To Planetside -
This is a sincere question and hopefully doesn't generate a poopy-thread. ;D
My expertise in TG2 is somewhere between a brand spanking newby and someone like JimB. I would prefer enough insight and grasp of this and other software products to someday reach the caliber of a JimB or an njen. To head in that direction, I need to ask something that I hope you (Planetside) will answer clearly. I don't mind others adding their input, but I would really like to hear this from Planetside and I'm sure there are others who could benefit from a clear answer to this.
I see a dichotomy in TG2's utilization in the IT industry. Of course, this might just be my lack of understanding (see above statement about my expertise). Here are the two points of apparent bifurcation -
1. TG2 is a landscape rendering system (and a very nice renderer).
2. TG2 can export pieces of its mesh to be used in other high-end software packages.
Here is my confusion - both of these things are true, but in both cases someone like me (who isn't a professional...yet) struggles to see how I can make either of these ways work to produce packages for $$. Of course, there are professionals who have accomplished this through heavy modification. But, is there a goal Planetside has that will meld these two worlds or will we always need to find a way to fit #1 into something like a Photoshop scenario or #2 into a somewhat strenuous pipeline of expensive software?
In other words, what should a buyer of TG2 think is the easiest thing, the logical thing, the point of Planetside's venture into the entertainment and advertising world of 3D?
Oshyan recently stated, "The intended workflow with complex objects is to work with external applications and composite, or use rendered out environment maps from TG2." Are these two basic options the main goal of TG2? If so, how can we develop some tutorials that are straightforward enough to help people like me? If not, please explain Planetside's purpose for the media software industry.
Terragen is and has been a landscape renderer. It now includes features that permit those landscapes to be more realistically detailed and animated.
Nobody has ever asked me "What can you render for me in Terragen?" Its usually more like, "Here's what I want. I don't care how you do it."
A potential client has a need for art and describes it to you. He says: "I want to look at Jupiter's moon Europa from outer space, and fly across its icy surface. I need thirty seconds of this at x resolution, 3 months from now. I have the following resources to accomplish this on my side... and what we would expect from you is the following... ."
You scratch your head and think about each of those elements and what it will take to accomplish them, and to put them together to form the whole. You research what kind of data is available. Also at this stage you think about how you will accomplish the shots and you make some tests, including software.
Note that I did not say "at this stage you decide how Terragen, how Paintshop, how any program will make the shot. Define the work, then choose the right tools for the job. If you want to render stuff in Terragen, then do that. If you want to produce art, do that with the best tool for the job. That is an important difference in your mindset.
Here is my confusion - both of these things are true, but in both cases someone like me (who isn't a professional...yet) struggles to see how I can make either of these ways work to produce packages for $$. Of course, there are professionals who have accomplished this through heavy modification. But, is there a goal Planetside has that will meld these two worlds or will we always need to find a way to fit #1 into something like a Photoshop scenario or #2 into a somewhat strenuous pipeline of expensive software?
Software is a tool. That "heavy modification" that you mention with a hint of distaste is exactly what we do. It happens that Terragen makes certain kinds of heavy modifications look good.
The difference is like that between two guys who each have a hammer. One is a carpenter, who uses a tape to measure, a saw to cut, a vise to grip, and the hammer to drive nails. The other guy is what, a hammerer?
gregsandor, you are saying things I already know. I work with software, but I don't work in the media industry. If you do, speak on a level of someone with a technical background.
As for my real answer, it needs to come from Planetside or it's going to get confusing. I'm not asking for pep talks or dissertations on what someone assumes I don't know. Just an answer to the question. As of right now, that hasn't been answered. I'd rather get an answer to what I'm asking, which is fairly straightforward and I expect a no bullshit answer.
In essence, I'm asking what Planetside's goal is for this tool. You know?
Your questions were "how I can make either of these ways work to produce packages for $$." and "what should a buyer of TG2 think is the easiest thing, the logical thing, the point of Planetside's venture into the entertainment and advertising world of 3D? " I am qualified to answer both as I am a "buyer of TG2" who has used Terragen in feature film production, games, and scientific visualization for more than a decade. See my first reply for the answer. It was intended to be helpful toward your goal.
"But, is there a goal Planetside has that will meld these two worlds or will we always need to find a way to fit #1 into something like a Photoshop scenario or #2 into a somewhat strenuous pipeline of expensive software?"
This is the only question that I would like answered from Planetside, since TG2 is a completely new package that hasn't even been released yet. I'm attempting to nail down exactly what TG2's plans are for people like me who are attempting to grasp where to put their time and money.
@gregsandor - I appreciate that you've been in this business for awhile using Terragen. Some people in your industry could create something out of a TV tube and some sprockets from a Lego set, but I'm not one of those people. I need some basic instruction / tutorials on things. So...if Planetside says that #1 is the option, I'll need to learn how to do that. If Planetside says #2 is the only option, then I'll need to consider that. If it's both, then I'm hoping someone somewhere will give some useful tutorials on a TG2 pipeline that can do the likes of something short of working on a movie like Star Trek. This would give me, and possibly others here like me, an opportunity to learn and then with some diligence we would be able to fit into your business relationship description above.
Hi Calico,
I'll be answering your question shortly. Please consider this a placeholder :)
Matt
I understand the frustration of someone trying to ascertain the target market(s) for TG2 and where planetside wish to position it within its market segment, what ever that is intended to be; I say this because I have asked time and again, at this time I am no closer to any understanding of these matters.
Clearly, there must be short, medium and long term goals for TG2 as a commercial product again these aims are not clear from what the developers have said on these forums in the past (Unless I've over looked some thing), one thing that is clear TG2 if it is going to be out there in the commercial arena is for the sake of commercial viability at the vary least is going to have a feature set that is at least on par with the market leaders, or at least have the features from them that are considered industry standards, I am not advocating that TG2 or its successors become bloatware but there are things it dosen't have and this post is not about them.
Think of the software industry as a war (which it is) and in war there are basically two kinds of people, those who lead and those who are lead and please bear in mind what Manfred Von Richthofen said about fighter pilots (But is relevant to the software industry, after a fashion) he said "A fighter pilot is ether vary good or is vary dead". At the end of the day it will be industry reaction to TG2 as a commercial product that will be a deciding factor, if you try to Gage current industry reaction to Terragen by using Google or any other search tool, it seems as if its not on any bodies radar at this time, and using some thing like Google Groups the overall reaction to it is mixed.
As to my own experience with TG2, what limited time I've had to play with it I have managed to get some basic images out of it but was frustrated by my old system with its limited memory and hardware bottlenecks these should now be solved now that I have a Dell Precision T7400 Workstation.
My thinking is this if TG2 is aimed at least say production artists then give them the tool set they need to accomplish there job quickly, to a high level of proficiency in the extreme deadline environment which they have to do their jobs, give Technical Directors the tools and access that they'd require and make life for compositors easier, and least but not least make integrating Terragen assets with other pipeline assets as painless and straight forward as possible, the last thing that you want worry about is software that doesn't talk nicely with other software assets in and existing pipeline.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel ;D
.....
I'll be waiting for your answer, Matt. Thank you.
Quote from: Matt on July 18, 2008, 07:24:00 PM
Hi Calico,
I'll be answering your question shortly. Please consider this a placeholder :)
Matt
Hi Calico,
I think I understand your questions. I'm not sure how well I can answer though, but I'll try :)
First, a few things you probably already know but which don't fully answer your question.
One of Terragen 2's main goals is to fill a particular niche which has been open for a long time, that of rendering landscapes and environments cost effectively without having to compromise on photorealism. With our limited resources we've tried to stay ahead in certain key areas, particularly atmospheric realism, displacement-heavy rendering (even if there are many problems still to solve), and enough procedural tools to allow it to be flexible enough to be used in production situations where other solutions would be inadequate or take longer to get the necessary results. I don't mean to say that the procedural tools are its greatest asset - I would say that they are merely adequate at this point - but they support Terragen's other strengths. There's still a lot of ways that we need to improve communication with other tools so that Terragen can fulfill its potential in that niche.
Lots of other things that will affect Terragen 2's wider appeal, like the ability to render objects from other sources, quickly place them in the scene and texture them with ease; faster and more direct methods of modelling and surfacing the landscape or getting that data from outside modelling and paint packages. Those are things that we will improve in future updates. But our strategy hasn't been, and is unlikely ever to be, to create a general-purpose 3D modelling and rendering package, so that still leaves us with the problem of how to create scenes where the landscape is only part of the whole composition. For users coming from certain backgrounds this will be less of a problem as we further develop the tools needed to composite with elements from other renderers. At the same time, we'll be continuing to improve Terragen's capabilities to do a lot of the non-landscape rendering and texturing within Terragen itself. We'll never be able to do all of these things as well as Blender, Cinema 4D, Photoshop, etc. but how important this becomes to the individual user will depend on what their aims are and the relative importance of the different themes and elements of their art, I suppose. If the landscape is only a minor part of the composition, or if the other aspects have to be the very best they can be, the artist will have to break out the other tools and make them work together. By improving the import/export capabilities of Terragen we can make this process easier.
If I'm not mistaken, the crux of your question comes down to the fact that you see at least two possible ways that Terragen can be incorporated into larger, high quality works, but there is not enough clear advice on how to actually achieve that. My personal (3D-CG-biased) opinion is that to achieve the most photorealistic results, generally, most things will need to be done in 3D, with Terragen only being used where it excels, and that 2D work will often form a big part of the work (as textures, 2D backgrounds, 2D backgrounds mapped into 3D, whatever is best for the job at hand). Terragen could fit into that pipeline in various ways. How it fits will usually depend on many more external factors than just Terragen itself. The loftier the goals, the less central Terragen becomes, and therefore the problems to be solved and the techniques to be employed become less about Terragen and more general to digital art.
If the goals are simpler, Terragen alone may be perfect for the job. And then of course there are jobs that Terragen is just not suited to. Unfortunately the ones in between tend to be the most difficult ;)
After all that, there are improvements to be made which will help everybody - no matter what their abilities and experience. Terragen needs to get easier to use, faster and more reliable. We'll tackle all those things.
I know this isn't really answering your question, but we do want to improve the tools, provide more resources for learning how to incorporate Terragen into workflows and pipelines. We'll need to do that to sell this software and to allow existing customers to get the best out of it.
Let me know whether I've gone any way towards addressing your questions or completely missed the point :) It's been a long day!
Matt
[EDIT: I noticed that I emphasise photorealism a lot. I won't apologise for that - it's what I strive for :) But if you exchange 'photorealistic' with 'high quality', I think a lot of what I said still applies]
Thanks so much, Matt. Your explanation is plenty. I realize you couldn't write the book(s) or do the tutorial(s) I need to study. :D Really, to not joke about it, this has helped very much.
The biggest help in what you are saying is that Terragen might improve the import and especially the export of its system. The improving import system will perhaps help with smaller jobs that will sometimes require some sort of 2D digital work to touch up the end result of work inside Terragen. The work that will need export from Terragen will probably fit "The Golden Compass" or "Star Trek: Nemesis" sort of venue and that is fascinating.
Thank you for helping me to put Terragen in its place without belittling it and yet staying true to its clearer definition of purpose. I appreciate your humility.
I think I'll stay tuned. ;D
Thanks. I'm glad that something I said is still connected to reality :)
Matt
Can I pipe up a bit as well?
A VFX shot breaks down into multiple elements composited together, as a rule, and what Terragen does is allow for a realistic, mostly procedural element to create a complete environment background, or part of, that does away with the need for an expensive live action or miniature shoot. It can usually be done to the Director's specification, and very importantly, it allows the Director and VFX Supervisor (and sometimes Director of Photography even) to 'tweak' the environment. That's where the procedural aspect comes in useful - you don't need to repaint a whole area, or find or shoot photos you don't have, or remodel a 3D object or practical miniature.
The ideal scenario for a shot using Terragen is when there is no live action or man-made parts that need to intermingle with the landscape, like an establishing shot, all nature, shot in the form of a flyover as an example. But I've not had a single shot yet that does that. I think that's were the big difference lies between the beautiful stills that we see (and the occasional animation) created as their own self-contained piece of artwork, and the so-called "pro" film or broadcast work (I hate that "P" word - it's a pretension - nobody dies or goes to jail if it goes wrong) where it's simply an aid to tell a more complete story, and as such needs to be combined with other storytelling elements which have to integrate temporally with other shots and their elements.
Fuzzy bit over, the practical side to exporting a mesh, and very important one, is the guesswork goes out of that integration of elements, and speeds up the pipeline. The exported terrain mesh allows for accurate shadows to be made in the other 3D app of other 3D elements, as an example, or the limits of the action and animation can be set to make sure the relationship between camera, animated elements and environment are known and set. The exported terrain mesh can also be used in most decent compositing packages (the ones that can import 3D objects) as a cue for that type of software to hide and reveal 2D elements, amongst other things. The renderer in Terragen, unfortunately, can't shade modelled 3D objects the way other 3D renderers can, simply because that's not what it's supposed to do so far. If you look at Iron Man and get your hands on the latest Cinefex, you'll realise that the surface of his armour shading isn't just reflection, displacement, colour and specular (and the other usual bits), it's also a whole new set of shading methods that had to be developed because it was realised just the above didn't pass muster any more. TG2's strength lies elsewhere and does many things that the other renderers would find difficult to do, and take up a lot of human resources to make happen which would make a shot more expensive and prohibitive. I personally think it's gonna be three years at least before Terragen2 will be able to do everything the likes of Mental Ray can do, and I'm fine with that. Any work you might see in a film that apparently does everything TG2 can currently do probably took a huge effort and is proprietary.
If you're doing work in visual effects it's normal for mulitple apps to be used for any one shot; nobody has a problem with it and everyone realises (or they should realise) that no single app can cover everything. It's also possible for a single app to have different versions tailored to different markets with differing needs, and be no worse off for it.
Gosh, Jim. Thanks! This is very helpful. Do you tend to use a 3D application like XSI to import TG2 meshes? If so, how easy / hard is it to match a good texture in XSI for the Terragen mesh?
Quote from: calico on July 19, 2008, 10:54:42 AM
Gosh, Jim. Thanks! This is very helpful. Do you tend to use a 3D application like XSI to import TG2 meshes? If so, how easy / hard is it to match a good texture in XSI for the Terragen mesh?
The Lightwave meshes can be imported directly into XSI usually (although there seems to be a few glitches on XSI's side sometimes). If I have a known camera in XSI, which I then export into TG2 (via .chan import), I can render the terrain in TG2 (as well as an ouput mesh if I want a light mesh) from that camera's POV, and bring them all back into XSI using the XSI version of the same camera as a Texture Projection Camera to project the TG2 render onto the XSI mesh. You just have to be methodical and know what you want from the outset. Alternatively, use an Ortho camera in TG2 to create an XZ texture render and slap it onto a standard (high rez) mesh of the terrain in XSI.
The thing to bear in mind is that an imported terrain mesh 1000 units square in XSI is 1000 units square in TG2. You can actually do without a special importer/exporter for locked off cameras by simply typing the camera values (rotation and translation) from one to the other, bearing in mind TG2 uses a different co-ordinate system which I can't remember offhand (Z+ becomes Z- in one or the other, etc). This applies to pretty much all 3D apps - I've done the same between Maya and XSI and even the old Softimage3D in the past; it's a breeze. It's a pain to do for animation, though, although I have done it, spending hours and hours and hours typing values per frame when no converter was available between Softimage3D and Maya (not fun at all). A unit is a unit is a unit. If a model measures 25 units in XSI, when obj'd and put into Maya or TG2 it's 25 units in those as well, and if you move the camera 12 units above it in XSI you can do the same in Maya and get the same result. The confusion starts when we begin talking metres, centimetres, inches, etc.
At least, that's how I remember it..... :-\
Cool, Jim! This is cool stuff.
A bit off topic, but have you tried XSI 7 or are you sticking with 6.5 for now?
Still with 6.5. My annual maintenance is pretty hefty (multiple XSI Advanced licenses) so I usually wait and see ;) It's also a bad idea to suddenly upgrade during a job, unless it's so beneficial it's worth the risk. To be honest, I'm waiting for their "rumoured" new particle system that looks to be at least every bit as good as Houdini and more user friendly.
Hi all
If I may chip in with my 2p worth.... In the March edition of PC Pro Magazine Tom Arah did an article on Vue (all the different flavours, explaining the difference between them etc) singing their praises to the max http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/156633/brave-new-worlds.html (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/156633/brave-new-worlds.html) . "Well", I thought, "we can't have that" so I emailed him and told him that if he thought Vue could do relaistic stuff, then have a look at the Planetside TGTP2 gallery, that should blw his mind.... the reply I got was...
Hi Miles
And thanks for getting in touch.
I have seen the Terragen site before but must admit I haven't actually put
it through its paces. I'll try and take a look at it when I have some time
but in a way I feel a bit sorry for it in that e-on now offers such an easy
to use and scalable solution at such reasonable prices that there's little
room for competition.
Having said that their gallery is certainly impressive though
personally I'd say that the Vue samples at
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=7# just shade it.
Thanks again and all the best
Tom
I find this a rather depressing answer. Understandable, but depressing. I understand that to a graphics "all-rounder" like Mr Arah, Vue probably looks wonderful because it has everything "built in" to produce your finished render, but to say there is little room for competition is a bit sad. The most alarming thing is that if you look at the renders on the page he quotes the link to they all look very Vue"y". I would say that there are probably 1 or 2 that you could mistake for a photo.... and they all pale into obscurity next to the examples on the Terragen gallery (and I'm not just saying that cause I'm a terragen fan and user, I looked at them with as much objectivity as I could possibly muster).
If Vue is seen by a professional graphics software reviewer as producing better results than TG, there is no hope for all of us... we're doomed I tell you.. doomed. I'm not trying to depress those at planetside here, cause I think Mr Arah is totally wrong, but I have a sneaky feeling that because of its ease of use?? and completeness, Vue is seen as the better option. I know Planetside aren't trying to compete directly against the likes of Vue (because of lack of eco system and plant features etc, and nor should they) but to a lot of people who have an interest (but not necessarily the professional experience) a "complete" package will win out every time, and don't forget that the "people who have an interest (but not necessarily the professional experience)" can end up being the professionals of tomorrow and end up influencing what software is used in the future. Look at me, I'm an illustrator by training, but due to having an interest (with no grounding in Geology at all) in a Geotechnical Graphical Database used where I work, I am now the only gINTSoftware certified consultant in the UK and have set up and designed solutions for the software for multinational companies :o
Not sure how my little rant fits in with this thread, though it is related, sort of. I think when the gold wrap release is out, Planetside need to do some serious marketing to the likes of Mr Arah, otherwise TG could miss out on being a part of the professional pipeline, and that would be a shame, because it blows everything else out of the water.
Rant over ;D
Miles
You know, Mr. Miley, I have thought about this and this is my conclusion (hope) -
TG2 is purchased by the makers of Vue and its terrain system is completely replaced by Terragen. Vue 7 would then be everything Vue is plus have the node network for the terrains we all love.
Okay. Standing here with a target on my ass. Give it your best shot. ;D
Calico
;D ;D ;D ;D
A target, on an ass.... damn, and me without my bow and arrows....
I certainly think it would be a sensible business move (though if I was them I would also use TG2s renderer as well) They must be quietly crapping themselves seeing the results from TG2, I know I would be! Mind you, I have found Vue to be so unstable....
Miles
Hi,
I write reviews, mainly book reviews, for a website. A review is just somebody's opinion :-). Hopefully a well considered and unbiased opinion, but I don't expect everyone to agree with what I say in my reviews. A professional reviewer is in the enviable position of being paid to mess about with stuff and then get to tell everyone their opinion of it. For sure those opinions can be influential, no denying that, but not everyone takes these things for gospel.
I personally take reviews with a grain of salt. Once I thought about getting TG Mac reviewed by a Mac magazine I used to subscribe to. However I came to the conclusion their reviewers were terrible. I worked on the Mac version of Mojoworld for a while, so I was fairly well acquainted with it. The review of it left me scratching my head. That and other reviews made me resolve never to have TG Mac reviewed by that magazine.
When I first got started with TG, as a user before I became a developer, Bryce was firmly ascendant. Especially on the Mac, Bryce was it. It could do some of the stuff I wanted, and TG couldn't, but TG just looked so much better. I also never liked Bryce's UI. Bryce isn't exactly the power it once was, even if it is still going along. If I'd gone with Bryce I just would have ended up being annoyed and frustrated by something I didn't like to use which didn't give me the results I was after. Some people love it.
Choice is good. There's always room for options even if sometimes it isn't a lot of room. A monoculture doesn't benefit anyone. I don't think TG2 being the only game in town would be a good thing, were such a thing to happen :-).
Regards,
Jo
...oh, and I forgot the renderer (thanks, Miles), the clouds, the water, and the lighting GI. 8)
Jo
I also believe that competition is a good thing, and I also realise that reviewers are to be taken with a pinch (shovel full) of salt. If I didn't, I'd be using Photoshop (eeeuuurrgghh) instead of Corel Photopaint. I just find it alarming that a graphics pro (he runs his own design company) could look at the 2 sets of renders (TG2 and Vue) and say that Vue is better. I am wondering what criteria he is using to compare the 2?? As I said in my previous post, I did look at the 2 sets objectively. Some of the Vue renders were stunning... BUT they all looked Vue"y". I definately don't think TG2 being the only player would benefit anyone (well, maybe your bank ballance ;D ) and I think that for a lot of people, Vue would be exactly what they want.
Miles
TG2 creates "easily" extremely sharp renders, which have no problem in looking like a photograph. Just as an example, have a look at wholehog gallery http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=404937 (http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=404937) on Renderosity, especially the Coconino Point http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1664232 (http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1664232). It difficult to tell it apart from a photo, isn't it?
The trouble begins when you want do to something more that just a desert, or a grassland. Vue handles without troubles complex objects (e.g. see Fear Factory II http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1707398 (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1707398)) and complex ecosystems (The Stream In The Forest http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1626203 (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1626203)).
As long as TG2 won't be able to handle objects and ecosystems as well as Vue, it will not be able to compete with Vue.
As a last thought, have a look at GeekAtPlay video tutorials http://www.geekatplay.com/tutorials.php (http://www.geekatplay.com/tutorials.php), taking notice of the ease of working with Vue interface which is both dialog box based and network based (to this purpose, have a look at any tutorial regarding the Advanced Material Editor).
Bye!!!
Signed: a Vue user who has chills at the idea that Vue be the only game in town, because this would mean much less improvement and higher prices!
If he can't be arsed, I can't be arsed. Keep doing the do, walking the walk, and not just talking the talk.
Vue renders look like... Vue renders. There's something simply missing - it's in the light, and the terrains which look like they're made with a freebie from download.com, and no amount of techy bollocks about the algorithms and methods can hide that. If he can't see the difference then he needs to change his optician. You can spot a Vue terrain from a mile away (or a kilometre if you want to be fussy). Imagine how much cash has been put into Vue, how much more it costs, and it still only turns out a small percentage of realistic looking imagery which is the most important thing. By the same reasoning Houdini is laughable, and the big companies should all switch to Particle Illusion because it's... easier to use...... ::) Spreading veg easily is one thing, but if the final render is lame it's a wasted effort. Vue's clouds also suck, except the odd ones that were made using the top of the range pricing options. There's no elegance to the final image, it looks clumsy. I bought Ozone for XSI and have never used it in anger. I also bought Vue version X (four years ago) and ended up using TG 0.9 for the job, and adding the trees elsewhere. Just because something glitters doesn't make it gold.
Just IMHO.
Matt said:
My personal (3D-CG-biased) opinion is that to achieve the most photorealistic results, generally, most things will need to be done in 3D, with Terragen only being used where it excels, and that 2D work will often form a big part of the work (as textures, 2D backgrounds, 2D backgrounds mapped into 3D, whatever is best for the job at hand). Terragen could fit into that pipeline in various ways.
Here's what I want to do: I want to slice off the back 3/4 of the TG scene and apply it to an image plane in my XSI scene. I want the 3D foreground portion remaining to segue with the 2D backdrop. That 2D background is intended, in my project, to appear as if it is a backdrop, which I will accentuate by applying Photoshop effects to achieve a "painted" look. The overall effect would be like a stage set where the real stuff on stage appears to jump out in 3D from the painted backdrop. I want to populate the foreground full geometry portion with XSI and ZBrush objects.
Based on what I have described:
1) What if my Terragen scene needs to have a forest or buildings? Would it be easiest to export just the terrain and sky and populate the scene in XSI with objects there instead of trying to do that first in TG (and also do the slicing up deal I described within XSI instead of TG)?
2) Any tutorials or advice on bringing in TG geometry and textures/maps into XSI?
Thanks much.
um this is an interesting question i spend a lot of time over on newzealand graphic websites and such as CGNZ and i spend time on CGtalk. i posted an image a couple of weeks ago on CGNZ which was a photrealistic render which took 70 hours to render and one of the comments was this
Quotenow i know this is a personal taste thing... but why photoreal?
in the 75 hours it took to make this i could've googled 10,000 images of trees and grass.
now i know it took some skills to setup the lights and make it all real and all that.
but there just seems to be little in the way of artistic endevour.
why not use the tech to push for something a little more interesting and original?
look at the popularity of crysis compared to team fortress2....
all im saying is, look at what happened to art when the camera was invented... its happening again
so really what is the point of terragen when you can just grab images of the internet?
i myself do not agree with this with this. terragen can do things that matte paintingcan never achieve
but ignorant snobby artist think terragen is an easy option out and is not true art.
is it though...
@lightning (et al) - It can be true art. I'm not sure it qualifies very often for it. Now we can all debate what true art is. ;D
Really, if it takes your breath like some of the stuff we've seen around here (and we all know what it takes to get that), then it must be something special. Besides, a matte painting for a movie or a game is more than art...it's a science and may someday get recognition for it. To add to my opinion, I remember hearing Lucas say he believed there would be libraries of virtual sets that the movie industry could use for their movies. That is where this is all going...no?
Shokan22, I would say you should do at least the vegetation populations in TG. If the buildings are fairly simply in terms of texturing, are not reflective and only really need to cast shadows (and occlude terrain, of course), then you could definitely render them in TG. Otherwise use a simple terrain geometry export and render them in SXI and comp.
For geometry export, use Heightfield Export LWO or the LWO Microexporter. There are several threads covering their use here on the forums which should turn up in a search, but let me know if you have trouble finding them. I would not recommend trying to export textures, but rather to comp against fully rendered background plates from TG2. Otherwise you're looking at trying to output tremendous texture resolution from TG2 just to match the native TG2 detail in XSI, to say nothing of the atmosphere, etc. If you keep the XSI stuff to the foreground you will avoid the need for significant atmosphere effects and it will make comp'ing much easier.
- Oshyan