Years ago, while on a trip through the Desert, I seen a place that looked a lot like this. This is still a WIP, and I have tried to be mindful of the advice that I have been given before. There are 4 pop's, 2 of Dune's Heather's and two dead bush pop's etc. However, the Cliff area seems not to be as anti aliased as the sky, and the foreground seems to me to be even worse. The plants just don't look very good to me. The detail just isn't there. I used some higher render settings - Micropoly detail: 0.65 - Anti-aliasing: 8 - but I did customize sampling to 1/64 first samples. Was that my problem? Any ideas on how to achieve more detail, while it being more smooth - and matching the sky? Thanks for looking - and for ANY comments or advice and/or criticisms. It is appreciated.
I do not know what your haze level is.....but I popped this image into an image editor and autofix really crisped it up. Detail shines right through! .....I do not know, but I get that same milky look sometimes...Very good render elements!
Thanks!!! I'll check that out.
I like the rocks. They look interesting.
Which Pixel filter did you use?
Amazing cliff y got going there...have no advice to pass along other than Keep on Tweakin....
The rocks look really cool. Interesting shapes there. Curious what you're doing on that...
The word "detail" seems to me by now to be very non-specific. Even in this thread people seem to be taking it differently. Is it "sharpness", "perception of features", "contrast", "not being washed out"? There are many interpretations. So what does it mean to *you*? In this case I think the image is a bit washed out and low contrast but that's little or nothing to do with render (detail/quality) settings and much more likely to do with your lighting and exposure, or a possible need for a bit of post processing.
- Oshyan
The rocks look great. Are they procedural or based on a photo?
amazing and very unusual rocks. Great image! Are the clouds TG clouds?
I also had a thought about object shaders for your vegetation. I find I often have to play with those if an image texture is used. Question for anyone: Does the color value have to be at 100% when using an image texture on an object or does the image texture itself set the stage?
Cool looking place, looks like a perfect place to explore!
:)
The pixel filter is just narrow cubic. The cliffs up top were created by mixing and blending power fractals (two of which are warped and stretched along the x axis). The clouds are Easy Clouds - StratoCumulus. Thanks everybody for the feedback and advice :D
Yes, I can now see the and stretching in X (especially on the right side it gives one spot that is very clearly stretched). But on the left side it gives very nice eroded overhangs.
Quote from: luvsmuzik on October 05, 2016, 10:28:22 AM
I also had a thought about object shaders for your vegetation. I find I often have to play with those if an image texture is used. Question for anyone: Does the color value have to be at 100% when using an image texture on an object or does the image texture itself set the stage?
In short no, I use that to control the saturation of the map. You can also alter your image map by dialing an actual colour(not black white or greyscale)in that spot I've found.
Oh God, this is awesome in so many ways but that cliff, You nailed it!!! Incredible!!! Congrats!!
This is what I mean by detail. All I did to this wonderful render was autofix in Windows 10 builtin image editor. I will remove this image if you like. I do not mean to hijack your image or post.
Luvsmuzik - No I don't feel like you have done anything wrong. Thanks for the reply! Thanks everyone for your replies :)
Luvsmuzik, yes, so this may simply be a matter of perspective, but I would call that an improvement in contrast, but not truly a change in "detail". You are making the details that are already there more clear and evident, but you are not *adding* detail. This is something that is constantly debated by people though, so I don't expect to settle it here. ;)
I'm mostly concerned with separating the idea of "detail" in Terragen (and how to get a "detailed Terragen scene"), from the effects one can achieve *outside* of Terragen with post processing. To my mind you can only truly add "real" detail inside of Terragen, so when I refer to "detail" I am talking about actual features, elements, and characteristics of the scene, and at what quality they are rendered. Mainly this is because any discussion of "adding detail" that is accomplished outside of Terragen is beyond the scope of what I can provide support for. :D
- Oshyan
Oshyan, I totally agree with you that the *detail* in this render is very evident. To me it was more an atmosphere or humidity question posed to Jerry. When I think of Nevada, I think dry climate with very low humidity as opposed to hazy valleys and foggy conditions....I will be the first to increase that haze density way overboard sometimes, haha.
Jerry did some amazing displacements or modifications to his terrain that are just stunning here.
Terragen's capabilities are fantastic that is becoming more and more evident.
Amazing rocks!
Oshyan - adding the details inside Terragen is exactly what I am looking for. But in this image especially, I would like to make the details in the foreground more "focused" maybe? I was thinking that I probably was using some wrong values in some of the render settings or something like that.
mhaze, and luvsmuzik - thank you, and I agree that Terragen is absolutely great. Thank you Planetside staff.