Discontented User

[WAS]

I was just hoping people were a bit more positive about TG. Of course it could be better, but as said; it's in the hands of only one guy. Everyone complaining should do something about it, instead of moaning. Learn how to write plugins, whatever...

What should we do? All we can do, and should do, is suggest what we want that would make the program more tangible to a broader audience, which would only subsequently bring in better income to Matt. And as far as I know there have been approaches to help Terragen by some amazing minds in the industry, now working in other great projects.

Terragen is a great program and is the only one I'm truly interested in, but you can only be so positive. I can't just ignore what I know I, and hundreds of others need from TG, and hope we get better focus on what the community needs of TG rather than what PS wants to throw on People. This is one of the reasons other companies have conferences, or digital seminars on upcoming stuff. So they know they aren't drifting from their consumers needs.

There's also terminology of concern representative of TG, like "advanced shaders" when the shaders are all relatively the same as any other software, like functions, and when it comes to landscape generation the noise shaders are pretty much 30 year old basic noise flavors. Not advanced at all. Often compared to the customization inputs and settings in software like Blender, in some cases some shaders are pretty basic.

[bobbystahr]

Radically aging? Well, Jo was there before, so programming is up to Matt now.

Yeah, and he's now somewhere below the equator....

[Dune]

Indeed, explaining what's needed and could be better is good, but in a positive way. No nagging and moaning, but carrying forward possible solutions, ways to think. Terminology is always a bit over the top, purely sales strategy. If you'd advertise with "well, I tried to put together a reasonably working program with some ordinary shaders, but it's not perfect yet", who will buy? And, speaking of noise, I have no idea how complex it is to add different noise shaders. If it were easy, I'm sure Matt would have done it already.

[WAS]

Indeed, explaining what's needed and could be better is good, but in a positive way. No nagging and moaning, but carrying forward possible solutions, ways to think. Terminology is always a bit over the top, purely sales strategy. If you'd advertise with "well, I tried to put together a reasonably working program with some ordinary shaders, but it's not perfect yet", who will buy? And, speaking of noise, I have no idea how complex it is to add different noise shaders. If it were easy, I'm sure Matt would have done it already.

You are really attached to Matt's hip Ulco. Lol That's not how it works with sales. You don't also want to lie (false advertising) in contrast to the market you are advertising too where there are obvious and better options. People are well versed in these fields and routinely compare features to know what they are getting, and TG isn't hiding anything. It has a relatively feature rich freeware version. And if adding a noise flavor is hard, I'm not sure what Matt thinks he's doing. Or think he can charge what he does, especially for upgrading. I'd watch comments like that.... Doesn't serve him any good and furthers conversation in the wrong direction. And besides Matt felt very confident about Manhattan Voronoi, whether he puts time to it is another story.

[Dune]

I just think Matt does a good job (all by himself), and I am a contented user, though surely I'd like to see some of (my) feature preferences included. As for the advertising, I don't think Matt is lying in what he says TG can do and has as features.
Coming back to the initial grumper; I actualy wonder what he wanted to produce that goes beyond 'primary school' TG work. Never got that from him.

[WAS]

I just think Matt does a good job (all by himself), and I am a contented user, though surely I'd like to see some of (my) feature preferences included. As for the advertising, I don't think Matt is lying in what he says TG can do and has as features.
Coming back to the initial grumper; I actualy wonder what he wanted to produce that goes beyond 'primary school' TG work. Never got that from him.

I can't find his username on the forum. I know he asked about something pretty straight forward with canyons and stratas and I believe was telling people that their ideas wouldnt work and basically wanted someone to send a finished file. Think Rene was used as an example too with his image based Mesa.

Also I'm curious if you could tell me about a shader Terragen has is inherently advanced compare to any iteration of it out there?

I mean take something as simple as a voronoi noise shader in another program like Blender: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/shader_nodes/textures/voronoi.html Instead of one flavor, in 3 set types, we get a basic generator to output unique noise based off distance, scale, exponent, randomness, smoothness, etc (odd they can apply blurring to a finite procedural non-raster noise where Matt said this wasn't possible). Heck, even most their basic functions include extra features, like clamping, and even modulatable values

Even abilities like evaluating the noise in 1d, 2d, 3d, is amazing. I've asked about "slices" of noise to apply over areas like a blanket before. Especially important if you're building off shader previews for material/texture like in Blender. What you See is What You Should Get (except obviously in 3d/4d when looking at 2d)

[Dune]

I don't know what shaders would be called advanced, fake rocks perhaps. Depends on the definition of advanced. Anyway, I don't care really.

[Tangled-Universe]

Also I'm curious if you could tell me about a shader Terragen has is inherently advanced compare to any iteration of it out there?

Cloud layer v3. FWIW, is a shader yet unrivaled.

Regarding surface layers I think the discussion is more about TG's basic 'lambertian' type of shading versus more advanced BRDF's like the popular GGX.
KyL, another user here, did some tests with Arnold renderer and TG and managed to get Terragen's output look very very similar to Arnold's output.
So I think these kind of discussions are absolutely justified, but there's definitely also the role of the artist not to be ignored.
If I look around at what's being made with TG then I see different things lacking than lack of advanced shaders or noise flavors.

I'm with Dune on being content, but also wish for some features to be implemented.
My main preferences now are mostly workflow related and not so necessarily "tech-like", like shaders/noises.
If I can do more in the same amount of time I can also learn quicker.

[KyL]

If I look around at what's being made with TG then I see different things lacking than lack of advanced shaders or noise flavors

I agree with that. There are always great debates around shading and lighting in general, not only in Terragen. Honestly with what we have now, I am quite confident TG can match most, or outperform (especially with clouds) other renderers. I see the same difference between Terragen and Arnold as between Arnold and Renderman, or Vray and Reshift and so on.... They are all slightly different, but on the end each one can do the job.


Many people forget how good Terragen is with Volumetric. Don't forget that even the simple scene reproduce the correct behavior of the sun, it is not a simple HDRi. Try to replicate the same thing in another renderer, with a planet the size of the earth and a proper atmosphere around it...

There is plenty of softwares out there with fancy features nobody won't use next year because they will jump on the next "cool" thing. Terragen is the opposite, built around a solid core of what *really* matters for environment creation. There are of course features I wish to have, but I rather like NOT to have useless add-ons and something solid in the long run. I can still open a scene 10 years old and press render. And I know I will be able to do so in another 10 years.

The thruth is that there is a very steep learning curve, and I am quite convinced nobody will ever know everything there is to know except perhaps Matt himself. Of course I wish some features would finally be implemented such as the multi-object populator, or that the UI becomes unbearably slow with large number of nodes, but every software has its weaknesses.

"A contented user"

[Hannes]

Well said, KyL!
A lot of things have already been said, but I have to reply as well. I watched the Youtube video before Pablo deleted the link, and I was really upset! The only thing I don't disagree is, that there's still a lack of documentation. Yes, but I remember when we started with the TG2 Technology preview (or whatever it was called), we had almost no instructions, except a little introduction. So, I'd say less than primary school. It took quite some time for all of us to learn to create something good.
What does this guy want? To be breast-fed until he creates a marvellous image? It's a bit like buying a piano, and then complaining, that there's no instruction included to play Chopin within one week.
So he says, there's only a handful of people who are able to create fantastic images. This guy must have a lot of fingers!! And he repeats over and over "including the makers of Terragen". What does he want to express with that?
Luvs said, he was trying to work with TG for five years. Five years!!!!! I'd say, maybe he has absolutely no talent? Give me a Stradivari, and I'll promise you, you won't hear anything that sounds like music in five years, even if I'd have the best teacher!
And he says, we don't share. In the file section he can get loads of premade stuff for free. He says, there's noone who explains him the node stuff. Maybe he's a bit like me. I don't understand this node stuff as well, but sometimes I use files that contain it, and somehow it works. So, it's not essential, that you know all the mathematic details.

But I had to chuckle a bit, when he was trying to find some posts of users asking questions without getting answers, to demonstrate how arrogant the handful of successful users are (including the makers of Terragen!!!! ), but couldn't find any, except some posts regarding some announcements about NWDA.

Did he alter his voice digitally? He sounded a bit like a giant, or maybe someone who has some hormonal problems? In case he did, he seems to be a coward, who doesn't want to be recognized.
So. let's just ignore him. There will always be someone, who feels good, when there's something to rant about...

[Kadri]

Except some parts in that he is right and you already said above,
this guy is probably like some people who think when they buy Zbrush (for example)
they will do things like this in no time with no struggle at all:

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/3WZzo

[WAS]

Except some parts in that he is right and you already said above,
this guy is probably like some people who think when they buy Zbrush (for example)
they will do things like this in no time with no struggle at all:

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/3WZzo

Reminds me when sculptris came out. People didnt realize with that free app YOU make the brushes cause they gave up on it for Zbrush and all their plans for it got drained with the developer. Only basic inflate and pinch and draw and smooth and stuff. And than dealing with the subdivision.

[WAS]

Also I'm curious if you could tell me about a shader Terragen has is inherently advanced compare to any iteration of it out there?

Cloud layer v3. FWIW, is a shader yet unrivaled.

Regarding surface layers I think the discussion is more about TG's basic 'lambertian' type of shading versus more advanced BRDF's like the popular GGX.
KyL, another user here, did some tests with Arnold renderer and TG and managed to get Terragen's output look very very similar to Arnold's output.
So I think these kind of discussions are absolutely justified, but there's definitely also the role of the artist not to be ignored.
If I look around at what's being made with TG then I see different things lacking than lack of advanced shaders or noise flavors.

I'm with Dune on being content, but also wish for some features to be implemented.
My main preferences now are mostly workflow related and not so necessarily "tech-like", like shaders/noises.
If I can do more in the same amount of time I can also learn quicker.

I think I already mentioned it's unrivaled basically. For example all the rave in Houdini is meh to me. They are using a smoke generator and that's what it looks like to me. Especially if anything moves. Wrong physics.

Also Im glad you are content. But you, and others that are; are a few people that have been here since release and know the program well, with personal relationships between developers and staff, etc. I'd say your contentness is fine, but entirely bias in regards to state of the software and new consumers.

[james adamson]

I thought I would chime in on this.
I am new Terragen user and I have also used Flame way back when Discreet owned it and now since Autodesk are in charge. I also use Nuke and Modo by Foundry. All those are amazing products by very large companies with pretty steep learning curves and I love using them and all have their problems especially when it comes to feedback regarding bugs or other issues. I am blow away by what this small company has produced and by what the software itself can produce. Also by the personal touch I feel from the feedback Matt and Oshyan have provided on this forum. Not to mention the feedback and assistance I have received from users on this forum without which I would lost, or at the very least I would be spending much more time scrawling through the internet for tips and not creating visuals.
And yes the learning curve is steep but the reward visually more than warrants the time and effort. I got Terragen for a specific purpose and with three months of sporadic use and with the help I have received here on this forum I am close to being at a stage where I can produce what I need.
The wonderful thing about this software is you kind of feel removed from the digital nature of it. It is like moulding putty or clay. And with every step I take which gets me closer to what I want a whole plethora of new possibilities become apparent and I realise the scope for creativity is endless, which is at the same time daunting and inspiring.
Cheers.
James.

[WAS]

I thought I would chime in on this.
I am new Terragen user and I have also used Flame way back when Discreet owned it and now since Autodesk are in charge. I also use Nuke and Modo by Foundry. All those are amazing products by very large companies with pretty steep learning curves and I love using them and all have their problems especially when it comes to feedback regarding bugs or other issues. I am blow away by what this small company has produced and by what the software itself can produce. Also by the personal touch I feel from the feedback Matt and Oshyan have provided on this forum. Not to mention the feedback and assistance I have received from users on this forum without which I would lost, or at the very least I would be spending much more time scrawling through the internet for tips and not creating visuals.
And yes the learning curve is steep but the reward visually more than warrants the time and effort. I got Terragen for a specific purpose and with three months of sporadic use and with the help I have received here on this forum I am close to being at a stage where I can produce what I need.
The wonderful thing about this software is you kind of feel removed from the digital nature of it. It is like moulding putty or clay. And with every step I take which gets me closer to what I want a whole plethora of new possibilities become apparent and I realise the scope for creativity is endless, which is at the same time daunting and inspiring.
Cheers.
James.

I don't think this discussion is to much about Terragen's final products being supbar. Quite the contrary. As far as detail to photorealism of the atmosphere and clouds and planetary body. But things can be made to be fair simpler given small additions of changes.
 
I mean imagine gradient maps alone for texturing; "holy beautifying!". Especially combined with surface layers, colour functions and warping. Doing this manually however is so tedious, and than again for another project at diff scales and colour points. TGCs only go so far to help.

Noise flavors is a big one for me. Terrain generation is Terragens main focus area, and we are still using old noises from the late 70s, 80s, and 90s as a consumer noise. There are so many great new noises which are literally meant for terrain generation that TG simply doesn't have. And when I asked about it I got a reply about "having wrote those shaders 10 years ago" and basically not wanting to mess with them for age/time/confusion or whatever. Which imo is an admission of failed code management and maintenance, which definitely puts confidence in consumers minds knowing that the software is being actively optimized where code is aging. I'd think again Matt has come a long way since then and could probably do things better for same outputs plus things like new noise flavors.

There are these little area where TG could see vast improvement with imo little change by way of addition.