Just some thoughts about what would be nice to have in Terragen 2 at some point for new nodal functions.
yes...this could be very useful...specially the vortex....
Think about the vortex part in this sense to. Imagine applying a vortex curve function along the Y Axis in the + Positive direction with a low percentage applied from the vortex which setting it to a low setting only curves the terrain/water shader to a certain degree while going mostly upward. I would imagine perhaps an altitude setting would be needed as well for small waves or huge waves. Then applying another curving percentage in the X or Z Axis direction because the wave must overall only go one way of course. In effect you have an arching wave. Curve strength settings can determine how much twisting there is in the function. So on extreme settings one could make a almost never ending twisting pattern. If such a function could be applied to a water shader then you have those nice sea shore waves. If the shore effects are ever to be put into Terragen 2 like what was in old Terragen had then you got the foam and conforming waves as well.
This might not make much sense in some parts. It's late and i am tired. ;D
Would this only consider large scale phenomena or would it be flexible enough to include small scale phenomena such as the Coriolis effect and other associated phenomena? I think that any such effort should in its design consider factors such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) among other principles for due consideration in the model.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Hi Cyber-Angel,
Quote from: Cyber-Angel on December 22, 2007, 08:07:40 AM
Would this only consider large scale phenomena or would it be flexible enough to include small scale phenomena such as the Coriolis effect and other associated phenomena?
Plug hole simulation? :-). The Coriolis effect is actually kind of large scale, because it's caused by the rotation of the Earth. Anyway, what is being described are simply effects, results of mathematical functions, and they can therefore they can be applied at any scale. I would imagine they could already be implemented using the function nodes if people were keen.
QuoteI think that any such effort should in its design consider factors such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)
You wouldn't be able to view the render without changing how it looks...
Regards,
Jo
QuoteImagine applying a vortex curve function along the Y Axis in the + Positive direction with a low percentage applied from the vortex which setting it to a low setting only curves the terrain/water shader to a certain degree while going mostly upward. I would imagine perhaps an altitude setting would be needed as well for small waves or huge waves. Then applying another curving percentage in the X or Z Axis direction because the wave must overall only go one way of course. In effect you have an arching wave.
I'm not sure I understand your process, but the principle of an arcing wave sounds good anyway! :P
I'm thinking another possible use for the vortex function would be to create whirlpools, for example in a ship's wake. Of course for that you'd also want a way to set multiple whirlpools placed at certain intervals, sort of like what we don't yet have with craters...
QuoteYou wouldn't be able to view the render without changing how it looks...
XD
Jo,
Could you enplane to me what you mean by "You wouldn't be able to view the render without changing how it looks..." just to be clear and to avoid misunderstandings ?
My understanding of the Coriolis effect is that it not only produces large scale phenomena but also macro-scale phenomena as well and these should also be included if realism (Physically Based) is the goal!
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Well if it can be done by mathematical functions, it would be a minor miracle to achieve this effect. I would investigate this if i had the time but due to my lack of understanding all these arithmetic nodes i would probably tear my hair out after months of trying to get it down, hence the reason why new nodes would make it easy for the common user.
The only micro-scale that would be seen is if you were near the ground level, from a planet view this is irrelevant as the renderer would only see large-scale effects. Note that a Photoshop Plugin called LunarCell does these effects although more cheep web graphics looking but the principle of the functionality is there. Now if a crap Photoshop Plugin can do this, then Terragen should have something similar and easy to use.
Nothing needs to be physically correct here. Were only faking what nature has, not trying to be accurate in simulations. I don't want to feel like a scientist here, just an artist. No offense. ;)
hey seth.....do you have the full res version of the pic you posted....
Quote from: Cyber-Angel on December 22, 2007, 05:46:18 PM
Could you enplane to me what you mean by "You wouldn't be able to view the render without changing how it looks..." just to be clear and to avoid misunderstandings ?
Quatum theory. Something is in a "quantum state" if it's not being observed. That means that it is partially in all possible states, divided acording to the chance that it has that state. Once someone observes it, the quantum state colapses and the state of the boject is defined.
`So the preview render is all possibilities a bit, untill you look at it.
Quote from: dhavalmistry on December 22, 2007, 07:21:14 PM
hey seth.....do you have the full res version of the pic you posted....
If you have an image editor that reads Photoshop compatible Plugins you can download a 30 day trial of LunarCell here.
http://www.flamingpear.com/download.html
If none of your photo editing software does not read 8BFs then i would be happy to post a larger resolution version at sendspace or filenanny. :)
I agree with Sethren...still knowing you guys are pretty frikkin' busy.
Hopefully, eh?
Quote from: Cyber-Angel on December 22, 2007, 08:07:40 AM
Would this only consider large scale phenomena or would it be flexible enough to include small scale phenomena such as the Coriolis effect and other associated phenomena? I think that any such effort should in its design consider factors such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) among other principles for due consideration in the model.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to particle-scale physics (for example: you can't simultaneously measure a particle's speed and position because measuring it's position affecsts it's speed and vice versa). I don't see the reason to implement this in a renderer because this scale is irrelevant.
Same for chaos theory, you don't want that also, because you want to be in full control of your (dynamic) system. You want to control the appearance of everything in your render, ultimately.
These 2 factors are only interesting in scientific simulations I think.
Thereby I'm wondering why many people are making very specific feature requests?
Isn't it more important to first understand the program, all its ins & outs?
I think it's much more fun to apply specific effects to already beautiful scenes.
For example, what's the fun of having a TG generated rainbow in a sky with ugly clouds above an 'untextured' terrain?
What I'm trying to say is that there's yet so much to explore in this program and so much to learn for everybody here. There are only a handful of people, maybe even less!, who completely master TG2.
I always think: first things first...those awesome features can come later. So don't understand me wrong, the feature requests are often good ideas, like in this topic. I also understand that feature requests are meant to think about future possibilities with TG2, but like I said there's yet more than enough to explore and learn.
Just my opinion on this matter :)
Let me explain my self and this is not some thing I either like to do or will do often, the reason I asked for Chaos Theory to be included is for the unpredictable randomness it introduces into systems which is what nature is random you might understand parts of the whole system but never the whole system, in scientific papers on the natural world you will come across statements such as "It is Presumed That..." and "It is Assumed That..." due to data not been easily obtainable with instrumentation and methodologies used today.
Nature is not linear Black and White there are many shades of Grey there as well which brings me to say (Again and as many times, in as many places, to as many people until it is hammered firmly home) that CGI is the hospital clean and clinical version of nature the natural world (Look outside any window or walk outside) is the diametric opposite of this.
The earth has been around for around 4.5 Billion Years or so and in that time certain immutable laws have established them selves and are there for a reason, as surly as the earth revolves around the sun the vary least we can do if we wish to imitate nature is at least try and use them.
If its a question of technology then shouldn't we be pushing for it or at least filling enough Class Actions to get it, I mean look at where we've come for in the last Sixty Years: Open Heart Surgery (Including the invention of the Heart Bypass Machine), The Invention of the Radio Telescope, The Communications Satellite, The Transistor, The Microwave Oven, Putting Man on the Moon (By 2020/2035 Mars) and the building of the ISS: so how hard is it if enough like minded people decided to so to move the technology for the CGI industry or must it remain the poor cousin of the Aerospace and defense Sectors?
I think quite frankly that future generations of people involved in CGI will find it quite laughable at the levels of backtracking, workarounds and other kinds compromise found in this the seventh year of the third decade of CGI and to them I can only deeply and profoundly apologize.
There is a great deal I don't know (Its One of those {Adopts pseudo US Accent} "Why Hell Son, Why I said Why the Hell-Didn't You Say So Before") type moments but I try.
___________________________________________________________________________
Postscript and Notice:
I have nether time nor inclination to write here for fun (Fun is what other people do) or small talk and further more find humanity rather baffling, I don't need a 200 page paper to say I don't know I will just say so and there is no Hidden Agenda what I say is what I mean Period, and I can debate (If needs must) the finer points till the cows come home.
I do not always have time or inclination to express the full intent of what I mean but I try to leave the kernel of the intent and move forward, I try to provide starting points for things that might other wise get over looked. :-\
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Ho ho ho, take it easy man... ;D You seem to feel offended already because of my 4 lines?
Don't you think I have a point saying that implementing chaos- and heisenberg-effects (latter in particular) aren't relevant for TG2, certainly not at the moment?
It's like asking Matt to make the TG2 final an hyperaccurate real-world physics simulated photo-realistic renderer.
I understand what you're trying to say above the postscript and notice, being a scientist myself and thus daily with my nose in the scientific papers as well, but I think you're thinking way too much steps ahead and therefore I said: first things first...fancy things will come later.
And that's not 'sticking my neck in the sand'.
It's ok to mention things which might be overlooked, providing starting-points, leaving the kernel and move forward as you say yourself,...but as for now as example someone like me doesn't agree with your idea this time and then it's unnecessary to react this way (first sentence and the postscirpt and notice for example).
These things can and will happen (chaos theory? ;)) that's no big deal at all, I just didn't agree with your 2 proposals :P
Martin
Terragen is not being setup to be the Maxwell renderer its a small Business and simply doesn't have the backing things like. Also while it would be cool to implement such things it would make making a GUI a nightmare. But theres always the SDK or rather will be the SDK. But in the end I just want water transparency and SSS.
Quote from: Will on December 23, 2007, 02:39:05 PM
Terragen is not being setup to be the Maxwell renderer its a small Business and simply doesn't have the backing things like. Also while it would be cool to implement such things it would make making a GUI a nightmare. But theres always the SDK or rather will be the SDK. But in the end I just want water transparency and SSS.
Yeah same for me :) Luckily water transparency is included in the next update :p
Tangled-Universe,
Sorry to launch off the way I did, I do some times as you say jump ahead but as a Futurist that is unavoidable; looking at what could be based on current trends and thinking and then project them forward in time. Many of the idea's I present are based on me sitting TG2 working on some thing or other and thinking of ways to make the job at hand easier not only for my self but for others.
I have always had this feeling in the back of my head that life has some important for me to do and make the world just that little more integrated, streamlined and efficient.
When I'm on a mission (Some thing I feel strongly about) I go after it full bore and fully believe in the principle "Encircle and Give no Quarter" which is basic military tactic that I have adopted as a mantra of sorts.
Again sorry to go off its just I believe in what I say even if its years even decades ahead of where we are now, I normally hold off but every once in a while there are times when the record needs to put straight and for want of a better term for it "Godzilla" comes out: (Note: In a poll at high school I was voted individual most likely to lead a revolution or start a popular uprising). End of Line.
8)
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Quote from: Cyber-Angel on December 23, 2007, 06:21:59 PM
Tangled-Universe,
Sorry to launch off the way I did, I do some times as you say jump ahead but as a Futurist that is unavoidable; looking at what could be based on current trends and thinking and then project them forward in time. Many of the idea's I present are based on me sitting TG2 working on some thing or other and thinking of ways to make the job at hand easier not only for my self but for others.
I have always had this feeling in the back of my head that life has some important for me to do and make the world just that little more integrated, streamlined and efficient.
When I'm on a mission (Some thing I feel strongly about) I go after it full bore and fully believe in the principle "Encircle and Give no Quarter" which is basic military tactic that I have adopted as a mantra of sorts.
Again sorry to go off its just I believe in what I say even if its years even decades ahead of where we are now, I normally hold off but every once in a while there are times when the record needs to put straight and for want of a better term for it "Godzilla" comes out: (Note: In a poll at high school I was voted individual most likely to lead a revolution or start a popular uprising). End of Line.
8)
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Yeah I did get those impressions of your feelings myself too while I was overthinking the "issue" last few hours ;D
It's good you've told it, for the sake of mutual understanding and to prevent possible misunderstandings in the future :) Thank you.
Martin
For some reason I think the Portal end song would fit really well at this moment. Don't know why though...
In general, even as CPU power increases, the "fake" will tend to be faster than a true simulation. If the results are equal and the "fake" takes less time and/or is easier to control, then for most people the "fake" will be the better approach. As long as this continues to be true, Terragen will likely be using "fakes", while trying to cover as many aspects of the real world as possible. Creating a proper, physically accurate simulation of global weather dynamics might get you highly realistic cloud patterns, but it's going to be incredibly demanding on processor time - imagine letting your computer sit overnight, or even over a week, computing the results of a single day of global cloud movement - so it's really not worth it if simple methods to achieve visually similar results can be used.
In regards to the other programs that do some of these things easily, most notably 2D image editing programs, you have to keep in mind that they're operating on finite, 2d images. Terragen operates primarily on infinite 3d noise functions which are rather more difficult (and resource-intensive) to manipulate in the same way. It's similar to the problem of procedural erosion. That being said the "Warp" functions in the Power Fractal can get you some decent results...
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on December 26, 2007, 03:58:26 PM
In general, even as CPU power increases, the "fake" will tend to be faster than a true simulation. If the results are equal and the "fake" takes less time and/or is easier to control, then for most people the "fake" will be the better approach. As long as this continues to be true, Terragen will likely be using "fakes", while trying to cover as many aspects of the real world as possible. Creating a proper, physically accurate simulation of global weather dynamics might get you highly realistic cloud patterns, but it's going to be incredibly demanding on processor time - imagine letting your computer sit overnight, or even over a week, computing the results of a single day of global cloud movement - so it's really not worth it if simple methods to achieve visually similar results can be used.
In regards to the other programs that do some of these things easily, most notably 2D image editing programs, you have to keep in mind that they're operating on finite, 2d images. Terragen operates primarily on infinite 3d noise functions which are rather more difficult (and resource-intensive) to manipulate in the same way. It's similar to the problem of procedural erosion. That being said the "Warp" functions in the Power Fractal can get you some decent results...
- Oshyan
Would you agree that what you have said (For todays processor technology) is a true statement, but in a time scale of say 10-15 years from now with the advent supercomputer on a chip technology and optical chips (Processors that use laser light instead on copper wire and silicone) and chips that use eighty or more cores that physically acute simulation and/ or rendering would theoretically be possible?
With an in cress in processor performance we would need to see a similar revolution in memory performance and pack more memory into less space and make petrabyte or more memory available for home systems.
With an in cress in processor performance there should be a decrees in the power required to run them and they should be cooler in operation as the HVAC requirements (Talking about corporate networks and data-centers here) as if I recall a survey conducted in the US showed that data-centers consume 1.2% of the national power consummation when compared to the national average.
According statistics published by the Environmental Protection Agency data-center energy consumption has doubled since 2000 and is set to double again by 2012 to 100 billion kilowatt hours at an annual cost of $7.5 Billion.
Any way no problem even in CGI is unsolvable and as technology evolves then possibilities that seemed out of reach become possible (They said the sound barrier could not be passed but in time it was).
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Certainly available computing power will always be increasing, but so will the demands on that computing power. Some level of simulation for certain phenomena may make sense in the future as far as computing resources are concerned, but the "fakes" will advance likewise and will still tend to produce better (visual) results in less time, regardless of the increase in power. Let's say for example that today a weather simulation could take a week to complete for a single day of global weather patterns (that's not at all unrealistic since extremely powereful supercomputers are used by the weather prediction community for this purpose and it still takes a comparatively long time). In 10 years let's say that's down to an hour. That's still a long time, and the "fake" could probably get similar results in realtime by that point. To those people for whom absolute real-world accuracy is most important the simulation may still be preferable, but they will always be in the minority and thus their needs will tend to be less addressed. It makes sense to develop your product for a reasonably large segment of the market, balancing performance and hardware demand against realistic results. I don't see the benefits of "fakes" becoming obsolete any time soon.
- Oshyan
If i can just warp in a overall uni-directional pattern to a latitude then that would be a good start.
I'm currently not able to acces TG2, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the first modification could be done with a displacement shader. Getting a vector pointing away from the center of the "bulb" and plugging the X and Y component into a displacement shader (Z too if you want a spherical bulb instead of a flat one) should yield similar results. You might want to decrease the displacement as the distance from the center increases though.
The second one could be done by chosing an area, reducing that area's size to a gradient going from -1 to +1 and then plugging that into a sine function before finaly multiplying it with it a displacement size constant and putting it into a displacement shader. At least, that's how i'd expect it to work...
Apparently, I can't use a displacement node with clouds. What I'm trying next is to build a normall terain and use that as a blending mask for the clouds. It might not produce the stretched effect, but it'll (hopefully) create the shape.
Quote from: Virex on January 11, 2008, 05:53:55 AM
Apparently, I can't use a displacement node with clouds.
Did you try to attach the displacement node to a warp shader first?
*Displacement* itself can't be used with the clouds because it is fundamentally a terrain surface manipulation. A terrain is a surface interpretation of a noise function, just as a cloud is a *volumetric* interpretation of a noise function. In order to create a terrain interpretation of a noise function you can use a Displacement shader to realize that, converting greyscale values into height. The cloud node has its own process to convert information into volumetric data, so a Displacement shader is irrelevant to it. Displacement is essentially a way of visualizing a noise function, just as volumetric rendering is, so using them together doesn't exactly work (although granted the concept of "displacing" a cloud shape is not unreasonable).
You need instead to be thinking in terms of modifying the noise function shape that provides the form of the cloud. Perhaps you're thinking instead of a Warp shader? Anything that modifies the fundamental noise function's output will affect the shape of the cloud. Find the right warper and you might be able to achieve what you want.
- Oshyan
It'll take me a while to get this to work on clouds I'm afraid, but i'm having some succes with mutilating the ground into something that looks like effect number one, but then in 3D.
here's the proof of concept render (Which turned out rather ugly)
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6154/proofofconceptgn0.png)
and here sis the file, whitch still needs some tweaking it seams. Just hook the 3 end lines into displacement shaders, set the x and z shader to lateral only, and hook them up to a redirect shader to get the effect. Remember that this version will create displacements on a scale of a few meters.
When you post a thread or a replay at the bottom left hand side you will see some thing called "Additional Options" click on this and you will be able to you .tgc file form there.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
Thanks for pointing that out!
Anyway, I've added a multiplier to determin the scale of the "Bulb", a diferent clamp node to reduce the ugly effects at the edges and ran some extra renders with a new set-up. First, without stretch, then with outward stretch anbd finaly with inward stretch. The TGD file is set for inward stretch. Juist go to the X and Z displacement nodes and change the multiplier from 1 to -1 to get the outward stretch.