Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Image Sharing / Re: testing some new larches
« Last post by WASasquatch on June 21, 2018, 04:40:59 PM »
Would really love to see more seasoned version of these trees people make. Like spring versions with newgrowth tips, summer with green pinecones, fall with spent pinecones, etc.  Really want to get some models, but they don't represent the ideas I have in mind and are more generic.
22
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by pokoy on June 21, 2018, 04:14:05 PM »
Great result! Yeah that emitter thing was the only way to get something usable in Arnold for me, too. In Corona I could set up a realistic density/absorption combo but still, TG looks better. It's close to impossible to get any details, it all looks very fluffy most of the time with Arnold/Corona.
23
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by paq on June 21, 2018, 04:10:05 PM »
Also, after playing with the VDB trying to get a decent cloud look, I have to say that TG renders clouds way better than anything I've seen from Arnold and Corona so far. Way more realistic and surprisingly not much slower, even faster with higher GI bounces. Well done ;)

Yop, Terragen clouds looks amazing, and I really hope I will lean some tricks in this topic to enhance the result in Clarisse ... (I think Clarisse and Arnold are pretty close)


82888-0
Here's a test using the density channel as emitter (thanks to Démian from Isotropix). It's allready better than the default smoke look I had, but clouds are now self emitter :(

@Matt isn't any other possible data that you could generate in the .vdb that "we' could use to enhance the lack of inside scattering in our test ?

Quoting a reply from mdkay (Clarisse forum)

how does the shader (sic) fake the extra lightboost..

The volume shader in clarisse can mimic these phenomena with the scatter value for forward or backward transmission. But that value is static through the entire medium unless a property is provided to multiply it with.
Something like a SDF value which gives a value how close a point is to the surface of the vdb ...
Something Matt sure can add..otherwise a run with Houdini would help as well.



But in the other hand, I couldn't resist to render  the VDB in a 'real' scenario, and for a 5Mb file, it's not that bad at all  8) ...

82890-1
24
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by pokoy on June 21, 2018, 04:06:17 PM »
The VDB and grid both came in at 100m on import, so I had to scale them to 10km. I'll remove the scaling to see what difference that might make. Good thought, thanks.

My understanding is that there were some significant changes between Arnold 4 and 5. Many of the shaders were also updated. So maybe that's making a difference, too.

Just had a look, I'm on 5.0.2.4 too, there's a new plugin/bridge version but I doubt it will make a difference. Will update and repeat the test, though.
25
Terragen Discussion / Re: gradual transparency method
« Last post by Dune on June 21, 2018, 04:03:40 PM »
Yes, but I'm still having problems. There seems to be some inconsistency when rendering; one time background is transparent, but ground turns black, second time it turns white. I had it working once, but in a second render it was wrong again. Very weird. And also when using 2 cards (fire and smoke), it's not always going well.
Okay, painting in is easier, but I'd still like to know why. And it may be something that needs debugging.
So here's a few files (you have to recall png's) and a test I did.
Anyone has a better solution, please post.
26
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by sboerner on June 21, 2018, 03:54:44 PM »
The VDB and grid both came in at 100m on import, so I had to scale them to 10km. I'll remove the scaling to see what difference that might make. Good thought, thanks.

My understanding is that there were some significant changes between Arnold 4 and 5. Many of the shaders were also updated. So maybe that's making a difference, too.
27
File Sharing / Re: Cirrus-Cirrocumulus Clouds
« Last post by WASasquatch on June 21, 2018, 03:54:35 PM »
If using the 'normal' voronoi noise, instead of the blue nodes, they may be less noticably voronoi as you can set the noise octaves higher. And you can always mix with some perlin or billows. Nice clouds, btw.

The original voronoi noise is technically perlin noises just one masked by voronoi diff scalar. There was also a issue besides look where for some reason the colour when masking would turn up super thick dense spots in the clouds which would look odd, especially at a distance. From 2D cloud density Im assuming.  I also did voronoi noise on a PF but wasn't liking the look of the separation over perlin billows.

Also thanks everyone. Hope they are useful at some point.
28
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by pokoy on June 21, 2018, 03:46:30 PM »
I'm curious why my Density setting for the Arnold volume shader has to be so much smaller to produce the same result (0.003 vs. your 1.68). Setting it to 1.68 here gives me a solid black cloud. I've matched your transparency setting (0.368 on my system) and that works fine. Tonight I'll mess around with the Scatter and Transparent settings to see if I can get some natural looking clouds. (So far I've left Scatter Weight at 0 to replicate the black cloud and shadow.)

I'm using Arnold Core 5.0.2.4, not sure if that makes a difference.
Not sure but maybe units make a difference here. I've set my scene to work in meters and the plane is 10km as in the original TG scene, if you have different settings in your scene it could make a difference. I may have to update Arnold, actually I'm seeing that a new version is out. But honestly, the volume object support in Max is a bit basic, so maybe they've messed up how vdb files import and render, I guess the implementation in Maya is much more solid.

Update - I see in your post that your vdb is scaled x100, maybe that's why.
29
Terragen Discussion / Re: VDB workflow testing
« Last post by sboerner on June 21, 2018, 03:38:45 PM »
Quote
I've uploaded a new VDB to the same folder:

vdb_calib_01/scenes/vdb_calib_01_export_v003.vdb

This is named 'density' instead of 'Easy cloud 01'.

Does this solve the problem with visibility that some of you had with v001?

Thanks, Matt. The new VDB works well.

Quote
Direct Visibility and Shadow
The strange thing is that the Arnold volume shader has a transparency parameter which is set to 0.3679 (0-1 space). With this value, density has to be at 0.18. The shader doesn't accept more than 2 decimal places so who knows what exact value needs to be, but it looks like a good match. Disabling transparency will result in a black cloud and shadow, so I've left this value where it was.
I thought it's meant to produce 0.5 in sRGB, but it seems to be an arbitrary value, if it's linear it should be 0,2176 to produce 0.5 in sRGB, if it's in 2.2 gamma it should be 0.7297 to produce 0.5 in linear space - no clue what the reasoning is behind this as a standard value.

Scattering/GI
This is where transparency controls everything again. If I want the cloud to look good I need to increase the value but then the shadow will be a lot lighter than in TG's example. The GI result further down is what comes out when rendered with the same shader that matches the diffuse/shadow render.

I guess it all comes down to how volumetrics work in Arnold, there's no simple way to achieve the same results for diffuse/shadow and GI.
General light intensity has to be around 1.68 to produce a close match to TG's exposure/brightness.

I'm curious why my Density setting for the Arnold volume shader has to be so much smaller to produce the same result (0.003 vs. your 1.68). Setting it to 1.68 here gives me a solid black cloud. I've matched your transparency setting (0.368 on my system) and that works fine. Tonight I'll mess around with the Scatter and Transparent settings to see if I can get some natural looking clouds. (So far I've left Scatter Weight at 0 to replicate the black cloud and shadow.)

I'm using Arnold Core 5.0.2.4, not sure if that makes a difference.

 
30
Terragen Discussion / Re: World Creator steps up...
« Last post by bobbystahr on June 21, 2018, 02:20:30 PM »
We're using Octane as well. It's GPU city.
Liquid cooling keeps them from getting surly.
This World Creator software should prove really interesting.
Do a bunch of crazy shit super fast and bring into TG for the secret sauce, plus of course the huge TG advantage of a procedural planet, which no one else can touch.

What a time to be alive


I totally agree
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
anything