First real render

Angealus · February 08, 2007, 08:19:37 PM

Well, here it is, the first real render for me. 51+ hours and I get atmo fragments due to the ray traced shadows. Why is it that it come out great in the quick view, yet when you spend a whole lot of time rendering in full view, you get stuff you didn't expect.

Anyhow, other than the Ray Traced thing I think it came out nice. Kinda wanted more green in the snow though. Think next time a little less flowers too.

Also thanks to Helen for the flowers that actually work!!

old_blaggard · February 08, 2007, 09:37:02 PM

Nice job! It's a pity that the graininess is there. Next time, for the snow, I would recommend making it a bit flatter.

rcallicotte · February 08, 2007, 09:39:44 PM

old_blaggard, believe it or not I've seen snow like that.

...looking forward to the patch...

old_blaggard · February 08, 2007, 10:45:22 PM

Where? Living in the northern midwest and visiting mountains, I've gotten the chance to see lots of different types of snow. However, the bumpiest I've ever seen was that crushed together by the snow plow by the side of the road.

MeltingIce · February 08, 2007, 11:01:44 PM

Looks good, just make sure to increase the atmosphere samples and not the detail level in order to fix the graininess!

Will · February 09, 2007, 04:14:45 AM

Nice job,yes MeltingIce is right about the atmo.

Regards,

Will

king_tiger_666 · February 09, 2007, 05:41:23 AM

nice use of the plants too!... what atmo samples were used?, for the 51hr render

Angealus · February 09, 2007, 08:49:53 AM

The cloud quality was set above 6 so the samples were in the thousands range, not real sure as I'm at work now and the project is at home on the desktop. Will post when I get home. HOWEVER, I made some changes before the render and FAILED to save them before it crashed, luckily AFTER the Render finished. As for how the snow looked I was going for another world look. I think I'm gonna try that one again as the green of the snow didn't come out quite the way I wanted it. I really believe the fragments are due to the Ray Traced shadows as the clouds that don't have ray traces running in front of them have no graininess.

Volker Harun · February 09, 2007, 08:56:30 AM

The sunrays' grain is not due to the clouds' quality (keep this to a max of quality 2 to 3). But it is the atmosphere which is lit by the rays - samples from 64 to 128 should be good here.

buchvecny · February 09, 2007, 11:57:26 AM

well to be honest unlike most of people i DO not really like the clouds (i doubt u have seen clouds like this)

Angealus · February 09, 2007, 08:47:24 PM

To be honost, you tell me how to make them better. Your talking to a person that has had Terragen for about a month, has no idea about node networks and very little on 3d art. Fr someone at that stage of development I think my clouds look fine. As far as thepi goes, it wasn't supposed to be of this world anyway. Notice the greenish snow.

And Voulge thanks for the info on the atmo, you too Ice amd Will.

Question for you guys though, if I set the cloud quality to between 2 and 3 then my samples are going to go down, so how do I keep those up with a lower quality setting or can it be done seperately?

Will · February 09, 2007, 08:49:59 PM

I think that the quality setting is just a fast way of setting up the samples. But I genraly deal with orbital and celestrial render so I'm sure MeltingIce or one of the others could give you better info.

Regards,

Will

old_blaggard · February 09, 2007, 09:27:37 PM

Will is right - the quality sliders are essentially another way to look at samples. The samples are directly related to the density and thickness (and maybe other things... it's a Friday night so my brain is shot so I might be missing something

) of the clouds; the higher the density, for example, the more samples required to get good-looking clouds. The quality slider simply shows relative quality. For example, let's say you have a cloud layer that has density of .01 and quality of .5, and it needs 50 samples (I'm just making numbers up here). Now let's say you increase the density to .02. The quality will stay at .5 but the samples will increase to 100 (or something).
I hope that helps!

MeltingIce · February 10, 2007, 03:37:55 PM

Quote from: old_blaggard on February 09, 2007, 09:27:37 PM
Will is right - the quality sliders are essentially another way to look at samples. The samples are directly related to the density and thickness (and maybe other things... it's a Friday night so my brain is shot so I might be missing something ) of the clouds; the higher the density, for example, the more samples required to get good-looking clouds. The quality slider simply shows relative quality. For example, let's say you have a cloud layer that has density of .01 and quality of .5, and it needs 50 samples (I'm just making numbers up here). Now let's say you increase the density to .02. The quality will stay at .5 but the samples will increase to 100 (or something).
I hope that helps!

The clouds look like they have plenty of samples so just increase the Atmosphere's samples. Also, try adding a little more roughness to the clouds, they're a tad too smooth right now.

Oshyan · February 13, 2007, 11:22:44 PM

I would actually *reduce* cloud samples (I tend to trust the Quality slider most of the time and it works well - I'd seldom go over Quality 2 at least). Also it sounds like you have Ray-traced shadows turned on in either your cloud Quality tab or your atmosphere Quality tab. Neither should be necessary here and they will only increase render time so make sure they're off. To fix the graininess of the sky increase atmosphere samples - 64 should be enough, although 128 may be necessary. I would not go above that.

- Oshyan