Understanding My Place with TG2

[rcallicotte]

Cool, Jim!  This is cool stuff. 

A bit off topic, but have you tried XSI 7 or are you sticking with 6.5 for now?

[JimB]

Still with 6.5. My annual maintenance is pretty hefty (multiple XSI Advanced licenses) so I usually wait and see    It's also a bad idea to suddenly upgrade during a job, unless it's so beneficial it's worth the risk. To be honest, I'm waiting for their "rumoured" new particle system that looks to be at least every bit as good as Houdini and more user friendly.

[mr-miley]

Hi all

If I may chip in with my 2p worth.... In the March edition of PC Pro Magazine Tom Arah did an article on Vue (all the different flavours, explaining the difference between them etc) singing their praises to the max http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/156633/brave-new-worlds.html . "Well", I thought, "we can't have that" so I emailed him and told him that if he thought Vue could do relaistic stuff, then have a look at the Planetside TGTP2 gallery, that should blw his mind.... the reply I got was...

Hi Miles

And thanks for getting in touch.

I have seen the Terragen site before but must admit I haven't actually put
it through its paces. I'll try and take a look at it when I have some time
but in a way I feel a bit sorry for it in that e-on now offers such an easy
to use and scalable solution at such reasonable prices that there's little
room for competition.

Having said that their gallery is certainly impressive though
personally I'd say that the Vue samples at
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=7# just shade it.

Thanks again and all the best

Tom

I find this a rather depressing answer. Understandable, but depressing. I understand that to a graphics "all-rounder" like Mr Arah, Vue probably looks wonderful because it has everything "built in" to produce your finished render, but to say there is little room for competition is a bit sad. The most alarming thing is that if you look at the renders on the page he quotes the link to they all look very Vue"y". I would say that there are probably 1 or 2 that you could mistake for a photo.... and they all pale into obscurity next to the examples on the Terragen gallery (and I'm not just saying that cause I'm a terragen fan and user, I looked at them with as much objectivity as I could possibly muster).

If Vue is seen by a professional graphics software reviewer as producing better results than TG, there is no hope for all of us... we're doomed I tell you.. doomed. I'm not trying to depress those at planetside here, cause I think Mr Arah is totally wrong, but I have a sneaky feeling that because of its ease of use?? and completeness, Vue is seen as the better option. I know Planetside aren't trying to compete directly against the likes of Vue (because of lack of eco system and plant features etc, and nor should they) but to a lot of people who have an interest (but not necessarily the professional experience) a "complete" package will win out every time, and don't forget that the "people who have an interest (but not necessarily the professional experience)" can end up being the professionals of tomorrow and end up influencing what software is used in the future. Look at me, I'm an illustrator by training, but due to having an interest (with no grounding in Geology at all) in a Geotechnical Graphical Database used where I work, I am now the only gINTSoftware certified consultant in the UK and have set up and designed solutions for the software for multinational companies 

Not sure how my little rant fits in with this thread, though it is related, sort of. I think when the gold wrap release is out, Planetside need to do some serious marketing to the likes of Mr Arah, otherwise TG could miss out on being a part of the professional pipeline, and that would be a shame, because it blows everything else out of the water.

Rant over 

Miles

[rcallicotte]

You know, Mr. Miley, I have thought about this and this is my conclusion (hope) -

TG2 is purchased by the makers of Vue and its terrain system is completely replaced by Terragen.  Vue 7 would then be everything Vue is plus have the node network for the terrains we all love. 

Okay.  Standing here with a target on my ass.  Give it your best shot.   

[mr-miley]

Calico



A target, on an ass.... damn, and me without my bow and arrows....

I certainly think it would be a sensible business move (though if I was them I would also use TG2s renderer as well) They must be quietly crapping themselves seeing the results from TG2, I know I would be! Mind you, I have found Vue to be so unstable....

Miles

[jo]

Hi,

I write reviews, mainly book reviews, for a website. A review is just somebody's opinion :-). Hopefully a well considered and unbiased opinion, but I don't expect everyone to agree with what I say in my reviews. A professional reviewer is in the enviable position of being paid to mess about with stuff and then get to tell everyone their opinion of it. For sure those opinions can be influential, no denying that, but not everyone takes these things for gospel.

I personally take reviews with a grain of salt. Once I thought about getting TG Mac reviewed by a Mac magazine I used to subscribe to. However I came to the conclusion their reviewers were terrible. I worked on the Mac version of Mojoworld for a while, so I was fairly well acquainted with it. The review of it left me scratching my head. That and other reviews made me resolve never to have TG Mac reviewed by that magazine.

When I first got started with TG, as a user before I became a developer, Bryce was firmly ascendant. Especially on the Mac, Bryce was it. It could do some of the stuff I wanted, and TG couldn't, but TG just looked so much better. I also never liked Bryce's UI. Bryce isn't exactly the power it once was, even if it is still going along. If I'd gone with Bryce I just would have ended up being annoyed and frustrated by something I didn't like to use which didn't give me the results I was after. Some people love it.

Choice is good. There's always room for options even if sometimes it isn't a lot of room. A monoculture doesn't benefit anyone. I don't think TG2 being the only game in town would be a good thing, were such a thing to happen :-).

Regards,

Jo

[rcallicotte]

...oh, and I forgot the renderer (thanks, Miles), the clouds, the water, and the lighting GI.   

[mr-miley]

Jo

I also believe that competition is a good thing, and I also realise that reviewers are to be taken with a pinch (shovel full) of salt. If I didn't, I'd be using Photoshop (eeeuuurrgghh) instead of Corel Photopaint. I just find it alarming that a graphics pro (he runs his own design company) could look at the 2 sets of renders (TG2 and Vue) and say that Vue is better. I am wondering what criteria he is using to compare the 2?? As I said in my previous post, I did look at the 2 sets objectively. Some of the Vue renders were stunning... BUT they all looked Vue"y". I definately don't think TG2 being the only player would benefit anyone (well, maybe your bank ballance  ) and I think that for a lot of people, Vue would be exactly what they want.

Miles

[latego]

TG2 creates "easily" extremely sharp renders, which have no problem in looking like a photograph. Just as an example, have a look at wholehog gallery http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=404937 on Renderosity, especially the Coconino Point http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1664232. It difficult to tell it apart from a photo, isn't it?

The trouble begins when you want do to something more that just a desert, or a grassland. Vue handles without troubles complex objects (e.g. see Fear Factory II http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1707398) and complex ecosystems (The Stream In The Forest http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1626203).

As long as TG2 won't be able to handle objects and ecosystems as well as Vue, it will not be able to compete with Vue.

As a last thought, have a look at GeekAtPlay video tutorials http://www.geekatplay.com/tutorials.php, taking notice of the ease of working with Vue interface which is both dialog box based and network based (to this purpose, have a look at any tutorial regarding the Advanced Material Editor).

Bye!!!

Signed: a Vue user who has chills at the idea that Vue be the only game in town, because this would mean much less improvement and higher prices!

[JimB]

If he can't be arsed, I can't be arsed. Keep doing the do, walking the walk, and not just talking the talk.

Vue renders look like... Vue renders. There's something simply missing - it's in the light, and the terrains which look like they're made with a freebie from download.com, and no amount of techy bollocks about the algorithms and methods can hide that.  If he can't see the difference then he needs to change his optician. You can spot a Vue terrain from a mile away (or a kilometre if you want to be fussy). Imagine how much cash has been put into Vue, how much more it costs, and it still only turns out a small percentage of realistic looking imagery which is the most important thing. By the same reasoning Houdini is laughable, and the big companies should all switch to Particle Illusion because it's... easier to use......  Spreading veg easily is one thing, but if the final render is lame it's a wasted effort. Vue's clouds also suck, except the odd ones that were made using the top of the range pricing options. There's no elegance to the final image, it looks clumsy. I bought Ozone for XSI and have never used it in anger. I also bought Vue version X (four years ago) and ended up using TG 0.9 for the job, and adding the trees elsewhere. Just because something glitters doesn't make it gold.

Just IMHO.

[shokan22]

Matt said:

My personal (3D-CG-biased) opinion is that to achieve the most photorealistic results, generally, most things will need to be done in 3D, with Terragen only being used where it excels, and that 2D work will often form a big part of the work (as textures, 2D backgrounds, 2D backgrounds mapped into 3D, whatever is best for the job at hand). Terragen could fit into that pipeline in various ways.

Here's what I want to do: I want to slice off the back 3/4 of the TG scene and apply it to an image plane in my XSI scene. I want the 3D foreground portion remaining to segue with the 2D backdrop. That 2D background is intended, in my project, to appear as if it is a backdrop, which I will accentuate by applying Photoshop effects to achieve a "painted" look. The overall effect would be like a stage set where the real stuff on stage appears to jump out in 3D from the painted backdrop. I want to populate the foreground full geometry portion with XSI and ZBrush objects.

Based on what I have described:

1) What if my Terragen scene needs to have a forest or buildings? Would it be easiest to export just the terrain and sky and populate the scene in XSI with objects there instead of trying to do that first in TG (and also do the slicing up deal I described within XSI instead of TG)?

2) Any tutorials or advice on bringing in TG geometry and textures/maps into XSI?

Thanks much.

[lightning]

um this is an interesting question i spend a lot of time over on newzealand graphic websites and such as CGNZ and i spend time on CGtalk. i posted an image a couple of weeks ago on CGNZ which was a photrealistic render which took 70 hours to render and one of the comments was this

now i know this is a personal taste thing... but why photoreal?
in the 75 hours it took to make this i could've googled 10,000 images of trees and grass.

now i know it took some skills to setup the lights and make it all real and all that.
but there just seems to be little in the way of artistic endevour.

why not use the tech to push for something a little more interesting and original?
look at the popularity of crysis compared to team fortress2....

all im saying is, look at what happened to art when the camera was invented... its happening again

so really what is the point of terragen when you can just grab images of the internet?
i myself do not agree with this with this. terragen can do things that matte paintingcan never achieve
but ignorant snobby artist think terragen is an easy option out and is not true art.
is it though...

[rcallicotte]

@lightning (et al) - It can be true art.  I'm not sure it qualifies very often for it.  Now we can all debate what true art is.   

Really, if it takes your breath like some of the stuff we've seen around here (and we all know what it takes to get that), then it must be something special.  Besides, a matte painting for a movie or a game is more than art...it's a science and may someday get recognition for it.  To add to my opinion, I remember hearing Lucas say he believed there would be libraries of virtual sets that the movie industry could use for their movies.  That is where this is all going...no?

[Oshyan]

Shokan22, I would say you should do at least the vegetation populations in TG. If the buildings are fairly simply in terms of texturing, are not reflective and only really need to cast shadows (and occlude terrain, of course), then you could definitely render them in TG. Otherwise use a simple terrain geometry export and render them in SXI and comp.

For geometry export, use Heightfield Export LWO or the LWO Microexporter. There are several threads covering their use here on the forums which should turn up in a search, but let me know if you have trouble finding them. I would not recommend trying to export textures, but rather to comp against fully rendered background plates from TG2. Otherwise you're looking at trying to output tremendous texture resolution from TG2 just to match the native TG2 detail in XSI, to say nothing of the atmosphere, etc. If you keep the XSI stuff to the foreground you will avoid the need for significant atmosphere effects and it will make comp'ing much easier.

- Oshyan