Is there a way to merge 2 populations? Haven't been able to bend my brain around this.
It doesn't look like any of the conventional merge/mix shaders will accept objects, which is sort as I thought. But, I'm wondering if you can just use the variation scale between two populations with the same settings and distribution masks or what not? That would distribute the same distribution at slightly different locations. I haven't tried with pops but the principle seems to work with fake stones.
Here is a quick example I did. Variation is finicky so gotta find a "scale" that works. It uses the same distribution for both pops, which I made "visible" via a surface layer for example purposes.
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 19, 2018, 03:34:57 PM
Here is a quick example I did. Variation is finicky so gotta find a "scale" that works. It uses the same distribution for both pops, which I made "visible" via a surface layer for example purposes.
Kinda what I did but I just used one pop with a fairly large sscale lie I think it's 1>.25 and then I used an image map with lot's of variation in it as the Colour tab and set that to 2.5 and achieved a pretty good rough stone path...image to follow when rendered.
EDIT
still rendering but I checked and I didn't vary the obj at all, the colour map seems to be supplying that illusion.
Edit
here it is.
I think what Bobby means is having two object types being planted through just one populator. I remember Oshyan as saying that they are considering such option in future releases.
This is indeed something to think about, because each new object population takes a bit of your RAM memory. Consider one population vs. three separate ones? The more textures an object has, the greater the difference in memory usage will be.
You'd have to merge 2 objects first then (until better is available), but they'd always be at the same distance from eachother.
Quote from: N-drju on August 20, 2018, 08:11:17 AM
I think what Bobby means is having two object types being planted through just one populator. I remember Oshyan as saying that they are considering such option in future releases.
This is indeed something to think about, because each new object population takes a bit of your RAM memory. Consider one population vs. three separate ones? The more textures an object has, the greater the difference in memory usage will be.
Seems to me the RAM usage is entirely dependent on your object, not the population. The population is just a string of text denoting population locations and the object orientation (rotation/angle). The population size also doesn't seem to related to the full object size (at least as a whole in MB of the object) in repetition, as if it was, there is no way I could do a 1km population of this treee I have at 500+mb. Seems to be almost similar to game engine logic, and the same tree instance is used at different locations making the overall memory usage not as big as the object duplicated at each position (in memory).
Quote from: Dune on August 21, 2018, 02:17:02 AM
You'd have to merge 2 objects first then (until better is available), but they'd always be at the same distance from eachother.
Indeed, and before I had unlimited pops I made groups of plants as .obj and converted them to .tgo. but they were things like cactus that didn't mind being sunk in the sand, or bullrushes that I centered under the water in any case.
Quote from: bobbystahr on August 21, 2018, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: Dune on August 21, 2018, 02:17:02 AM
You'd have to merge 2 objects first then (until better is available), but they'd always be at the same distance from eachother.
Indeed, and before I had unlimited pops I made groups of plants as .obj and converted them to .tgo. but they were things like cactus that didn't mind being sunk in the sand, or bullrushes that I centered under the water in any case.
Not a bad idea. Though reminds me of the broken packs from free sites with all the plants in one obj, at same location xD So fun to pick apart.
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: bobbystahr on August 21, 2018, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: Dune on August 21, 2018, 02:17:02 AM
You'd have to merge 2 objects first then (until better is available), but they'd always be at the same distance from eachother.
Indeed, and before I had unlimited pops I made groups of plants as .obj and converted them to .tgo. but they were things like cactus that didn't mind being sunk in the sand, or bullrushes that I centered under the water in any case.
Not a bad idea. Though reminds me of the broken packs from free sites with all the plants in one obj, at same location xD So fun to pick apart.
easy enough in Deep Exploration which is my go to model browser....
I was able to make a big group of trees and deer here. Worked best on the default SSS at ground zero. Several trees can be grouped for distant hill cover. I varied the height and size so "floaters" were not quite so obvious.
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,22174.msg225834.html#msg225834
Quote from: bobbystahr on August 22, 2018, 09:18:47 AM
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 21, 2018, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: bobbystahr on August 21, 2018, 03:06:10 PM
Quote from: Dune on August 21, 2018, 02:17:02 AM
You'd have to merge 2 objects first then (until better is available), but they'd always be at the same distance from eachother.
Indeed, and before I had unlimited pops I made groups of plants as .obj and converted them to .tgo. but they were things like cactus that didn't mind being sunk in the sand, or bullrushes that I centered under the water in any case.
Not a bad idea. Though reminds me of the broken packs from free sites with all the plants in one obj, at same location xD So fun to pick apart.
easy enough in Deep Exploration which is my go to model browser....
Easy being relative. I find unnecessary annoyances contrary to "Easy".