Let's say that I have a .jpg image - a mix of blue and white tiles.
Is it possible to apply, for example, a power fractal to said image but only to the blue tiles? This would, consequently, involve masking by colour rather than a shader... Have anyone tried something like this before?
Ok, got it. Seems like all you need to do is to manipulate the transparency colour in the effects tab and make sure it is used for blending. Then, you can apply a power fractal (or whatever else you prefer) as a "mask". Technically, it will not be a mask anymore, just another layer, but this is what I was after.
Red to Scalr
Green to Scalar
Blue to Scalar
And a colour adjust to isolate depending on colour bleed.
This method is great for painting a multi-data mask map for your scene. For example on a black background, you can use red, green and blue to create 3 masks in a project in PS or w/e.
For example, lets say we use "green" to paint where we want buildings, or their surface shaders to go, red where dikes/ditches go, and blue where roads go. And in another project you could use RGB to create different farm patches based on your first map as an overlay. In terragen, you now have two images with 6 masks for your scene.
Clever method for a multiple mask like you describe. But it seems like going to great lengths when a very trivial thing is needed. Which is the case here - adding just a little bit definition to one of the colours.
You could probably say the same for making a manual adjustment to transparency per image map just to use that as a mask, and that transparency being driven by the buggy hardstep of alpha.
Didn't really notice anything "buggy" about it. Whatever works, as they say...
What is "the buggy hardstep of alpha"? There was a bug in the RTP but it was a bug in the RTP, not the shaders, and it it was fixed a while ago.
I always have to explain this every time it's brought up. Alpha is hard. Create a Cloud map in PS. Load it up, create transparency from colour... This is why was having issues using PFs and alpha with caustics based on water, or default shader and transparent materials (with transition).
Even with the hard shape tool in PS the blue squares have a blue border when using blue as a key, when you up tolerance it doesn't effect it until it bounces PAST this blue by a pixel it seems, and any further starts intersecting brown and red, with no blue in the channels (in my example file above)
Also quick edit is posting to a 404.
I used an RGB dots map to spread the pops of reindeer. I think it's possible to make RGB maps by fractal in TG itself, but it depends on how blue blue is, and how red red and how green green. Never did that actually.
Quote from: Dune on April 25, 2020, 01:54:56 AMI used an RGB dots map to spread the pops of reindeer. I think it's possible to make RGB maps by fractal in TG itself, but it depends on how blue blue is, and how red red and how green green. Never did that actually.
This is why I love the new constant colour with the RGB sliders. I have a new dense population mixer using them and works much better than my original setup using PFs and guessing true RGB colours off the wheel (though there is a slider mode I never use, go figure).
Creates nice naturalization for dense forests or fields.
Why would you need to "guess" RGB colours, when you can just use a greyscale image or function and shades of it? I don't get it. I mean, if pop masks is what is being discussed...
Because a not true red, green, blue, will not be 1 in scalar form. And you only get that grayscale value from the colour. Just like if the masks aren't hard (contrast) they will create mixed tones.
Additionally, getting 100% coverage map out of random gray scale masks is a chore when you can use RGB comprising a 100% map at 1, and pull each channel out.
Here is an example I did awhile back. There are 6 populations, controls by 1 RGB map. It's translated for the forest to "randomize it" from POO used for the field. But that isn't really needed when using such a dramatically different species (a tree), I just did it for sake of example. The result is full coverage, and randomization between objects.
Quote from: WAS on April 24, 2020, 11:33:29 PMI always have to explain this every time it's brought up. Alpha is hard. Create a Cloud map in PS. Load it up, create transparency from colour... This is why was having issues using PFs and alpha with caustics based on water, or default shader and transparent materials (with transition).
Even with the hard shape tool in PS the blue squares have a blue border when using blue as a key, when you up tolerance it doesn't effect it until it bounces PAST this blue by a pixel it seems, and any further starts intersecting brown and red, with no blue in the channels (in my example file above)
Also quick edit is posting to a 404.
Ah yes, there are two places where this happens.
1) At the moment (v4.4) the renderer takes continuous opacity values and turns them into either 0 or 1 when they are rendered. (This doesn't happen for shadows, they can be continuous. And the RTP doesn't do this either, and it represents what I want the full render to do in future.)
2) The Image Map Shader's "transparency key" feature creates an opacity of either 0 or 1.
Too bad it wasn't the other way around and just a bug in RTP where it didn't work. Hopefully it's working better one day. Is it like that because of the computation needed isn't quick enough or something?
Quote from: WAS on April 25, 2020, 07:00:03 PMThere are 6 populations, controls by 1 RGB map.
Hmm, let me pick your brain about that a little more.
If six populations are controlled by one shader... then how come their coverage area isn't exactly the same?
I understand you plug "green surface", "blue surface" outputs to the mask input, right? Not the "RGB mixer" itself. That would make sense.
Although you have to admit that the blue colour produces few instances due to its darkish hue.
Quote from: N-drju on April 26, 2020, 03:41:21 AMQuote from: WAS on April 25, 2020, 07:00:03 PMThere are 6 populations, controls by 1 RGB map.
Hmm, let me pick your brain about that a little more.
If six populations are controlled by one shader... then how come their coverage area isn't exactly the same?
I understand you plug "green surface", "blue surface" outputs to the mask input, right? Not the "RGB mixer" itself. That would make sense.
Although you have to admit that the blue colour produces few instances due to its darkish hue.
Maybe you should just try this out. You aren't understanding it correctly. It works. Blue produces a hard map at colour 1. It may look dark, but it's not. It's true blue at 1.
As a matter of fact, I did try it out right after you posted it. Still, see no real merit in using it. If I don't, like you say, understand it then feel free to explain how I should.
There is no point complaining about Planetside's lack of documentation if explaining your own setup is too much of an effort. ::)
It seems you just have a really hard time understanding functions. This isn't the first conversation that goes around and around in a circle. And this isn't something to debate, it's just how it works, TG or otherwise.
It doesn't seem like you tried it at all, because blue doesn't produce any "gray", it produces a solid white map fractal, because it's true blue. Seems you took a peek and formulated a opinion based in prejudice.
If you grab each channel, you have a solid map of that colour. If you combine all those maps back together as scalar, you have a solid map at 1.
I really suggest playing around with stuff. Experiment. And remember, no one is telling you to use it. Lol