photoshop after it rendered as well so maybe thats why mine looks more deep and refined.

MeltingIce Network | Wii Number: 3881 9574 8304 0277

Yongkiatk

Thanks a bunch :) I also bought the TG2 and will do as you instructed & see. Your files certainly help me learn TG.

Oshyan

The cloud density input operates on the color values, not displacement. Twist and Shear only affects displacement, as far as I know (likewise Strata and Outcrops). The Power Fractal provides color, and the Alpine Shader probably does too. So they should work. You can use a Warp Shader to get some potentially interesting results though.

- Oshyan

Xerraire

"Xerraire"

------------------------------------------------
» Personal Site: http://www.xerraire.com
» Skins Site: http://www.skinsgallery.com
» Personal Blog: http://www.xerraireart.com/blog

ProjectX

Quote from: JavaJones on December 31, 2006, 02:18:51 PM
The cloud density input operates on the color values, not displacement. Twist and Shear only affects displacement, as far as I know (likewise Strata and Outcrops). The Power Fractal provides color, and the Alpine Shader probably does too. So they should work. You can use a Warp Shader to get some potentially interesting results though.

- Oshyan

Ahh I see, I'd assumed that they were based on a displaced spheroid, or something similar, but thinking back, that would have required quite complex algorithms to get anything remotely near pretty.

I'll have a go with a warp shader to see what I can come up with.

hyper1

Hey Barb,
I'm glad to see your post.  Very nice work by the way!  TG2 should be a lot of fun for you.
Gary Poole
Quote from: Xerraire on December 31, 2006, 05:11:13 PM
Also sharing...

VermilionMartyr

Quote from: JavaJones on December 31, 2006, 03:29:09 AM
1000 or more samples certainly should not be necessary for realistic clouds. Certainly you can create situations where you need samples that high to get rid of grain, but these are generally not situations that would result in the most realistic clouds anyway. The edges would have to be very sharp, density very high, and likely depth also quite high. Luc Bianco's well-known cumulus cloud render didn't even use 1000 samples, much less 1500+. Personally I will never render an image with more than 512 samples. If I find it needs more than that to get rid of the noise I either A: assume it's a problem of my settings and adjust things, B: use a post processing noise reduction filter (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.) or C: just give up and start over. :D

- Oshyan

My settings:

Cloud Alt: 2700
Cloud Depth: 2085

Edge Sharp: 2.7
Cloud Density: .94
Coverage Adjust: .075

Samples: 1820

Results after half an hour:


So, working on cutting the rendering time and dropping out the grain... and making the clouds look better >.<

ProjectX

What AA setings you using?

Nice looking rocks btw, but it looks like yor water entity cuts off about 1/4 the way into the right hand side of the image...

peter1

Quote from: ProjectX on January 01, 2007, 09:38:28 AM
What AA setings you using?

Nice looking rocks btw, but it looks like yor water entity cuts off about 1/4 the way into the right hand side of the image...

Isn't that a rendering artifact which would disappear when the render finished?

ProjectX

i honestly don't know, with the time it takes to render on my comp, I usually go and watch tv while it does its stuff, I just thought that maybe he'd moved the camera to the edge of the lake (if that's possible - I'd assume so, since you can specify the lake size) and so was only rendering the edges.

Oshyan

I'd say most of that noise is probably due to needing more atmosphere samples, not more cloud samples. What are your atmosphere samples set at? Complex rays and backlighting as in this scene really tend to require higher values of 64 or even greater.

Nice scene btw. :)

- Oshyan

VermilionMartyr

Thanks ;-)  I eventually got fed up with the clouds and threw this onto my DeviantArt- anyone can feel free to comment and look around the site.


>Linky<

But, armed with your advice, Oshyan,  I'm going to re-visit the scene tomorrow afternoon after school and see if I can get some decent looking clouds/sunlight effects in there.

Elegy

My attempt at thick clouds is attached. I probably didn't optimize the settings very well though since it took over 30 hours to render with over 1000 samples.

RealUser

Your fakestones look great! Would you mind to share the .tgd-file?

Quote from: VermilionMartyr on January 04, 2007, 12:39:14 AM
Thanks ;-)  I eventually got fed up with the clouds and threw this onto my DeviantArt- anyone can feel free to comment and look around the site.
But, armed with your advice, Oshyan,  I'm going to re-visit the scene tomorrow afternoon after school and see if I can get some decent looking clouds/sunlight effects in there.
Markus / RealUser
...................................................................
visit my Renderosity Gallery at
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=RealUser
...................................................................

JimB

#29
Can I just make a suggestion about very high cloud densities (1.0+)? Try taking the edge sharpness down to a proportionally very low level, much lower than 0.1, as something to try out. Also, decreasing the smallest scale size in the Cloud Fractal shader (pattern) helps once you've done that).
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.