Mountains w.i.p.
w.i.p.
Still love this, but my thought still comes to mind. I really love the foreground in the second image (the close vegetation) but I love the density of the first. Like I mentioned on FB, in a tropical untouched setting, there wouldn't be bare spots like without some sort of terrain change, landslides, solid rock, human intervention, or dead topsoil, which wouldn't be very common in a tropical setting unless some sort of volcanic interference.
2nd one is very nice!
This is the opening pan for the new Jurrasic movie, right? WELL DONE! :)
Very nice work.
Agree with WAS, the density of the 1st one, but the foreground/aspect ratio/perspective of the 2nd. But both are excellent. :D
- Oshyan
Wow x 2
Interesting shapes. But the light is the main attraction to me, very thick and moist.
Quote from: WASasquatch on June 01, 2018, 02:31:54 PM
Still love this, but my thought still comes to mind. I really love the foreground in the second image (the close vegetation) but I love the density of the first. Like I mentioned on FB, in a tropical untouched setting, there wouldn't be bare spots like without some sort of terrain change, landslides, solid rock, human intervention, or dead topsoil, which wouldn't be very common in a tropical setting unless some sort of volcanic interference.
Good point. Although in a lot of pictures there is less vegetation on the slopes.
Excellent work as always Rene. If I may comment, the cumulus layer at the top of the mountains seem too bright perhaps decreasing the Glow amount / power and color
The really steep slopes do have less vegetation, yes. But you can see the shift is fairly quick from cliff/rock to vegetation, and there is no vegetation only on quite steep areas.
- Oshyan
Very nice and impressive work!
Another iteration. In high resolution, the rocks look too busy. I am also struggling with the distribution of the trees. In order to get the billowing effect you often see when you look at forests from afar, I've made displacements of Perlin billows and fake stones beneath the vegetation. Unfortunately, there are now some bad stones popping up.
Actually, I want to group the trees more or less by species, but because there are seven of them, making masks will be very complicated. Is it possible to give masks a specific colour, i.e. red for species a, blue for species b, etc.?
This is already looking great. There is one area that needs some attention, IMO; the steep area, where there ar still trees, but they look a bit out of place, somehow. Perhaps they should rotate more to the axes, or use a different species, or give the wall more roughness.... or just less slope restraint (maybe even locally), so it covers up more.
How about multiplying the final mask by a constant color?
You could also make some sort of random RGB masks in PS that don't overlap and use that as a basis.
Thanks Dune. I have only one distribution shader for all types of trees. There are indeed a few species that react differently to the slope settings, probably because of the difference in base width, so I have to use a separate distribution shader for those. Making masks in PS is an excellent idea, why didn't I think about that. :)
Am I missing a methodology ....or, other than painted shaders and distribution shaders for object distribution, is there a way to export a terrain bmp top view like in the old days?
I know many use color adjust with the RGB distribution for displacements, could you do the same for objects? Your multi-color image made me think of RGB distribution Rene.
These renders are just awesome Rene.
René this looks already great really.
There is just a look that feels a little too much to me. Do you have too high translucency or such on the plants?
Quote from: luvsmuzik on June 07, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
Am I missing a methodology ....or, other than painted shaders and distribution shaders for object distribution, is there a way to export a terrain bmp top view like in the old days?
I know many use color adjust with the RGB distribution for displacements, could you do the same for objects? Your multi-color image made me think of RGB distribution Rene.
These renders are just awesome Rene.
make your camera ortho, and I went to the top view and selected my area in a square render format and saved that to my render camera and got the result you see.
Quote from: bobbystahr on June 07, 2018, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: luvsmuzik on June 07, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
Am I missing a methodology ....or, other than painted shaders and distribution shaders for object distribution, is there a way to export a terrain bmp top view like in the old days?
I know many use color adjust with the RGB distribution for displacements, could you do the same for objects? Your multi-color image made me think of RGB distribution Rene.
These renders are just awesome Rene.
make your camera ortho, and I went to the top view and selected my area in a square render format and saved that to my render camera and got the result you see.
Unbelievable.....all these years and never opened that node....sheesh! THANK YOU!
Hope you don't mind... was playing around with my actions for photorealism, and wanted to see how it looked on a scene that may already have post processing, and that was already somewhat bright. Turns out my suspicions were correct and a lot of masking is needing for skies that are too bright, but other than that the effect doesn't seem to need any adjusting on the details of the vegetation.
I try as much as possible to adjust contrast and gamma in Terragen, which I find easier than doing postwork in Photoshop.
Quote from: René on June 16, 2018, 06:25:01 AM
I try as much as possible to adjust contrast and gamma in Terragen, which I find easier than doing postwork in Photoshop.
I have wanted to but TG contrast lacks brightness control for colour burning. Just get the contrast and gamma unless you adjust all lighting intensities and settings with contrast and gamma, so I made his quick action to just hit play on and do minor cleanup on results. That post processing on your image took like 40 seconds. I shared the action in file sharing.
Looks great!
Is it normal that every time I render after making a change to the clouds settings, all vegetation starts to populate again? I currently have 7 species spread over an area of 4 square kilometers, which takes a lot of time to populate.
I do as many test renders as possible without vegetation, but I've now reached a point where I can't do that anymore because the interaction between atmosphere and trees is important.
Quote from: René on June 20, 2018, 11:46:34 AM
Is it normal that every time I render after making a change to the clouds settings, all vegetation starts to populate again? I currently have 7 species spread over an area of 4 square kilometers, which takes a lot of time to populate.
I do as many test renders as possible without vegetation, but I've now reached a point where I can't do that anymore because the interaction between atmosphere and trees is important.
I think newer v3 clouds haven't been adjusted not to tell populations there is a change. I mentioned this just recently in support or discussion I believe. Or just clouds in general. Maybe you can save the pop and load it after a cloud change? Haven't tried.
Rene, I'm assuming you cache each population as you make it....I've not had that problem with cached pops.
Was able to look at this on my desktop (commented on my phone earlier).
The new image looks really good. Can imagine how humid that day would be, but how nice that cool rain would feel.
They repopulate indeed (I don't know why), so what Bobby says is the best; use cached pops.
The darker atm is really adding to the mood
I am still struggling with the light on the vegetation.
Oh yeah, this is looking very nice
As a whole it looks really great, but I share your feeling about the struggle; I think you have too much translucency in the main foliage, which is kind of blurring the canopies together. It shows especially in shadowy areas. Did you try less translucency (only 0.2 or so) and setting opacity of the leaves to 0.6 or so? That won't darken the shadows as much as opacity of 1.
Looking Impressive as it is but I think I might reduce GI.
I'm going to try less translucency and see if it helps. I don't understand what less opacity does; I thought that the possibility of that setting was only 'yes' or 'no'.
The biggest problem is the hard, deep shadows, which I just can't lose. That's also why I set GI (mhaze) to 2. Possibly this is due to the density of the foliage, so that no light can pass through.
Quote from: mhaze on June 24, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
Looking Impressive as it is but I think I might reduce GI.
That was my first thought too. I know a similar effect only with DOF on and high difference between aparture diametre and focus distance and with high settings of occlusion weights in GISD. Then sometimes I get a bright border around objects.
But I don't think that is the problem, right?
Watching some leaves in detail, I could guess that perhaps changes in the specular settings could help as well.
What about reducing reflectivity and/or reflection tint. Just an idea...
Hope you find the solution.
But in general an extremely realistic and nice render!
Opacity still has influence on shadows I found out a while ago, and since then I use it quite a lot to get more light within canopies. But don't go under 0.50001, or it's indeed zeroed.
Maybe another (less strong) sunlight with very soft shadows right above?
Sorry - I think I missunderstood the problem. Looking again I saw the too dark shadows. I hope Ulco's suggestion works:
Thanks for the tips and explanations. I continue to experiment, but on the other hand I have been working on this for far too long, which clouds my critical abilities. Maybe it's time for a break.
I have tried another light incidence, and a picture of density of the basic vegetation.
Don't mind the bare trees; I'm going to adjust them.
I have added an extra sun straight from above (soft shadows), as Dune suggested, and it seems to be paying off. I have also removed the fog that may have been part of the problem.
Yes, that looks so much better!
Indeed and KUDOs to you Dune for that tip...
Looks perfect now, though I loved that fog a bit.
Quote from: DocCharly65 on June 26, 2018, 03:06:28 AM
Looks perfect now, though I loved that fog a bit.
Me too. But all in all a great improvement.
I bring the fog back because it gives a nice feeling of depth, but less prominent.
I think this is the first time I've created an image that mainly focuses on the vegetation. Lots to learn.
Quote from: René on June 26, 2018, 06:14:38 AM
Lots to learn.
Ain't that the whole truth and nuttin' but the truth!
WOW!!!
Looks stunning!!!