I would appreciate anyone trying to get the trees to show up in a quick render. It appears all the settings are ok; but. MeltingIce (Ryan) tried and said that the trees are below the surface. Perhaps there is a bug here that Planetside should know (or, already knows) about.
choronr
Yeah Bob, that has happened for me as well. Trees rendered first then surfaces covered every one of then up like in a fricking landfill or something. I checked and they were set on terrain and instances showed up after populating so I don't know what it is either? Maybe we need to water them to get them to grow? I'm thinking it's a bug as well.
Thanks for sharing your experience Jay. One other anomaly; after I place the trees, the terrain and it's surfaces take on another shade of color (lighter than the original) ...strange.
Placing objects is difficult right now. Since I've got a render going right now, I can't look at the tgd file directly, but try setting the center of the distribution to the camera's coordinates, and if you still don't get trees, try putting the trees' y-value to 0.
Quote from: choronr on February 05, 2007, 11:23:12 PM
Thanks for sharing your experience Jay. One other anomaly; after I place the trees, the terrain and it's surfaces take on another shade of color (lighter than the original) ...strange.
Interesting, I will have to look at the file again when I finish this render. I know the Population should be set correctly because you used it once already. Maybe check the other version and write down the coordinates just to check this new one to be sure. Don't know what else to tell you ole bud?
Thanks to the both of you; the last image posted had the 'y' at 0. I'll go back to that file and apply the same settings and see what happens ...thanks a bunch.
Quote from: choronr on February 05, 2007, 11:49:07 PM
Thanks to the both of you; the last image posted had the 'y' at 0. I'll go back to that file and apply the same settings and see what happens ...thanks a bunch.
or X
Y oops! z could be the problem.
We'll see Jay ...just about ready to start experimenting. I hope I can maintain the same terrain/surfaces colors. As mentioned, when the trees are applied, the colors lighten dramatically.
Quote from: choronr on February 05, 2007, 11:54:49 PM
We'll see Jay ...just about ready to start experimenting. I hope I can maintain the same terrain/surfaces colors. As mentioned, when the trees are applied, the colors lighten dramatically.
You can adjust contrast and gamma in the render settings node ( under the Effects Tab) if you need to darken things.
Thank you Jay. We may have to try that.
Quote from: choronr on February 05, 2007, 09:13:28 PM
I would appreciate anyone trying to get the trees to show up in a quick render. It appears all the settings are ok; but. MeltingIce (Ryan) tried and said that the trees are below the surface. Perhaps there is a bug here that Planetside should know (or, already knows) about.
choronr
The problem is your scale value is set to 0.85, 0.85, 0.85. The trees don't even start to appear when lower than 2 or 3. Try a value of 10 plus and they're there. The spacing will need changing once you get the size you need. I've just rendered them o.k.
Regards
Kevin.
Well, that scale thing might not be true... If the trees first render, and then get covered by ground, they are being rendered.
I have had this problem with my forst (and so far only) tree population.
There is definetly a bug in there somewhere, and the solution is a bit of trial and error...
When the instances show up in the preview window, try moving your camera down. Are they really on top of the landscape?
If they are in the preview, they still might not be in the render. What you have to do to fix this is change the location of the main tree that is being instanced. In the opjects screen you have "Pop tree.tgo" and "Pop tree.tgo/tree.tgo" The last one being the main tree. If you change it's 'y' position, your entire population should move according. If you change it too much your trees will be high up in the air.
Work with trial and error to get the right y position.
Without looking at the tgd file: did you apply the population before or after creating your terrain? Try pressing 'populate now'.
Thanks to each of you: Kevin F, Mohawk20. Buzzzzz and 3DGuy; I've tried all of your suggestions - and, in combination as well; but, still NO TREES! I would like Oshyan to havr a look at this one and comment on it. Guess I'll just do the final without the trees.
Quote from: 3DGuy on February 06, 2007, 01:45:01 PM
Without looking at the tgd file: did you apply the population before or after creating your terrain? Try pressing 'populate now'.
I have not really done any populations, but I was also thinking the same thing as 3dGu. Could it be that you slowly built up terrain enough to cover the terrains? Maybe the problem is that the population is basing its positioning on a surface that is covered by other added fractal displacements. Hope I might have shed some light on the problem!
Thanks BP; but no, the final layer was the trees. They should be falling on that surface.
OK Here we go. There is nothing wrong with your .tdg I bet I named that file wrong. What was the problem as was mentioned, was that the scale setting of the trees was far too low, together with the fact that you had something in the hundreds set in the Y zone, when as was indicated it should have been 0.
Please all the Gods that I get the accompanying shots in the right order. Incidentally your trees are sitting on the ground.
OK first shot. Here I altered your Y setting to 0
Second shot. I just knew these would be in the wrong order, but this shows the cropped render, which I hope shows that the trees are sitting on the ground.
Contd.....
Shot three. Shows that I modified your scale settings to from 1 to 10
Contd....
Shot four. Shows that I grossly enlarged the tree scales so that something could be seen as 0.85 x 3 was much too small. Mind you my scales are much too large, but too prove a point.....
contd....
Lastly, if I can find it, a closer look at image two, showing that indeed the trunks are on the ground. The tree on the extreme right looks like it's below the ground because there is a ridge in front of it. I have of course altered the viewing camera by tracking into the cropped area, so everything is a tad too large, but at least you can see the trees are not under the ground. The roots are, but then they are supposed to be. Yes, I know there aren't any tree shadows, ??? but I know not why.
Cheers. And so to bed!
RedSquare, many thanks to you for putting so much work into this. I will go back and increase the tree scale to 8 and see what happens. I have made many changes and saved them in the process of trying to get the trees to appear. I hope they won't hamper the results ...I'll get back to you after I run a small cropped render showing the change; if any.
Okeydokey, but for me it's bed. I shall have a look tonight to see what you have managed. Oh! just one other thing don't just alter the scale to eight, don't forget to alter the scale RANGE I think it was in shot three, that I showed the range scale. Other wise all your trees will be basically the same size, albeit distance from the camera will alter their size a bit, but insufficient to give adequate variations.
Thanks RedSquare. The trees are showing up; but, much too large. I originally set them at .85 so as to better mach the scale of the terrain. I have noted your comments and will make the necessary changes. Hopefully, the next try will work. I'll get back to you; and, thanks very much!
Ok RedSquare; I think we're onto something here. I set the Object spacing at 14. The Object scale at .75 min and 1 max. The Transform Scale at 1.75-1.75-1.75. While making a cropped quick render of the lower right corner of the image, I see that the render process shows that it would render the trees; however, only one small portion of a tree showed up in the distance at the top of the cropped area.
I will increase the Object scale; and, the Transform scale numbers somewhat and see what happens. If I can get the foreground trees to show up, I think we've won the battle. Thanks again.
RedSquare, things are looking good. A few more adjustments and I think a final render is in order. I'll post the file once the proof yields a 'go'!
Ok RedSquare and others; here is the file. The trees are up and alive. Their scale is a bit large for the terrain but still looking good. I'll tweak the terrain color a little; then, the final render coming up. Thanks to all for your input. This forum is a great learning vehicle ...thanks Planetside!
I looked at your tgd and when I zoomed in on a single tree instance I saw it was sitting below the ground. Then I looked at your shader list. I saw there were displacements there. I bypassed the shaders and lo-and-behold... the tree was on the terrain. So it's the displacements in your shaders actually mess things up here. Your polulation is based upon the terrain state calculated by the calculate terrain node. After that you're displacing the terrain again with the shaders and your trees end up under the terrain. Somehow you got to feed the final state into the population, but I haven't really found a way to do that yet in the short time I looked at it.
Hope this all makes sense ;D
Nice one 3DGuy, sounds like he may have removed one or more checks against colour only, on his shader fractual(s)?
When you apply a colour shader, the fractal part can displace the fractal it's generating. That way you can create more detail. The base rock also has some displacement and displacement offset. Disabling all the displacements should fix it, but then you may lose some detail if the displacements were intentional.
No the shaders are OK, but I did notice that on both his slope and altitude constraints where altered from the default, he hadn't select based on Y. Would that influence the calculations?
The problem in this case is that the shaders alter the terrain after the calculations that the population uses to determine where the terrain is. What the settings on those shaders are is not really important.
Hmm! Well I checked Y on all the pages he had altered from the default setting, and it made it worse. ie Half of the tree height disappeared below ground level. That is, where he had altered either the altitude and/or the slope constrains. Which of course confirms what you have been saying.
@ Chronor & 3DGuy Do you think this is any better? I'm a bit disappointed to see the green chunk out of the bottom left of the trunk but I think this may be the terrain as the ground rises just over a metre about there.
Anyways, I shall zoom in tomorrow to have a look.
So, looking at the shader nodes I noticed this one lurking so I moved it. see first screen grab.
I moved it upto here, lord knows what its done to the terrain overall. Second grab.
Well I blew it up and I still think it is probably a hummock ? Do you think the tree is still sunk in the terrain ?
@3DGuy and RedSquare; thanks guys for your research here. It looks like the cause of the problem is unfolding. @RedSquare; please keep me posted as to your findings; and, how to make corrections to this mess.
Hi, me again.
Bearing in mind that my last posting successfully submerged the trees half way into the terrain I focused my attention at the base of the trees and,
Well picking up on 3DGuy's observation that the trees are too low in the terrain, I submit the following. Unfortunately spread over a few postings as the image files combined would be too large for one posting.
I took my visual reference from the three associated dark markings on the tree trunk.
NB. The reference render shows Y+ 0 where actually, Y = 0. (Whoops)
I then increased the objects Y height by a metre from 0 to 1 and reduced the Y height from 0 to -1 metre.
Repeated the exercise by increasing the Y height to 2 and reducing the Y height by 2 below zero.
Again... (Images 5 & 6)
and (Image 7)
lastly (Image 9)
The latter shows a screen grab just as the terrain is being started showing the root system below ground of the object. The commencement of the bark texture shows the interface of below and above terrain surface. Clearly as 3DGuy observed the object is still low in the terrain.
As to why the object appears to rise when a negative Y and sinks when a positive Y I'll leave to more knowledgeable persons to explain. 'Cause I'm really, really thick.
Lastly, I have superimposed Chornor's camera settings onto my last .tgd so that the POV is the same, not sure why Chornor altered the render pixel ratio so I left as is.
Thank you RedSquare. I guess what you are saying is to " set the 'Y' setting' to -3.5 in order to avoid having all the trees be partially covered by the terrain ...correct???
Well I guess yes, until proven to the contrary. I'd be interested in hearing your observations on the difference between the terrain via your 4.tgd and the last one 12.tgd irrespective of the disposition of the objects, though I never altered the seed.
First, I have a question referring to your February 8th posting: I am not totally clear on how you moved the 'Strata/Outcrops' shader between 'Fractal terrain' and 'Compute terrain'. I don't see a 'Fractal terrain' in my node diagram (sorry; I'm new to this stuff). Tell me what I need to do to make this change please.
I will come back to your question later ...we are about to have dinner.
@RedSquare: Your question; "I'd be interested in hearing your observations on the difference between the terrain via your 4.tgd and the last one 12.tgd irrespective of the disposition of the objects, though I never altered the seed."
I have not noticed a terrain difference between 4.tgd and 12.tgd.
Well I trust you enjoyed your meal.
Re: the Fractal terrain, I didn't add it, it was in your .tgd that you posted on February the 6th left click on the green Terrain node tab in the bottom right hand node window. There it is.
I guess the easiest way would be to use the .tgd that I posted today. This is your original .tgd with the various alterations that I added. Maybe you won't like the outcome, we will see. What I mean is, render both and see if there are any differences, especially to the terrain irrespective of whether the object population is as you wish it.
Can you send me the latest .tgd file you posted today?
Oooops; excuse my stupidity. I'll download the file (12.tgd) from your above posting. Thank you.
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: choronr on February 09, 2007, 05:22:52 PM
Thank you RedSquare. I guess what you are saying is to " set the 'Y' setting' to -3.5 in order to avoid having all the trees be partially covered by the terrain ...correct???
Maybe in part. But remember the displacements you have are fractal based and thus it's not an even displacement, but it varies from place to place. Setting the Y to -3.5 displaces the terrain evenly.
I tried to open the file; but, received error message: "TGO Reader: unable to open file".
Ah! there you are 3DGuy, so why does the minus Y and plus Y settings to the object area placement seem to work the reverse to what I was expecting?
Thanks 3D Guy; will do another render and check that out.
QuoteI tried to open the file; but, received error message: "TGO Reader: unable to open file".
Yes, you will. The same as everybody who downloaded your .tgd received the same message as above.
It's because the .tgd is referring to an object which isn't in the same place on your hard disk as mine. Just go to your object folder and load the same model as I used over the top of mine and it should be OK.
Thank you
I'm having some problems with this. I think I'll move the strata/outcrops in the file I'm working with. I'll get back to you after I work with this for awhile ...thanks again for all your input.
No prob's.
Quote from: RedSquare on February 09, 2007, 06:50:24 PM
Ah! there you are 3DGuy, so why does the minus Y and plus Y settings to the object area placement seem to work the reverse to what I was expecting?
To be honest I have no idea. I tried to replicate that and created a new scene with a simple population. Now setting changing the Y value on the area didn't change anything for me. I guess this is due to the 'sit on terrain' option. However, entering a translation Y value in the object loader itself (transform tab), I was able to move the population up and down. A negative number pushes the population into the ground, a positive number raises it above the ground. It's weird that it would work in reverse for you.
I just checked my .tgd. I seem to have applied it to the Distribution tab of the object itself with the sit on terrain being checked. So, I was obviously doing it incorrectly. Not so much a noob as a knob. ;) Ah me I sure as hell won't do that again. Thanks for straightening me out.
I've been experimenting a bit more with this and have concluded the strata shader is the culprit here. Somehow it's information is not incorporated into calculate terrain option for the population shader to use. I even moved the strata node and placed it before the calculate terrain node and that didn't help. Disabling it puts the trees on the ground, enabling the strata node raises the ground but the population just doesn't see it (and yes I pressed repopulate ;))
This could well be a bug...
Quote from: 3DGuy on February 09, 2007, 07:55:38 PM
I've been experimenting a bit more with this and have concluded the strata shader is the culprit here. Somehow it's information is not incorporated into calculate terrain option for the population shader to use. I even moved the strata node and placed it before the calculate terrain node and that didn't help. Disabling it puts the trees on the ground, enabling the strata node raises the ground but the population just doesn't see it (and yes I pressed repopulate ;))
This could well be a bug...
I suggested a couple of days ago to delete the population and start with a new population after all wanted adjustments have been made to the scene. Has anyone tried that yet?
There is another issue like that with the fractal detail on heightfields. Placing a compute normal or a compute terrain node *should* fix it, but it obviously hasn't worked for you. Other than that I don't think there is a workaround right now....
I'm comming in late to this topic, has the problum been solved?
Regards,
Will
3DGuy -QuoteI even moved the strata node and placed it before the calculate terrain node and that didn't help.
Well I at least can confirm that, as I had already done that. see 12.tgd
Bob, I'm putting your files together from when we first started including my srf adjustments and additions along with your first atmo with 3D clouds below the top of the terrain. And I'm adding back the tree population. The color looks as it did to start with. Here's the file. :P
Further experimentation has shown me that the 'hard layer depth' setting of the strata node is responsible for moving the terrain up and down. Setting it to 0 makes the trees sit on the terrain, but you lose the stairlike effect.
Thanks to all of you who participated with suggestions, ideas and tests. I think we finally have here trees that have rendered and are 'totally above the terrain'.
Ta-Dah!!! :D
So to sum up, after all the various experimentations, I think it's clear that the displacement performed by certain nodes *after* the Compute Terrain (which the population uses to set it's "sit on terrain" height) was responsible for this. If you use heavy displacement in the Shaders (surfacing) group you can often run into this. You should be able to fix it by adding a Compute Normal or Compute Terrain and then *set this new node as the "Sit on terrain" shader in your population*. This last bit is key and it seems to be what has been missed so far.
- Oshyan
Oshyan. It's something in the strata shader. I tried putting the compute terrain on the end of the shader list, that didn't do anything to improve the situation (so I didn't miss that ;)). I even moved the strata to the terrain nodes, that didn't help. I also used the final shader as the input for the population and still it didn't matter. The only thing that did help was disabling the strata node or setting the hard layer depth to 0.
3DGuy - QuoteI even moved the strata to the terrain nodes, that didn't help. I also used the final shader as the input for the population and still it didn't matter.
I also did that and found the same outcome, Oshyan.
Can one of you post the "current" .tgd so I can take a look? Thanks. :)
- Oshyan
Hi Oshyan; I'll post the current file. I tried to place the 'Compute Normal' after the last fake stones shader. It took the preview about an hour to render; and, the results looked like a broken glass mosaic. I then removed the 'Compute Normal'.
The trees will render; but, they are partially under the terrain.
Oshyan; have you looked at the current .tgd that I posted the other day?
This happens to me a lot too, my trees just go away when I render. Being a beginner, I am not familiar with the node stuff, but I do try to follow your settings carefully.
I think when I move the camera, then I must 'hide' the trees, but why I wonder is the white square and the white bounding box or boxes there?
Here is a screenshot,
(http://www.picturetrunk.com/2007/02162007/9636cf28db.jpg) (http://www.picturetrunk.com/)
Maybe you can see where my trouble is?
Yet sometimes, when I dont mess with the camera, the trees appear. I never know? WHen I follow Meltingices tutorial I can get trees, but if I do anything else, change anything,,,,,,no trees for me.
My classmates are having problems with this too, yes we are all beginners.
Thank you,
Jane
I realize I should add this screenshot so that you can troubleshoot my numbers.
I added more trees, thus having about 15 white boxes, still nothing,,,,,,
Thank you again,
Jane
(http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1rH3yy8m17QVdfRMDFxxn0nGRghkDE_thumb.jpg) (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1rH3yy8m17QVdfRMDFxxn0nGRghkDE)
Hi Jane; I've attached my latest file which you can use as a reference for settings. Hopefully they will work for you.
Thank you!
I think I am finally catching on, your help here is wonderful!
Here is the one I just made.
(http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1aaKE5fNcOet6LxlcVbZjV3Y0qXu0V_thumb.jpg) (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1aaKE5fNcOet6LxlcVbZjV3Y0qXu0V)
I actually got the trees to be visible. I am now wondering how you all spread the trees all over a whole mountainside. So this is a project for me to work on tomorrow morning early when things are quiet.
I am so happy today, I have trees!
Jane
Quote from: Jane on February 16, 2007, 12:54:31 PM
(http://www.picturetrunk.com/2007/02162007/9636cf28db.jpg) (http://www.picturetrunk.com/)
This screenshot has reminded me of a feature request I've been thinking about for some time now. The feature, basically, would be a square on the Terrain showing us where an object is relative to the terrain. I was thinking about this because it is pretty hard to judge where objects are relative to the terrain - are they above it, or below it, are they near or far, and are they large or small. I'm not sure if anybody else is having this problem, but I would find the suggested feature very helpful - especially when trying to place trees on steep slopes or on some terrain far away, without having to constantly move the preview camera between the ideal position for placing the tree and the render position (to see if the tree is where I want it)...
Hi Jane; you need to determine the slope number by placing your mouse on a specific area - then, look at the settings below the preview window. Use this number to constrain the trees to this area. Also, I would suggest to change the green layer to be more of an 'olive green' shade ...I think it would look better.
You can have a 'thick' or 'thin' population of trees depending upon your 'coverage' setting; and, the 'space' between the trees. Scale is also important so as to match the size of the terrain. Another consideration is the variance of tree sizes in the population which is adjustable with the available setting.
Have fun!!
Thanks again! All this info is great, and I will pass it on to my classmates. Tho the class is ending tomorrow, we do plan to keep in contact with eachother, and we sure will be watching here.
I think as I work with this, I should be writing down some of the settings.
Anyway, your suggestions are wonderful,, and I will work early tomorrow on some new renders.
This is so much fun, it does take a while for us beginners to understand all this stuff, its like flying an airliner,,,,,
Jane
Hmm well I guess it time that I get into this thread (although its kind of late). If I may ask Jane what class was this that you where studying or using TGTP? Oh and that tutrial that I promised that I was going to do a while ago will be done soon for those who want to do nice planets either for their atmosphere or for orbital renders.
Regards,
Will
This was a class in TG2 and its over now, darn, I was just catching on.
I can give the URL for the school if any newbies are interested,,,,,,,the class will be repeated next semester.
Your help here is a godsend to us, as we are really new at this type of software, and we sure are having fun with it.
But a lot of the terminology and talk is way way over our heads, so we cannot do much with it. But when you answer things like this tree problem, you really help us.
So you can see how valuable the basic tutorials are to us! Like the ones in the User Guide, the Quick Start was so amazingly helpful!
We need to know ALL the steps, like we didnt know to highlight the trees in the upper left box, and all these little things that we had no idea we had to do, and all the settings, so very many of them! The moving of the camera? Wow that just floored us.
So any more of the basic tutorials that you all write, we are ready for!
Jane
Well I'm trying to write in such a way that I will go though all the steps with detail without making it seems like a textbook.
Regards,
Will
Oh, that would be great! Yet I dont really mind the textbook format as long as its in great detail.
I have in the past come across some amazing video tutorials but I have not a clue of how people make them, just know they are done on Macs and they follow the whole process along. I assume they do take a lot of time to create. And I know that most of you experts here are young and have other things in your lives, like work. I am old and retired.
Anyway, we sure love the tuts that are put up here, we have had great success with the basic and the more detailed ones.
And it is so important that you have gathered them all together, links that have them all listed together!
Thanks again and again!
Jane and classmates
OK, the kitchen is cleaned up, dinner was great, so you can only guess what I am going to do now! Yup, right back to my Macs and attack TG2. Its like a Big Mac Attack. Yet I am going to attack TREES.
Well yea I'm in High School so yea I fall in that youth group. I use a PC but it all the same now really.
Regards,
Will
Ah, you youngsters are so smart! And you have such a wonderful life ahead of you, think of what you have the opportunity to learn and do. So much neat stuff!
When I was your age, scuba diving was new, and thats what I wanted more than anything. So I learned.
Anyway, my classmates and I sure thank you all!
I must sign off tonight, and I might just leave a render on, my Macs 'need' the exercise. This particular render is from a great tut here.
Jane
Finally I got some trees! (Looks like an orange grove, but they arent orange trees.) Thanks everybody,
(http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1jW5U5SV4SLRXaXFQW5ssD5VpvCe5L0_thumb.jpg) (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jW5U5SV4SLRXaXFQW5ssD5VpvCe5L0)
Jane
Great job Jane! kinda looks like a X-Mas tree farm near my house, oh and I Scuba Dive too, its fun.
Regards,
Will
choronr, sorry for the delay. I have looked at the file you attached but am not sure the results I'm getting confirm the diagnoses. I will look at it again in the next day or two and let you know what I've discovered.
- Oshyan
Thank you Oshyan; I appreciate your attention to this matter. I have since reduced the strata/outcrops and fake stones settings to 1/3 of the original resulting in the trees being set on the surface without being partially under the terrain.
An additional issue here can be noted in the upper right corner - you can observe a sharply defined contrast of colors on the terrain - not unlike what you see in many of the MojoWorld renders. See the attached file for another example regarding this issue; also in the upper right corner.
I myself have an underground tree prob .... I'm glad Bob fixed his! I'm wondering if you can help me with this? I have changed the y value from negative (even tried the magic -3.5), 0 and positive numbers to no avail. I removed all displacement nodes and put the tree on a plain terrain but still no luck... The object is a .obj -> saved as a .tgo and then used in the latter format .... Any ideas?
2nd question: what shader do I use to colour it?
Thank you in anticipation of a solution!!
Kath
Given that the object is not attached it's impossible to test, but I would say it looks like an object that may have its "object center" in the vertical middle rather than at the bottom. I would try a *positive* Y offset in this case.
For texturing you can attach any shader that provides color. If the original object had UV mapping applied you should have a .mtl file which specifies texture placement. Otherwise you will only be able to texture it as one solid object.
- Oshyan
Thank you for your response - could you please tell me how you add a .mtl file? Sorry for such a noob question but if you could tell me which layer I should click (eg which pop layer - there's usually 2) and which shader you put the .mtl in (or whatever you do), I really don't have a clue. I think these instructions could be useful for those who are trying to add obj pops but don't know how to use the resources that came with them (ie the free xfrog plants). (each seems to have coloured leaves, black leaves, bark and a ruler woo hoo!) if there are instructions anywhere on how to add these items (bark etc) - it would save you having to write this out!
You mention that I could use any shader that provides colour - I have tried several (on another pic) but my grass looks like a bushfire has gone thru it! I am either using the wrong shader or putting it in the wrong place! Would you mind being more specific as to which shader I should use.....
BTW these forums provide such a lot of information - I hope that your answer to this question helps a lot of others too. Thank you for your time.
Kath ;D (PS you mentioned I didn't attach the obj in my last post ... not sure how to do this but these trees are the Sweet Birch from xfrog and the clump grass that's on the TG2 obj list.... it's official, I am a dork!)
This picture sure looks good to me, the grass and trees are excellent.
And I sure do agree, there are some things that I have no clue of how to do, and I keep scouring the new tutorials for help.
I would be quite lost without you people! Our class is over with, but they will have a new one, which I most likely will sign up for.
Thanks all,
Jane
The TGO format objects that Greenworks allowed us to publish (in the free plants bundle) should load up just fine by default, no tweaking necessary. As long as you don't change any of the settings in them then they should render right off the bat. You may find they're small compared to your scene, but they're probably at the right scale, it's just that the scene is much bigger than it seems. You can either scale the objects up or move your camera in closer to see them.
As far as .mtl files, this has almost nothing to do with TG2 since you can't create nor manipulate them in TG. You will only need to do anything with the .mtl file if you're working with an OBJ format object that has not already been made available in TGO format. This would be virtually any object that is not from the Greenworks bundle we provided and is in OBJ format.
There are separate programs that deal with manipulating .mtl files, or you can load them in a text editor. TG2 simply reads the information that's there and assigns textures based on it, but you can't manipulate the .mtl or texture placement from within TG2 at this time. The .mtl will be automatically loaded if the .obj and .mtl are named and referenced properly, which any decent 3D program should do automatically on export.
The next update will also include some changes that make it easier to work with manually assigning textures to objects without properly setup .mtl files.
The grass object comes with a Default Shader already attached. To adjust color simply change the Color in the Default Shader. You can also use a Default Shader to provide basic color to an imported object in the same way, connecting the Default Shader to the Shader input inside the Object node (right-click->Internal network). A Power Fractal with different "high" and "low" colors could provide more variety and would be connected in the same way.
- Oshyan
Thank you - that clears things up for me nicely. I am constantly amazed at how much you know! Thanks for the info re the bundled objects - they are basic details that I really need to know but don't - thanks again for your patience. The replies in these forums has been incredibly beneficial!! The tutorials are excellent. Thanks again! ............. Now off to colour those dang clumps!! ;D