Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Terragen Discussion / Re: Base wispiness
« Last post by Mid-Knight Acchan on Today at 04:58:55 AM »
Thank you for your answer.
I spent two days understanding this function :D

I would like to further deepen understanding!

Image Sharing / Re: Procedural volumetric stars
« Last post by WASasquatch on Today at 03:09:05 AM »
For me, it's about creating still stars since I cannot animate, however I still want to tackle the issue for everyone else, cause it does seem like with this approach, with fine tuning, it's possible to create a star field "above" clouds and what not, for planets, and for scenes like Denise's.

I've created a new test starting at a scale of 1000m and reduced coverage from there, and applied to cameras, one shifted by 5k meters, will see if star positions seem "Familiar".
Terragen Discussion / Re: That's a million dollar question...
« Last post by WASasquatch on Today at 02:39:41 AM »
Grass-wise I noticed two more things:
2. Ulco, did you mention "reflection"? I tried to light up my grasses with reflections (as in real life) but no matter the specularity settings I get no effects at all! ???

Have you looked at Dune's grass settings? It has specularity.
Image Sharing / Re: Procedural volumetric stars
« Last post by Oshyan on Today at 12:25:27 AM »
Unfortunately, although disabling Jitter will fix it for a still frame (because the sample positions are no longer randomized), it will probably still not work for *Animation* because the sample positions move with the camera/view/render area, and thus become "random" relative to the star positions. The underlying problem is still *undersampling* - very small points of very bright light that are difficult to sample consistently, and so show up essentially randomly.

I would say a couple things regarding the test file attached above. First, v3 clouds are probably not needed here, and may even be a problem because they use the voxel buffer (and you can't turn it off), which could add further per-frame variability. They also take longer to render and since their primary advantage is in shading of external light within the volume, you basically lose all benefit when your cloud is *emissive* (luminous). At least as far as I know. So you'll get faster and perhaps even more consistent results with v2 cloud.

That being said, although this is an interesting solution to volumetric "stars", I'm not sure it will ever quite work the way you want it to. But to determine that I'd suggest starting with much bigger luminous shapes in the cloud and see if you can get *those* to render consistently, even in animation. Once you have that "stable" (i.e. consistent between frames), then you can work on smaller and smaller shapes, until you find the point where they start to sample inconsistently as they do now. Hopefully you can get small enough shapes before this happens, but I think it will be difficult to find out by starting with these sub-pixel (very small) shapes and increasing size until you can sample them well. This is because we don't even know if really large shapes (relative to camera space) would sample consistently with your settings (some of which are quite extreme, such as the glow).

- Oshyan
Terragen Discussion / Re: Base wispiness
« Last post by Oshyan on Today at 12:18:56 AM »
Wispiness is not the same as Softness. The "wispiness" is supposed to modify the density function's fractal to create smaller structures near the base of the cloud, gradually returning to normal near the top of the cloud, but yes, it can affect every part of the cloud. The change in overall coverage seems greater than it should be near the top of the cloud though. We are investigating. Your second example probably shows things differently because there is no input fractal for the Wispy function to act properly on. The result is similar to what Softness does to the base.

- Oshyan
NWDA Cliffs Contest / Re: Jo Kariboo (wip's)
« Last post by Jo Kariboo on April 24, 2018, 10:30:31 PM »
Terragen Support / Re: Why Can't I Stay Logged In
« Last post by Oshyan on April 24, 2018, 09:38:58 PM »
How do you "come back to the site"? Bookmark? "Start page" in your browser? Typing the URL? I suspect you are simply not coming back to the new HTTPS URL *without* the www, and so since cookies are domain-dependent and also affected by secure connections, you therefore appear to be logged-out. Make sure you visit (and bookmark) the forums always here:
And I suggest *not* including anything after the /forums/ such as index.php, etc.

- Oshyan
Image Sharing / Re: Procedural volumetric stars
« Last post by WASasquatch on April 24, 2018, 07:32:43 PM »
Just to ensure there was no variation in the no jitter result I did a difference comparison in photoshop, and this is what we get! (Solid black is good, means there is no difference between he two renders AT ALL)
Terragen Support / Re: Why Can't I Stay Logged In
« Last post by jaf on April 24, 2018, 07:21:11 PM »
This is what I see when I go to the TG site.  If I click the Login button at the top right, I get a page not found.  If I click the lower Login button, I can login and set "forever", but if I come back to the site later (even the same day a hour later) I'm back at the login image.
Image Sharing / Re: Procedural volumetric stars
« Last post by WASasquatch on April 24, 2018, 07:03:59 PM »

I think the main problem is the jittering setting in the cloud.
But in case that i have changed other things and if it works or not, have a look for yourself.

It's interesting that render time on this is about 111% over my setup, even if my setup has "millions" of stars and individual star colours. I'm wondering why. Even cloud quality is 0.1xx over my 0.45

There is even half the polygons at the same quality settings, with more stars (and cloud layer quality bumped up much higher).

Added another render with no jitter which seems to add 10s to the render time.

No jitter is seeming to solve to per-render star position issue. Haven't tried shifting positioning yet.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10