Author Topic: Procedural Night Sky  (Read 16223 times)

Offline Seth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3690
  • Insane Frenchie
    • Setherragen
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2009, 03:48:52 PM »
I'm very impatient.

that doesn't fit with TG2

Offline rcallicotte

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9542
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2009, 01:27:10 PM »
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Offline Technical Ben

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2010, 02:18:35 PM »
Works a treat. And a free moon as well? Wow! I notice how the moons co-ordinates are correct too. :)
Is it really that big in the sky? It looks massive on my renders. (just to ask, not doubting you one second)
Also, how would I increase or decrease the amount of stars? Thanks again. Great job.

dandelO

  • Guest
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2010, 04:12:49 PM »
No matter, I'm an idiot.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 12:36:50 PM by dandelO »

Offline TheBlackHole

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1068
  • I never finish anything I st
    • Maps and Such
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2010, 06:36:50 PM »
You might want a radius of 1.73753e+006 for the moon. That's the real radius. As for distance, you'd want 37.8022e+006 or something. I might include this file in a default project like dandelO. Might also put some of the clouds from "Rocky Hills" in it.
They just issued a tornado warning and said to stay away from windows. Does that mean I can't use my computer?

Offline Henry Blewer

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6333
  • The cooler weather is great!
    • flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2010, 06:52:16 PM »
I read somewhere, from Matt I think, that using real distances adds compute time and increases noise. I would use the planet coordinates that the program generates then adjust the size, height angle, and heading. Scale is often relative.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

Offline Matt

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 3544
  • I'm the crazy one
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2010, 10:55:44 PM »
I read somewhere, from Matt I think, that using real distances adds compute time and increases noise. I would use the planet coordinates that the program generates then adjust the size, height angle, and heading. Scale is often relative.

I think you might be remembering something Oshyan wrote about an eclipse simulation. Oshyan wasn't exactly correct about the reasons for the noise, but it was to do with soft shadows in atmosphere spread over a very large area. Not a problem here.

If you're talking about accuracy problems that occur due to rounding of very large numbers, you only need to worry about that if you get close to the object, i.e. if both camera and object are far from the origin.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 10:57:55 PM by Matt »
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Offline Henry Blewer

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6333
  • The cooler weather is great!
    • flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2010, 11:17:15 PM »
Thank you Matt! 8)
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

dandelO

  • Guest
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2010, 03:40:05 AM »
No matter, I'm an idiot.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 12:37:06 PM by dandelO »

Offline g.makulik

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2010, 11:25:28 AM »
Hi Martin,

Thanks for your great work! As I am a beginner in TG2, your library helps me a lot getting into the advanced stuff and to see how to use the loads of different shader types and functions effectively.

I have used the procedural night sky in the attached pic. It's the 1st notable one I have made with TG2. I know there are a lot of things to be improved on this image, especially the fog on the watersurface doesn't look very realistic.

Has anyone ideas how to cast a bit (more) of light on the altocumulus clouds? I'd like to have them 'glowing' seams where the moonlight shines through. I'm not so sure about the moonlight at all, I've placed an additional light source 'round' the moon, it's size is just a bit bigger, and strenghened the light (whatever this exactly means). But the pics main lighting effects are done using an increased environmental light. I see only little effect coming from the moonlight so far.

WBR
GŁnther

Offline TheBlackHole

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1068
  • I never finish anything I st
    • Maps and Such
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2010, 07:59:02 PM »
Put the sun behind the moon and uncheck "Cast Shadows" on the moon. You'll get bright lighting. Tone the light down to a dark gray, and voila, moonlight.
They just issued a tornado warning and said to stay away from windows. Does that mean I can't use my computer?

dandelO

  • Guest
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2010, 08:19:52 PM »
No matter, I'm an idiot.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 12:37:17 PM by dandelO »

Offline choronr

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4582
Re: Procedural Night Sky
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2010, 08:34:35 PM »
Put the sun behind the moon and uncheck "Cast Shadows" on the moon. You'll get bright lighting. Tone the light down to a dark gray, and voila, moonlight.
'Brilliant'! I've been looking for something like this ...thank you.

 

anything