Star Wars jedi: Fallen Order skydomes using Terragen??

Started by BeauJayce, July 22, 2020, 07:01:51 am

Previous topic - Next topic

BeauJayce

Here are some examples of skydomes that I made using Terragen.  Most of the skies I used were authored in Terragen and so were separate clouds that were later used as game assets as cards. Here is my experience with Terragen

Pros:
Art direct the skies with specific time of day and cloud composition.
Render cloud alphas for post work in photoshop or for in-engine materials.
Author HDR skies with a real dynamic range, which is important for in game lighting for some pipelines

Cons:
Still very difficult to control procedural outcomes of clouds. Limited access to education of software and lack of tools in Terragen make this difficult to overcome.
Very long render times. This usually limits the use of Easy Clouds to make the renders more manageable.  It's not easy to convince management that you need a render farm in a game pipeline


N-drju

Quote from: BeauJayce on July 22, 2020, 07:01:51 amCons:
Still very difficult to control procedural outcomes of clouds. Limited access to education of software and lack of tools in Terragen make this difficult to overcome.
Very long render times. This usually limits the use of Easy Clouds to make the renders more manageable.  It's not easy to convince management that you need a render farm in a game pipeline

- It's not really that hard. You can just mask cloud coverage areas in many ways and you don't necessarily have to loose precision.

- I feel you. That, I guess, is partially due to the management's ignorance ("A render fa... a render what??!") and partially due to the fact that they might be afraid of someone stealing the studio / company concept and output. Which, of course, is somewhat exaggerated, because render farms doing this would loose clients in an instant.

Welcome to the forums!
"This year - a factory of semiconductors. Next year - a factory of whole conductors!"

WAS

Quote from: N-drju on July 22, 2020, 09:22:33 am- It's not really that hard. You can just mask cloud coverage areas in many ways and you don't necessarily have to loose precision.

Ehh, we know you've had conversations about this as well, and struggle there too. I challenge any TG user to create specific type-cloud in their full glory at a whim... lol Most end up art specific, or conceptual with mass time spent developing them.

This is actually starting to be seen in production a lot in film now, where clouds are being generated, and as such, actually lacking a whole range of realism because they follow so many constrictions of fabrication in said software. Coming out looking like smoke simulation, or lacking real definition of any real cloud types other than quasi-cloud-like shapes. In the past cloud were done as 2D layers, we often see the best, most real-world examples in film-etc from these works. At least imo, as they are concepted based on photographs with free creativity in the medium.

A good modern example of this is Midways vs Pearl Harbor skydomes. In Pearl Harbor we either have on-location filming, or matte painting with very little 3D cloud work. Mainly for transitional hazing.

N-drju

Quote from: WAS on July 22, 2020, 12:56:52 pmEhh, we know you've had conversations about this as well, and struggle there too.

When and where exactly? :P The last I remember was the V2 vs. V3 difference complaint, but that was due to my incidental oversight.

Granted, I find it relatively easy nowadays to get the clouds that I want. Perhaps just not sharing them, hence your conclusion.
8)
"This year - a factory of semiconductors. Next year - a factory of whole conductors!"

WAS

Quote from: N-drju on July 23, 2020, 06:24:07 am
Quote from: WAS on July 22, 2020, 12:56:52 pmEhh, we know you've had conversations about this as well, and struggle there too.

When and where exactly? :P The last I remember was the V2 vs. V3 difference complaint, but that was due to my incidental oversight.

Granted, I find it relatively easy nowadays to get the clouds that I want. Perhaps just not sharing them, hence your conclusion.
8)

Maybe I confused you for someone else but swear you've mentioned the pain of doing clouds, and like I said, would love to see some example of realistic real-world clouds other than the simulation of easy clouds. It's all pretty difficult and time-consuming which often equates to difficulty in a pipeline.

N-drju

I admit I did some time ago. ;) But since about two years now, I have changed my workflow and can generally shape the clouds to my liking. Though I admit I make clouds that just suit a given scenery. Like, I don't really care if they are cirrocumulus, altostratus or else.

But I agree - clouds are real time-thieves. If not for skills or technical considerations, then certainly due to long render times. And we all know how depressing it is to render something and realize it's entirely not what you expect. And I don't really use easy clouds either. I prefer to mould them on my own, unless I need to cover a really large area fast.
"This year - a factory of semiconductors. Next year - a factory of whole conductors!"