I always found hero clouds to be a challenge in Terragen. Especially how to control the shaping of the cloud. Anyone have suggestions on how to approach a cloud like this? Thanks in advance. I will try to post some attempts in the next few days.
Thanks in advance.
27715839923_3afe1e7a23_b.jpg
Magic.
No, but really a lot of it is luck of the draw (seeds).
Easy clouds or v3 clouds masked to small area or at small radiuses to build a hero cloud may be the best option.
Great clouds! It would be a nice challenge to try to recreate something similar.
The holy grail. Needs another kind of computing inside TG I guess, or a bit of luck and careful design up to a certain point. Noise is variable, and it's hard to control. I always have the idea that starting from a main big shape, then warping that into smaller outcrops would be the key, but I never really got into that.
I wish Terragen supported the use of volume meshes, which would give you the ability to shape the look of your cloud in a 3D application like Modo/Blender and that would be the boundary of the cloud.
Not sure why thats not already in Terragen, as the app does support importing geo for objects on the ground. A cloud boundry mesh (obj) is an obvious next step. Hint Hint! ;)
I'm pretty sure Matt has this in his mind, but writing the code is another matter. Would be awesome, though.
Hello guys.
Making Cumulonimbus has always been my concern. Here I put some tests and pictures done with Easy Clouds (even 2 or 3 layers) and a bit of Post Rendering, especially for Lightning and the top of the clouds (smoothing). Needless to say, they don't satisfy me but it's already a step forward.
I found that using the Easy Clouds - Cumulus Castellanus - with exaggerated parameters (eg Growth at 7-8 and Variation at 3-4 and Cloud Depth 11,000 and beyond and Density 0.8 - 0.9), pushed and inflated clouds came out with strange effects. No Density Fractal, only Clouds.
In practice, the cloud was shot at the Locality bubble generating flattening effects, as in real Cb, and other strange Incus-like effects but too similar to sectioned slabs, which is not a good thing.
Doing everything with a single layer of clouds would be magnificent.
I hope that the next updates or a new version of Terragen will improve this situation.
Greetings.
Claudio
We can't use GEO, but what we could probably do is create displacement shapes, with lateral, on a plane, to get our cloud column shapes, and export that terrain as a Vector Map. Than we can use that map anywhere as a either a depth map or altitude offset (filling int he bottom of the clouds with a sheet or something).
I did some quick tests with just scalars and altitude offset and it's pretty easy to get some complex looking cloud shapes, just slow when feeding shader info rather than raster image.
Hello
Another try for Cumulonimbus Clouds. No Density Fractal, Cloud Fractal or Blue node linked, only Easy Clouds and playing with Parameters and Random Seed.
I admit that this don't satisfy a maniac for Clouds like me but is a way for solution, simple and not breaks my head. Anvil is the very problem that i didn't resolve so far, patience... perhaps a Sculpting Cloud tool is the reply? Or a plugin?
Made with TG v.4.4.65.
No post-editing
More tools would be good for sure.
I tried to make one just 2-3 weeks ago. It needs more work but you can get the shapes mostly with only surface layers restricted by different altitudes like in this example. I used only one V2 cloud (easy clouds are slow and not sure how much you can play with them) here especially to get faster render times.
That's very convincing even in it's current form. Modeling clouds with surface layers is definitely a way to go, but you're more limited to columns like these sort of clouds you show it seems.
Kadri, I was wondering why you were using surface layers. Is it using altitude parameters like a height mask? I'll try that.
I took an old example from the Cloud Library that looked like an effective setup at first glance (post #107)
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,3691.msg84870.html#msg84870 (https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,3691.msg84870.html#msg84870)
Itused V2 clouds, which I eventually replaced with V3 clouds. Everything looked different. I'm trying to get back some of that sculptural form back by increasing cloud density. This setup uses 3 v3 clouds driven by one main density fractal.
Quote from: WAS on May 04, 2020, 02:42:40 PMThat's very convincing even in it's current form. Modeling clouds with surface layers is definitely a way to go, but you're more limited to columns like these sort of clouds you show it seems.
Thanks Jordan. I used that method especially to get faster render times and less errors.
With 2 and more cloud nodes i get sometimes strange, problematic shadows.
With layers it is faster and less problematic.
You could get any kind of look in theory.
I actually had to try harder (contrast, offset, thickness etc. parameters) to get the look you see.
In this thread for example ı used 2 clouds (one on the left the other a little on the right side)
with every one having 2 layers restricted by altitude:
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,27571.msg274069.html#msg274069
Quote from: eapilot on May 04, 2020, 02:52:04 PMKadri, I was wondering why you were using surface layers. Is it using altitude parameters like a height mask? I'll try that.
...
Yes exactly. I used altitude for masking-restricting.
@Kadri I don't fully understand how the child input works with the surface layer. Does the fractal piped into the child input replace the Parent mask at the specified altitude? I couldn't find a good explainer in the forums or the wiki.
I did a test mimicing using surface layers an slope constraints. It was a little unpredictable on what the result would be. Using two separate clouds is easier to compose, but if its causes more expensive to have multiple clouds, plus artifacts, then I might have to use the surface layer method.
There is not one method you should use of course.
One cloud or more it is up to you and what you want to do.
Here is a very basic example i just uploaded to show how you could use a one cloud-many layer setup:
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,3691.msg276573.html#msg276573
Here is a quick example I did with altitude offset. I created a simple shape mound in a separate project with some variations, and then exported it as a 32bit EXR Scalar, than used that to offset a cloud carpet, filling in the bottom of the cloud with a identically masked cloud at much smaller depth. Then I slapped couple other cloud layers in to fill it in.
Would be super cool if there was a simple vector warper applied to a final cloud shape, like the altitude offset, but effects everything added prior, like altitude offset, depth, and final density. Then you could easily use a vector to shape final cloud shapes. I was thinking of using a much more complex vector export, but realized the altitude offset wouldn't even accept it and probably only read Y if not some weird shape.
Post removed by Icarus 51
Yep, that's a fun file. Also really more just a matter of seeds. For example, zoom out and take a look at the larger cloud layer. Low gamma is useful though for both density fractals (tightening borders) and with depth modulators.
This is where settings like in this file in final position with a transform shader to translate it to cloud position, coupled with smaller cloud radius and mixed into more randomized clouds can give you more of the columnimbus where you want them.
But again, this is totally random, and not something you planned, even partially like with depth/altitude modulation.
@WAS what does the Altitude offset do in your example?
@icarus51 Thanks for sharing. That is a nice picture, and I've looked at Luc's Cloud files before. I even purchased some. The issue with this file is that it falls apart out of the cropped view.
@WAS I was looking at your file from a different thread about tight borders. I liked how you applied a detail fractal with an add scalar and a mutliply scalar. Kind of a overlay operation. I think that overall approach could work.
This is slightly offtopic, but why would you use Cloud V2 versus V3? If you are willing to take the rendering performance hit for more realistic results, wouldn't you always use V3 clouds?
I've removed the attachment because Luc sells this on his store and it isn't free.
Quote from: icarus51 on May 05, 2020, 03:16:46 AMIf Matt reads, please Never delete Cloud Layers v2, if they do this they are precious.
I try to maintain backward compatibility, so Cloud Layer V2 will be around for a long time. However, I plan to add options to Cloud Layer V3 to choose between lighting modes so you won't need V2 (except when loading old files).
Quote from: Matt on May 05, 2020, 05:36:52 PMHowever, I plan to add options to Cloud Layer V3 to choose between lighting modes so you won't need V2 (except when loading old files).
That would be really handy!
Hey guys.
I'm sorry for this mistake. I wrote my apologies to Mr. White for this mistake.
I thought it was a free file if he entered it in the forum. My enthusiasm has betrayed me.
I apologize, even to Matt if I put him in trouble, it was not intentional. I will also delete the post.
Claudio
D
Quote from: icarus51 on May 06, 2020, 05:26:38 PMHey guys.
I'm sorry for this mistake. I wrote my apologies to Mr. White for this mistake.
I thought it was a free file if he entered it in the forum. My enthusiasm has betrayed me.
I apologize, even to Matt if I put him in trouble, it was not intentional. I will also delete the post.
Claudio
It was a free file he uploaded here at that time. If he decided to sell it later it is his problem and not your mistake at all.
Oh, kind of disappointed to see the file go but I certainly understand why. Since this is asked quite a lot... couldn't there be an official preset/tgd or even a tutorial?
Matt, you probably know 10 different ways how to approach this, I'd really love to see more of the dev insights and tricks on regular questions like this one, and one can learn more from the developer than from a file for sure.
I've tried this a few time but always stopped at some point because it's a heck of a long road to get there and you need a lot of patience with rising render times. Also, it seemed super finicky to get the cloud to look solid and still soft but not 'milky', never got such a good result as the one from the file posted (and removed) above.
I also had that file, for years, and thought it was a free share. His sold version doesn't look exactly set up the same.
Quote from: WAS on May 05, 2020, 12:25:57 AMHere is a quick example I did with altitude offset. I created a simple shape mound in a separate project with some variations, and then exported it as a 32bit EXR Scalar, than used that to offset a cloud carpet, filling in the bottom of the cloud with a identically masked cloud at much smaller depth. Then I slapped couple other cloud layers in to fill it in.
Would be super cool if there was a simple vector warper applied to a final cloud shape, like the altitude offset, but effects everything added prior, like altitude offset, depth, and final density. Then you could easily use a vector to shape final cloud shapes. I was thinking of using a much more complex vector export, but realized the altitude offset wouldn't even accept it and probably only read Y if not some weird shape.
Is there a simple way to create a vector displacement texture with objects in Terragen?
Quote from: eapilot on May 07, 2020, 12:43:06 AMQuote from: WAS on May 05, 2020, 12:25:57 AMHere is a quick example I did with altitude offset. I created a simple shape mound in a separate project with some variations, and then exported it as a 32bit EXR Scalar, than used that to offset a cloud carpet, filling in the bottom of the cloud with a identically masked cloud at much smaller depth. Then I slapped couple other cloud layers in to fill it in.
Would be super cool if there was a simple vector warper applied to a final cloud shape, like the altitude offset, but effects everything added prior, like altitude offset, depth, and final density. Then you could easily use a vector to shape final cloud shapes. I was thinking of using a much more complex vector export, but realized the altitude offset wouldn't even accept it and probably only read Y if not some weird shape.
Is there a simple way to create a vector displacement texture with objects in Terragen?
I don't think I understand. Do you mean export a vector map of an imported object geometry? I don't think so.
If you mean export your terrain (the planet) as a vector, yes you can. There is a tutorial that covers it nicely. I'll try to find and link it. It's late here though.
Quote from: Kadri on May 06, 2020, 05:54:53 PMQuote from: icarus51 on May 06, 2020, 05:26:38 PMHey guys.
I'm sorry for this mistake. I wrote my apologies to Mr. White for this mistake.
I thought it was a free file if he entered it in the forum. My enthusiasm has betrayed me.
I apologize, even to Matt if I put him in trouble, it was not intentional. I will also delete the post.
Claudio
It was a free file he uploaded here at that time. If he decided to sell it later it is his problem and not your mistake at all.
Hi
File I posted several years ago somewhere in this forum was not the same.. and as far I remember it was not called storm.tgd but something like luc_clouds.tgd
It was the file attached - this one is free
Quote from: luc BIANCO on May 07, 2020, 03:39:14 AMQuote from: Kadri on May 06, 2020, 05:54:53 PMQuote from: icarus51 on May 06, 2020, 05:26:38 PMHey guys.
I'm sorry for this mistake. I wrote my apologies to Mr. White for this mistake.
I thought it was a free file if he entered it in the forum. My enthusiasm has betrayed me.
I apologize, even to Matt if I put him in trouble, it was not intentional. I will also delete the post.
Claudio
It was a free file he uploaded here at that time. If he decided to sell it later it is his problem and not your mistake at all.
Hi
File I posted several years ago somewhere in this forum was not the same.. and as far I remember it was not called storm.tgd but something like luc_clouds.tgd
It was the file attached - this one is free
Thanks for clarifying Luc.
Thanks for the filename, I searched my files and that is it. I deleted the recent download. Nice file though as your shares always are.
Many thanks for sharing Luc! Can't wait to see how it's done, hope to find some time to give it a spin.
Quote from: WAS on May 07, 2020, 03:56:55 AMThanks for the filename, I searched my files and that is it. I deleted the recent download. Nice file though as your shares always are.
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23959.15.html
(https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,23959.15.html)I have never used a vector displacement, And I wanted to know if you could take a few spheres, make a cloud shape, export a vector dipslacement map, then import it back to use with vector displacement in Terragen. That would give you good control of cloud shapes for a cumulonimbus cloud.
Maybe vector displacement is the wrong question. I'd like to find a way to use primitive shapes to shape a cumulonimbus cloud first, before warping or applying a fractal. What are some of the easier nodes to use, and shape a cloud? I know there are prior examples in the forums that I am currently looking at.
I have seen WAS mention using vector displacement's with clouds as well as distribution shaders. I would really like to see a quick focused tutorial on each of those.
I was trying to use a distribution shader the other day to affect a cloud density shader, but couldn't figure out how to connect things to make it work.
So if someone has time to do:
1) Make a quick example of how to make the Vector Displacement map, and how to use it with a v2 or v3 clouds, and
2) Make a quick example of how to use a distribution shader to control how a couple of different density shaders affect and/or mix at different altitudes
That would be awesome!
-Derek
Quote from: D.A. Bentley on May 07, 2020, 03:09:34 PMI have seen WAS mention using vector displacement's with clouds as well as distribution shaders. I would really like to see a quick focused tutorial on each of those.
I was trying to use a distribution shader the other day to affect a cloud density shader, but couldn't figure out how to connect things to make it work.
So if someone has time to do:
1) Make a quick example of how to make the Vector Displacement map, and how to use it with a v2 or v3 clouds, and
2) Make a quick example of how to use a distribution shader to control how a couple of different density shaders affect and/or mix at different altitudes
That would be awesome!
-Derek
@Kadri provided an example of his OneCloud 3 Layer cloud. He uses surface layers to control altitude which is I'm assuming that a distribution shader is used the same way? I found the network a little hard to adjust the cloud to different shapes and altitudes but it's due to my lack of experience with altitude parameters. Now I'm learning about SSS networks and using add scalar to combine different shapes.
Vector warping a controlled shape is doable. You'd want to isolate all this in a surface layer, or masked by a distribution shader. The important thing here a large depth zone to encompass the cloud, than you want to a surface layer/distribution mask in texture space so it can be further warped. Once you have a rough shape or blob you can use the warp shader and warp by a vector disp or redirect (I prefer redirects for unique PFs per X Y Z easily) to warp the shape into something. Ulco also mentioned this and may have been where I got the idea from in the past.
Using s vector disp for altitude function is totally different and needs the bottom of the cloud filled in. The vector disp I used is useless and it should be a heightmap you export.
I need to get back doing tutorials but I have no time to even sit down for 5-10 minutes to click things in a video let alone keep the same mindtrack through pauses with my kiddos.
I looked at Dune's anvil cloud, which he does something similar. He used a basic SSS network to form the cloud shape and then he piped a PF to a vector displacement and then used that to warp the shape. The problem is that it doesn't displace the shape enough to feel as organic as the original reference. I'm trying a simpler different method. I'll post it in a minute.
Quote from: eapilot on May 07, 2020, 07:46:24 PMI looked at Dune's anvil cloud, which he does something similar. He used a basic SSS network to form the cloud shape and then he piped a PF to a vector displacement and then used that to warp the shape. The problem is that it doesn't displace the shape enough to feel as organic as the original reference. I'm trying a simpler different method. I'll post it in a minute.
Using your final density (before or after warping) as a mask of a surface layer with colour set at 1+, you can use a the breakup shader to add a cloud fractal with coverage at like 0.5 or so to breakup your base shapes soft zones with a normal cloud effect. Play with breakup intensity in the surface layer and breakup cloud fractal noise.
Its rough, but I'm trying to us a fractal for the big shape and then a distribution shader for the flat lower shape. I can't think of a better way to mask the top shape using only one v3 cloud. I'll try to use a few SSS with distribution shader next to make a staggered undulating cloud.
Quote from: WAS on May 07, 2020, 08:33:11 PMUsing your final density (before or after warping) as a mask of a surface layer with colour set at 1+, you can use a the breakup shader to add a cloud fractal with coverage at like 0.5 or so to breakup your base shapes soft zones with a normal cloud effect. Play with breakup intensity in the surface layer and breakup cloud fractal noise.
I'm not sure I understand but I'll try it and reply with an example
This is what I have been working on today. Feel free to mess around with it, add to it if you want.
I animated the two smaller Simple Shape Shaders over 30 frames to test out some variation.
Basically it's 3 SSS's forming the cloud shape/depth, and I mixed two fractals together for the details of the cloud.
-Derek
Looks good.
One thing that always was a mystery to me is how those awesome examples manage to have one more or less continuous surface rather than the typical PF structure with one big 'surface' and many smaller 'orbiting' clouds close to its boundary. It looks like it's rather a low-octave cloud displaced with smaller noises instead of one noise with more octaves. I tried this route a few times but never had enough time to really dig into it and make one setup that works everywhere with only a few adjustments.
Quote from: WAS 5/7/2020, 3:57:09 PM
Vector warping a controlled shape is doable. You'd want to isolate all this in a surface layer, or masked by a distribution shader. The important thing here a large depth zone to encompass the cloud, than you want to a surface layer/distribution mask in texture space so it can be further warped. Once you have a rough shape or blob you can use the warp shader and warp by a vector disp or redirect (I prefer redirects for unique PFs per X Y Z easily) to warp the shape into something. Ulco also mentioned this and may have been where I got the idea from in the past.
@WAS Something that looks like this? I could get large shapes with this but smaller details were way off.
Kinda. Ill try and throw something together real quick.
Here is two basic examples of warping a cloud "form" from a masked shape. Definitely room for improvement.
There does seem to be an issue with what is produced in effect vs what TG actually reads. It was actually hard roughing it up, and by everything I understand about shaders, and the results provdied, both examples should be far rougher.
Quote from: WAS on May 10, 2020, 10:30:49 PMHere is two basic examples of warping a cloud "form" from a masked shape. Definitely room for improvement.
There does seem to be an issue with what is produced in effect vs what TG actually reads. It was actually hard roughing it up, and by everything I understand about shaders, and the results provdied, both examples should be far rougher.
@WAS This is a very interesting cloud setup. Its very clean and structured. Its too many separate nodes in the X, Y, and Z coordinates for me to play with but I will experiment with its versatility in the near future. It looks like it provides a lot of control that I am really looking for in cloud creation. Would using a Distribution shader be the same as a surface shader? If so I would sue the simplest nodes in my own work. Its really impressive.
@WAS or anyone, this is a noob question but how do you create an uplevel node, so that the network is hidden? I noticed that in WAS's network.
Quote from: eapilot on May 11, 2020, 04:25:07 PM@WAS or anyone, this is a noob question but how do you create an uplevel node, so that the network is hidden? I noticed that in WAS's network.
nevermind, I figured it out. What a clean way of working!