To Terragen's Galaxy. Naturally, she is smaller than the Milky Way, and still in "formation". :P
Goodnight.
Looks good.
I think this is very cool!
This looks very good to me. What about rendertimes? If it renders reasonable fast on your machine it should be flying on something like mine, I guess.
CHeers, Klaus
Well done! :)
Very nice Composition, I like it but there should be maybe some minor nebulas and star clusters.
Nevertheless, well done!
How long did it render and which machine do you use?
STORMLORD
Quote from: Stormlord on May 07, 2018, 02:24:13 PM
Very nice Composition, I like it but there should be maybe some minor nebulas and star clusters.
Nevertheless, well done!
How long did it render and which machine do you use?
STORMLORD
I mean, there are tons of Star clustering going on all.over the place. It would be hard to tell on an actual galaxy, or this one. You would pick out close stars or quasars, or distant galaxies.
There is red and orange nebulas as part of the Galaxy. I am not creating a older diffused galaxy like the Milky Way. I do not like it's outwards bands which have been dissrupted by neighboring galaxies. Love symmetrical galaxies like Sombrero, though I didn't want to make the boundaries as dense.
Render times are about 2-5 minutes off top of my head. This is all procedural on the background.
Testing render times
MPD: 0.6, AA: 6, GI Detail: 3, GI Sample Quality: 3, GI IP Occlusion Weight: 2
Keep in mind these settings are "cranked" even for free. A generic TG scene won't have these manual edits. Occlusion Weight especially helps bring out the star detail.
Forgot to edit time on last preview. It's 34 seconds, not 48. There actually is variance in this CPU on render times even with no settings changed. It's fun. Lol Here, you'd think brighter nebula would increase render times a bit, but it's likely my CPU choked on the last render compared to this last one.
Serious Question: In real life, stars are not mainly blue. They're mainly red dwarfs and main sequence stars. Quasars and such are a rarity. However in images by Hubble they use LBB and other image techniques to bring out a nice appealing look that is similar to our atmospheres desaturation of stars through refraction, and our lack of eyesight exposure times clearly.
So, does the galaxy look better with my realistic cosmic map with mainly red and orange stars, or with the edited cosmic map with mainly blue and white like in these previews?
Unfortunately due to the nature of the spherical background, placement of your camera will need special consideration relative to the spheres ability to render the background without distortion. Close to a RC.
I like the last one. Subjective but i would use just a little fewer stars. A third or so less maybe.
Quote from: Kadri on May 07, 2018, 06:13:09 PM
I like the last one. Subjective but i would use just a little fewer stars. A third or so less maybe.
Let's see.
Testing horizon fade with a surface layers altitude control.
Nice (except that chro.abb. :D ).
Seems translation acts like a "Seed", which is a bit disappointing.
Improved the stars, added "super stars" or stars that are closer, take your pick. Could be either. Adjusted the nebula back to a reddish hue. Made the core larger. Added some simulated scattering to the dense nebula around the core. Changed the cosmic colour map to strengthen g-type in the more yellow spectrum.
Looks good.