Regardless of settings variations, I am unable to render the 'any' grass clumps in the positions represented in the preview window. Any thoughts you would like to share on this subject would be appreciated.
Hi Ole Bud! Bob I'm sure it has everything to do with what Matt describes in this thread but I haven't figured it out yet? Maybe it will help you if you can get a handle on it. Then you can explain it to me. ;D
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15)
Thanks Jay for the quick response; however, I think this link refers to a different subject:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.msg12484#msg12484
I think he is trying to say that no matter what he does....his grass looks flat...always....
I have the same problem...
Thanks for both responses. I think I'll try a tree population instead and try to make the dull green layer look a bit more textured ...another challenge!
Is it a population problem or a problem with your grass object? The default is fairly sparse. Here are some settings that might help... might ;)
Grass object:
100,000 blades per clump, width 5-7m
Blade length defaults to 0.1m which should be long enough?
Grass population:
Spacing 5m
...and bring your camera close to the surface to check it out.
The population is not a problem. The preview render shows the rectangles in place where the grass should be. The point of view is high; so, the grass scale must be small or else it will look out of place. I see the grass during the render process; but, it doesn't show up when the render is completed.
Do you have any displaced surfaces which might cover it? It sounds like it's getting buried.
Quote from: Buzzzzz on April 15, 2007, 11:52:09 PM
Hi Ole Bud! Bob I'm sure it has everything to do with what Matt describes in this thread but I haven't figured it out yet? Maybe it will help you if you can get a handle on it. Then you can explain it to me. ;D
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15)
Quote from: choronr on April 15, 2007, 11:57:19 PM
Thanks Jay for the quick response; however, I think this link refers to a different subject:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.msg12484#msg12484
Bob If you read the replies in this Thread http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1249.15) it states there's a problem with populations not showing up on terrains with displacements. That's what I was trying to point out.
2 quotes from Matt in that Thread:
When to use additional Compute Normal or Compute Terrain nodes
When you perform large scale displacements prior to the Compute Terrain, sometimes you need to limit them according to slope or altitude. If you need them to know about altitude, use a "Tex Coords From XYZ" node because this is very fast to compute. If your displacements need to know about slope, for example if you use a Distribution Shader to affect displacement, use a Compute Normal. However, beware that Compute Normal and Compute Terrain slow down computation of their inputs, and the slow-down is compounded each time they are used. The slowdown only applies to the input shader network, so if they are high in the shader chain the slowdown can be minimised. It multiplies the time needed to compute the input displacement by a factor of approximately 3.
Apologies for the mini thesis, but I hope it sheds some light. If someone who is not so close to the implementation can offer a summary of the important information, that would be appreciated.
Unfortunately it will re-evaluate this for every populator you have it connected to. However, unless you have multiple objects in exactly the same locations, this would be necessary anyway, so in most typical situations it wouldn't be possible to optimise this without sacrificing accuracy.
EDIT: This is probably a good place to say that you don't have to use the Compute Terrain node as the input terrain for your populations. Any shader network can be used, and it's often better to use the very last shader that plugs into the planet.
Misunderstanding this is probably one of the more common causes of populations not sitting correctly on the surface. However, whichever shader you use, you should make sure that the surface normal has been computed either by that shader or further up the chain, otherwise slope constraints won't work on your populations.
Matt
Choronr is this what you mean? Not sure if it's a problem with the grass clumps or the sit on terrain feature in general.
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1335.0
Quote from: dhavalmistry on April 16, 2007, 12:58:11 AM
I think he is trying to say that no matter what he does....his grass looks flat...always....
I have the same problem...
I am aware of his problem and I'm trying to direct him to a post that has to do with this problem, if people would just read it.
There is another issue with the grass clumps, that you may not be aware of. It is a large flat object and only shows on (almost) completely level ground. Any slight slope and the grass is buried on one side and flying in the air on the other.
At first I thought that the population consisted, if not of single grass blades, at least of small groups, but that is not so.
Look at this image. You can see the flying grass, but the buried half is invisible.
Helen
yeah, the pop doesn't adapt to the terrain. a work around is to use smaller patches of grass,,but the instances go to roof...and the memory usage,,,just too much
Quote from: fmtoffolo on April 16, 2007, 12:36:13 PM
yeah, the pop doesn't adapt to the terrain. a work around is to use smaller patches of grass,,but the instances go to roof...and the memory usage,,,just too much
This is what I do if I use the stock grass clump you can remedy that by only making the population cover what the camera will see. Sometimes you would be amazed at how small you can make the edges of the population and still get coverage in the camera view.
I use a grass model that I built that is rounded down at the edges and thus makes it sit on hillsides better.
Here is the link on the Terranuts site for the download. http://www.terranuts.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=505
This grass clump does look more like field grass and is not as even as the stock grass that comes with TGTP, but usually I am looking for "field" grass not "lawn" grass.
That clump of yours looks pretty good, guy. Thanks.
:)
here are some of the good grass models from turbosquid (ofcourse they are free :D)
http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/182767 (.max)
http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/270766 (.3ds)
Quote from: Harvey Birdman on April 16, 2007, 01:58:00 PM
That clump of yours looks pretty good, guy. Thanks.
:)
There are two color shaders in it to give a more realistic appearance.
Quote from: dhavalmistry on April 16, 2007, 02:32:03 PM
here are some of the good grass models from turbosquid (ofcourse they are free :D)
http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/182767 (.max)
http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/270766 (.3ds)
These are the exact same plants from 3Dplants.com
Quote from: choronr on April 15, 2007, 11:32:11 PM
Regardless of settings variations, I am unable to render the 'any' grass clumps in the positions represented in the preview window. Any thoughts you would like to share on this subject would be appreciated.
Bob,
I just encountered a population of grass below the terrain because of displacements. I followed what I understood Matt to say and attached the population to the last shader in my surface shader group and the grass was back on top where it should be. I don't know if I needed it but in addition I placed a "Compute Terrain" at the bottom of the shader group before attaching it to the planet. Anyway it worked and I'm happy. If you want some help with your scene or don't follow what I'm saying, just give me a call later. Isn't Verizon Great! We talk Terragen from Arizona to Maryland for free. ;D
Thank you Jay and all those who responded to this thread; and, to Planetside for making this forum available to us all. Sharing our problems and remedies will help us better understand the intricacies of this wonderful program.
Problem solved; thank you all; Matt and Jay for your input - I now have visible grass clumps by connecting the clumps to the last shader in the group.
Hi, I'm still having problems placing a population of bushes on the terrain.I can see the bushes being placed initially and then then terrrain covers them. The terrain is slightly displaced and is stratified and has three sets of fake stones. I've read most of the posts on this and seen Matts advice but I don't seem to be getting anywhere! ???
Buzzz said:
"I encountered a population of grass below the terrain because of displacements. I followed what I understood Matt to say and attached the population to the last shader in my surface shader group and the grass was back on top where it should be. I don't know if I needed it but in addition I placed a "Compute Terrain" at the bottom of the shader group before attaching it to the planet. Anyway it worked and I'm happy"
Question - how do you attach a population to a shader??????? What does the output of a population conect to? I can't make it conect to anything - always a red line - no green. And since my surface shader group is no more than the base layer and fake stones - what can I connect it to?
Help please.
regards
Kevin.
Quote from: Kevin F on May 15, 2007, 03:59:28 AM
Hi, I'm still having problems placing a population of bushes on the terrain.I can see the bushes being placed initially and then then terrrain covers them. The terrain is slightly displaced and is stratified and has three sets of fake stones. I've read most of the posts on this and seen Matts advice but I don't seem to be getting anywhere! ???
Buzzz said:
"I encountered a population of grass below the terrain because of displacements. I followed what I understood Matt to say and attached the population to the last shader in my surface shader group and the grass was back on top where it should be. I don't know if I needed it but in addition I placed a "Compute Terrain" at the bottom of the shader group before attaching it to the planet. Anyway it worked and I'm happy"
Question - how do you attach a population to a shader??????? What does the output of a population conect to? I can't make it conect to anything - always a red line - no green. And since my surface shader group is no more than the base layer and fake stones - what can I connect it to?
Help please.
regards
Kevin.
Hi Kevin,
Try this: In your objects settings choose the Terrain Tab, click on the small box next to compute terrain and chose assign shader, then select your last fake stone shader in the shaders group. Try a crop render to see if it helps. Also make sure sit on terrain is selected, which it should be because it's set by Default.
Please let us know if it works.
Good Luck,'Jay
Hi Kevin,
Try this: In your objects settings choose the Terrain Tab, click on the small box next to compute terrain and chose assign shader, then select your last fake stone shader in the shaders group. Try a crop render to see if it helps. Also make sure sit on terrain is selected, which it should be because it's set by Default.
Please let us know if it works.
Good Luck,'Jay
[/quote]
Hi 'Jay,
No this doesn't work. I had already tried this and a few other connections! I've attached the .tgd and the .tgo for the bushes.
I've stripped the file down to just the terrain and the bushes so there are no fake stones but the problem is still there.
It seems to be directly related to the displacement of the terrain - take it off and the stata shader off and there's no problem. I suppose the strata shader is actually a very specific displacement. But the thing is I need both these displacements to acheive the particular fake stone shapes I get with them on. (if and when you see them you'll see why ;))
Why does the shape of my fake stones vary with displacement switched on or strata switched on? I thought the stones were placed on the displaced terrain ??? These are obviously placed on the terrain before displacement and then altered accordingly by the displacement!
In just what order is the file rendered/processed?
Any help appreciated.
Regards
Kevin.
Hmmm? I would be happy to look at your file but I can't seem to find it?
Quote from: Buzzzzz on May 16, 2007, 10:01:29 AM
Hmmm? I would be happy to look at your file but I can't seem to find it?
DOH! forgot to attach.
The .tgo is bush 1 from:
http://www.balaskas.net/files/CB_Desert_Bush_Pack.zip
Regards
Kevin
Stones are applied as a displacement effect over existing terrain. Any displacement you apply afterward should affect them.
I took a look at your .tgd and there are a couple things going on. First off you have your populator set to a position of -100 on the Y axis placing it below the terrain. You may have done this intentionally to compensate for other issues but since it is an absolute offset it will seldom get you the results you want if sitting on terrain is the problem you're trying to resolve. So first thing is to correct that by setting Y to 0.
Second, populations tend to start having problems with negative altitudes in terrain. For some reason much of your terrain is at a negative Y, which is odd because there's no negative offset or anything. I think it's due in part to your relatively high noise variation in your base fractal terrain. It's not necessary to change this but it helps to be aware of this problem at least.
Finally, populations also sometimes have issue with properly sitting on strata displaced terrain. In this case in particular you have some pretty extreme and perhaps inappopriate settings given the actual altitudes of the terrain you're working with. I understand it may give the results you are trying to achieve, but in terms of considering the absolute settings they don't make much sense in the context of your terrain.
In any case there are generally a couple things to try when solving problems like this.
Already mentioned was changing the terrain which the populator points at to be the last node that provides displacement. Generally you will only want to do significant displacement in the Terrain group so that the Compute Terrain node can do its job of providing a computed normal. In this case your major displacement is done appropriately.
Another approach is to add a Compute Terrain/Normal into the shader chain just after your last major displacement and then set your population to point to this node for its terrain key. This approach doesn't always work either and it will also increase render time.
A final possibility, and one which I think works in this case, is to look at the granularity of the normal being used to compute object placement for your scene and consider whether some finer-scale displacement really needs to be accounted for. Sometimes the problem is that the populator is basing its object height on isolated sample height values that place it inappropriately below or above an otherwise fairly uniform terrain. This can happen when small displacement is sampled at a small level of granularity. You can control the scale that the normal is calculated at with the Gradient Patch Size setting in the Compute Terrain/Normal node. In this case setting it to 100 (meters) seems to fix the problem, suggesting that less fine evaluation of the surface is in order. But it's something to play around with regardless.
I've attached a .tgd that appears to fix the problem on my end. Please verify.
- Oshyan
Great! I come back and Oshyan has a fix! You Da Man! And thanks for the tip on the Gradient Patch Size. ;D
Thanks for the reply Oshyan and all the detailed information BUT.....
applying the changes in your fixed file to my original file still doesn't work even with the population Y value set to 0.
Your reply raises a number of issues:
First fake stones - if they are applied as a displacement effect over existing terrain, why do I get totally different results when the displacement in the terrain is turned off/on and when the strata layer is turned off/on? i.e. in what order are effects carried out in TG2?
because I didn't apply any displacement "afterward" - did I? I though the stones were place on the displaced terrain?
Second, the populator was set to -100 on the Y axis because the terrain was randomly generated and slightly displaced to a mainly negative level completely by chance. I generated the terrain, found the pov I wanted and set the populator to a Y value "above" the average for the ground in view, which was -145 meters.
If this is because "..... it's due in part to your relatively high noise variation in your base fractal terrain. It's not necessary to change this but it helps to be aware of this problem at least." Is a noise variation of 2 relatively high? relative to what? and why is it a problem?
Third, I totally agree with your comments on my strata settings, but to be honest I was simply experimenting with different values. It just so happens that with these extreme values I produced fake stone that were amazing! (see sample pic).
Finally, as for "to look at the granularity of the normal being used to compute object placement for your scene and consider whether some finer-scale displacement really needs to be accounted for".
I don't understand any of this! ???
It's obvious from most of this that proper documentation and instruction is needed for TG2 urgently. Your extra and valuable information is appreciated but not available anywhere else!
TG2 is still in danger of being regarded as a hit & miss piece of software, with a lot of nice somtimes superb yet random effects being produced by people who don't really understand how they are acheiving them. Look at the stones from my original render for example - I've no idea really how I created them and consequently don't know how to modify or control them. This all gives fuel to the "terragen is not art" lobby. Sorry for going on for so long.
Regards and thanks for your help.
Kevin.
Quote@Kevin F - TG2 is still in danger of being regarded as a hit & miss piece of software, with a lot of nice somtimes superb yet random effects being produced by people who don't really understand how they are acheiving them. Look at the stones from my original render for example - I've no idea really how I created them and consequently don't know how to modify or control them. This all gives fuel to the "terragen is not art" lobby. Sorry for going on for so long.
Regards and thanks for your help.
Kevin.
It's still a "TECH PREVIEW" that has only had one patch since it was first opened up to us. Give them a break.
Also I have seen plenty of cases were results are completely repeatable and controllable. (leaving RANT mode) :)
Quote from: sonshine777 on May 17, 2007, 09:06:52 AM
It's still a "TECH PREVIEW" that has only had one patch since it was first opened up to us. Give them a break.
Also I have seen plenty of cases were results are completely repeatable and controllable. (leaving RANT mode) :)
Well I'm not or ever was in RANT mode. - Just my opinion. But even if it is a Tech Preview it has been out for 5 months now and there's still scant documentation. Don't get me wrong - I love TG2 and the excellent service we get via the Forum, it's just that my problems raised possible solutions involving detailed information that lots of us (well me anyway!) have no knowledge of, and some of the features such as placement of objects/populations still cause problems despite being raised numerous times via this forum. Like I said first time - sorry for going on for so long!
Regards
Kevin.
I imagine it would be nearly impossible to create solid Documentation for every aspect of TG at this point of Development as things will most likely change significantly from now until the final release in 6 1/2 months. Yeah, just 6 1/2 months ;D Even at that point in time my guess is the Documentation will be a long time coming due to the extreme complexity of TG2. I also think the Planetside staff has been as helpful as they possibly can be with all that "I assume" is going on behind the scenes to get the final out by the end of 2007.
What would be really helpful is if the Beta Testers would be more generous with the knowledge they have amassed during the last year and a half or however long it's been? I don't understand the reasoning for not sharing this experience with others? Are they still under a Hush Order even though TGTP is now available to the general public? I completely understand they are not obligated to share anything if they don't want to as that seems to be the case? Someone please correct me if I'm way off base. :-\
Yeah I know, Test for yourself. ;D Akin to One Crash Test Dummy saying to the other: Hold on! I'm going to try something! :o
Quote from: Buzzzzz on May 17, 2007, 11:16:27 AMWhat would be really helpful is if the Beta Testers would be more generous with the knowledge they have amassed during the last year and a half or however long it's been? I don't understand the reasoning for not sharing this experience with others? Are they still under a Hush Order even though TGTP is now available to the general public? I completely understand they are not obligated to share anything if they don't want to as that seems to be the case? Someone please correct me if I'm way off base. :-\
Yeah I know, Test for yourself. ;D Akin to One Crash Test Dummy saying to the other: Hold on! I'm going to try something! :o
Preach it brother :) I do agree more shared knowledge from the Beta's would help us all.
Quote from: Buzzzzz on May 17, 2007, 11:16:27 AM
What would be really helpful is if the Beta Testers would be more generous with the knowledge they have amassed during the last year and a half or however long it's been?
I completely agree! Luc Bianco has pics from TG2alpha copyrighted 2004! and the info he gave on how to produce those wonderful clouds was laughable.
Kevin.
I've wondered about this, too. In this environment I would expect to see and hear it all. We are the users. Why keep it from us?
Yeah, I kind of wish that the other alpha testers would be a bit more forthcoming. I'm guessing it partially has to do with their desire to maintain their prestige as the top Terragen users out there. Also, I've had much more fun and have learned a lot more experimenting than I think I could have just by looking at a pre-made .tgd. Also, even with the release of the Tech Preview, we are still under a pretty thorough NDA.
O_B, is it possible someone could possibly explain this NDA to us or give us an idea why we wouldn't be given an advantage as first-users as well? I would almost acknowledge the fact of some sense of entitlement by the first Alpha users, but the fact is that the more we all know the more we will
all be stronger in TG2. The more people dive off into compartments, the less this product will succeed. Guaranteed difference.
Of course, maybe Planetside is more interested in a certain elite segment of the marketplace (like the movie business) and the first users here on this site (who aren't Alpha users) are seen as simple testers who will get to learn some things but will never get to make money like a handful of other users (who are Alpha users).
TG2 is a tool and if we can learn how to use it, great. Otherwise, I'm not sure many of us will see the point.
Quote from: old_blaggard on May 17, 2007, 01:14:51 PM
...even with the release of the Tech Preview, we are still under a pretty thorough NDA.
I think I'll let Oshyan or someone else officially from Planetside describe the NDA to you. However, now that I think of it, I don't think it forbids testers from sharing some of the techniques they use. Again, though, I might not be the best one to try to explain all of this - hopefully Oshyan will turn his attention towards this thread and give a better explanation.
The NDA doesn't prevent alpha testers from sharing techniques that apply to public versions. Any lack of participation here on the part of the existing alpha testers is a matter of personal choice and likely comes down to a number of factors including lack of time, personal feelings about proprietary technique, and perhaps a concern that they might be overtaxed by the obviously large amount of questions many have. I would definitely like to see more of the alpha testers contributing to the technique discussions here, but they are not under any obligation to do so.
I do think it's important to keep in mind that this is a Technology Preview. Perhaps that term doesn't have a broad enough awareness in the community but I think we've provided a lot more support, documentation and options like discounted pre-purchase than many other companies have done with their own similar releases. Obviously if we are accepting registration fees for the program we do need to provide support, however a full manual and other related documentation is really something for the final product (which of course all pre-purchasers will be able to update to). Not only does it take a long time to produce that volume of material, but as others have said there are many things that will necessarily change and having to redo or at least update the documentation repeatedly is simply a waste of time.
We do want to encourage people to use and enjoy the Technology Preview, but ultimately if the lack of documentation, stability and speed issues, or other things are in the way of that enjoyment the only reasonable choice is to avoid using it until the final product is available. We made the choice to provide this early look at TG2 technology for a number of reasons and I have to say I've been very pleased with the reception and effect it has had on the community, so I'm glad we decided to take this approach. Nonetheless it must be seen for what it is and used accordingly, with fair expectations for its current state of development.
I'll have Matt take a look at the rest of the more specific questions here as I may have bodged up an explanation, or there may indeed be a bug in the system making all of this more difficult than it needs to be.
- Oshyan
Thanks, o_b. By the way, I appreciate all of your consistent help and attention to detail to help us do better. Thank you.
Quote from: old_blaggard on May 17, 2007, 03:40:27 PM
I think I'll let Oshyan or someone else officially from Planetside describe the NDA to you. However, now that I think of it, I don't think it forbids testers from sharing some of the techniques they use. Again, though, I might not be the best one to try to explain all of this - hopefully Oshyan will turn his attention towards this thread and give a better explanation.
Oshyan,
Thanks for the explanation. After seeing the sort of documentation you provided when we first started using TG2TP, I'm convinced that the wait for the "manual" will be worth the wait. Anyway, it only makes sense to wait for everything to be more or less "as is" before you document it.
I think it's harder for someone who doesn't do something like program to easily access the internal information it takes to toil at a program over and over until it matches said requirements. Which is usually followed by a list of things going astray from what we intended. ;D