Vol.4 - Pre-release Grass...

Started by dandelO, September 09, 2009, 03:55:15 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Jack

So you are giving this to us 4 free?!!! man thanks bro im guna have a play around with this!
you should be on the NWDA team^^
My terragen gallery:
http://wetbanana.deviantart.com/

Falcon

This is totally cool.

It does, however, affect render speed a lot. I'm doing a scene right now that I'd estimate renders in 6 hours without grass, maybe twice that with grass populationo (I've done lots of renders of this scene, but not the identical shot). I'm now trying with your grass and it's at almost 20 hours and nowhere near finished. :-(

Settings: Detail 0.9, AA 6, 1680x1050


dandelO

September 11, 2009, 02:55:53 pm #17 Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 08:47:38 am by dandelO
No matter, I'm an idiot.

Matt

September 11, 2009, 11:27:55 pm #18 Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 11:31:07 pm by Matt
Quote from: dandelO on September 09, 2009, 06:05:06 pm
The Lambert shader is better for translucency than a default shader, I find.

There are two translucency settings in it, a default shader has only one. I like to use a nice bright, vibrant colour for translucency, in a default shader you only have the option to change colour and actual translucency via one slider, lowering translucency here darkens the colour of the translucence.

A Lambert shader has an extra control: 'translucency tint' colour. This means I can keep the bright translucency colour whilst dropping the translucency value.


Really there is no difference. Translucency tint is multiplied by the the translucency value. You don't gain anything by keeping a bright colour while using a low translucency value. But if you find the GUI easier that way, that's good. It's just compressed into a single parameter in the Default Shader to save space and to be consistent with all other attributes, but it is no less powerful in its rendering effect.

Using a Lambert Shader at the end actually limits your options, because you will lose all your specular and luminosity.

Matt
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Falcon

Quote from: dandelO on September 11, 2009, 02:55:53 pm
Hi, Falcon. I am on my mobile here, excuse the crude, quick message. It really should be MUCH quicker than a population


I'm testing that now. It's done. Render time was a little over 28 hours.
I've now replaced the planetary grass shader with two  grass populations (to get the same amount of variety) and am rendering it again, with otherwise identical settings. I have GI set to 2 (default). Atmosphere quality is at 64, with ray traced shadows enabled. The preview clearly shows that it's taking all that time on the grass, though.
Will see how long the population render takes. :-)

I can send you the .tgd if it is of any help.

dandelO

September 12, 2009, 12:59:11 pm #20 Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 08:47:55 am by dandelO
No matter, I'm an idiot.

Falcon

Here's the two renders in comparison.

First, with the grass shader, render time about 28 hours.

Second, with two grass populations, render time about 10 hours.

Post-processing changes: Reduced size to 50% for posting, HDR  conversion. Nothing else.

Might be that it's the close-up view? It does show that it was not really intended for that.

dandelO

September 19, 2009, 06:05:35 am #22 Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 08:48:11 am by dandelO
No matter, I'm an idiot.

Volker Harun

In my opinion a trade off is the best choise, using the grass shader for the mid to distant areas and the objects for the close-ups.
Good scene, by the way!

Mandrake

Quote from: Volker Harun on September 19, 2009, 08:33:01 am
In my opinion a trade off is the best choise, using the grass shader for the mid to distant areas and the objects for the close-ups.
Good scene, by the way!


Guess I'd agree with that. I finally got a chance to play a bit. Should probably paint out the foreground, but it's fun to play with.
Gave me a chance to break out world machine too.
Thanks DandelO