I would like to get water surrounding the whole globe. But it seems to be only limited to the northern hemisphere.
Is there anybody that has gotten around this?
Instead of using a lake object which has a defined size, create a surface layer and plug a water shader into its child layer.
Thank you so much that worked perfectly. I'll be posting my results soon.
This thread came up at a time when I've been trying to get water to appear in a scene using the conventional 'lake' method. I've tried many settings of limited depth; but, no water. I read your solution here; but now, regardless of max altitude, the water covers the entire scene ...any thoughts on this?
Maybe I did not understand the problem correctly,
but can´t you use a sphere concentrical to your planet?
depending on its radius you would get a global waterlevel.
Don´t know about decay distance, would have to be huge I guess.
Best Regards,
Jan
Quote from: Mahnmut on January 08, 2009, 03:32:52 PM
Maybe I did not understand the problem correctly,
but can´t you use a sphere concentrical to your planet?
depending on its radius you would get a global waterlevel.
Don´t know about decay distance, would have to be huge I guess.
Best Regards,
Jan
I was thinking the same... a planet just a fraction bigger than the main planet would cover it completely, except for protruding mountains.
The decay distance would be just the same as a normal lake would be, you just set how far your transparency reaches down for and you won't see any more terrain beneath the level of decay in the water.
I have tried the second water planet with both a planet and a sphere object and it works fine.
There is a problem when the scene is saved. Not enough significant figures are saved for the radius of the water planet to allow fine adjustments to be made.
What do you mean?
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 09, 2009, 09:34:48 PM
Not enough significant figures are saved for the radius of the water planet to allow fine adjustments to be made.
Quote from: calico on January 10, 2009, 07:47:48 AM
What do you mean?
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 09, 2009, 09:34:48 PM
Not enough significant figures are saved for the radius of the water planet to allow fine adjustments to be made.
Oh you had to ask.
Here is an example: function based terrain with water from a sphere coincident with the planet but with a radius 1 metre bigger.
The .tgd is the exact same one I used to render the scene: save it, render it; do you get the same result?
Mr. L, I'd like to try it, but I'm in a render going on 48 hours and only about half completed.
Checked your file ... and confirmed, the sphere has the same size as the planet.
Your file:
<sphere
name = "Sphere 01"
gui_use_node_pos = "1"
gui_node_pos = "0 0 0"
gui_group = "Objects"
enable = "1"
show_b-box_in_preview = "1"
visible_to_camera = "1"
visible_to_other_rays = "1"
cast_shadows = "0"
centre = "0 -6.378e+006 0"
radius = "6.378e+006"
... until I changed the radius myself, saved the file, restarted terragen, opened the file and everything is fine.
My XML has this to say:
<sphere
name = "Sphere 01"
gui_use_node_pos = "1"
gui_node_pos = "0 0 0"
gui_group = "Objects"
enable = "1"
show_b-box_in_preview = "1"
visible_to_camera = "1"
visible_to_other_rays = "1"
cast_shadows = "0"
centre = "0 -6378000 0"
radius = "6378001"
So it might be an issue of the current Beta-Release. Somebody with the current version has to check it, too.
Volker
As soon as you save the file again the centre and radius will be reset to:
centre = "0 -6.378e+006 0"
radius = "6.378e+006"
So either the file will need to be hand edited after every save or the radius value changed in the editor after every load.
I found this lack of significant digits when saving scenes a couple of months ago when I was playing with an animation idea and needed a curved water surface rather than the usual lake or plane.
Sorry, but I cannot confirm your observation ... might be because I am using an alpha version not the beta. Somebody else has to try.
All of you guys are awesome. I didn't think I would get this much help with this.
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 11, 2009, 12:22:31 PM
As soon as you save the file again the centre and radius will be reset to:
centre = "0 -6.378e+006 0"
radius = "6.378e+006"
So either the file will need to be hand edited after every save or the radius value changed in the editor after every load.
I found this lack of significant digits when saving scenes a couple of months ago when I was playing with an animation idea and needed a curved water surface rather than the usual lake or plane.
My application doesn't need the numbers to be that precise (at least at the moment). I downloaded Mr. L's tgd test file and replaced all his fancy function with a with a simple power fractal terrain. The normal displacement of the power fractal will give the water enough depth since displacement is both positive and negative.
So here is a quick result below. The water on the bottom and the little water sphere are both sphere objects. The little water sphere just doesn't have anything inside it. I thought it would be cool to see what it looked like.
What do you guys think?
I've beeen playing about with planets and water. all I do is set the water sphere very slightly bigger than the terrain sphere.
Usually a value of about radius = "6.3783e+006" (red numeral is the one I've added to the world radius) seems to work. If things like shore line texture are then in the wrong place I'll raise or lower them proportionately rather than trying to get the water to a zero altitude. The biggest issue I keep running into is the the numeric feedback for anywhere other than the top of the world is pretty useless. Whats the point of knowing a mountain at the equator for example, that is clearly way above the water line is actually -1996m, everywhere on its surface, dont get it... :|
Richard
Quote from: cyphyr on January 11, 2009, 02:35:57 PM
I've beeen playing about with planets and water. all I do is set the water sphere very slightly bigger than the terrain sphere.
Usually a value of about radius = "6.3783e+006" (red numeral is the one I've added to the world radius) seems to work. If things like shore line texture are then in the wrong place I'll raise or lower them proportionately rather than trying to get the water to a zero altitude. The biggest issue I keep running into is the the numeric feedback for anywhere other than the top of the world is pretty useless. Whats the point of knowing a mountain at the equator for example, that is clearly way above the water line is actually -1996m, everywhere on its surface, dont get it... :|
Richard
Too late to test that tonight but isn't your 3 outside the range of significant figures saved?
Quote from: Volker Harun on January 11, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
Sorry, but I cannot confirm your observation ... might be because I am using an alpha version not the beta. Somebody else has to try.
I am running Beta 1.10.23.1 which build ar you using?
Quote from: MortalSphere on January 11, 2009, 01:10:07 PM
I downloaded Mr. L's tgd test file and replaced all his fancy function with a with a simple power fractal terrain. The normal displacement of the power fractal will give the water enough depth since displacement is both positive and negative.
I used the "Fancy functions", to deliberately generate a terrain that would be very sensitive to the actual scale of the water sphere as compared to the planet. The change I was demonstrating, 1 metre, is less than 0.0001% of the radius of the planet. If you are using standard power fractals to create your terrain it is far easier to move the terrain relative to the water than if the terrain is function based. I could have lowered the terrain by 1 meter to obtain the effect I was after but that would have been fiddly compared to just being able to raise the water.
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 12, 2009, 09:05:47 PM
I used the "Fancy functions", to deliberately generate a terrain that would be very sensitive to the actual scale of the water sphere as compared to the planet. The change I was demonstrating, 1 metre, is less than 0.0001% of the radius of the planet. If you are using standard power fractals to create your terrain it is far easier to move the terrain relative to the water than if the terrain is function based. I could have lowered the terrain by 1 meter to obtain the effect I was after but that would have been fiddly compared to just being able to raise the water.
Ah ok. So unless you want specific manufacture terrain features at a particular altitude relative to the water then you would use functions?
I believe the numerical accuracy has been increased in internal builds since the last beta. These fixes will be present in the final release.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 16, 2009, 03:00:51 AM
I believe the numerical accuracy has been increased in internal builds since the last beta. These fixes will be present in the final release.
- Oshyan
That's good to know. Although there does not, for this example at least., appear to be a problem with numerical accuracy. It is simply that not enough significant figures are being written to the .tgd file.
Quote from: MortalSphere on January 13, 2009, 09:48:51 AM
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 12, 2009, 09:05:47 PM
I used the “Fancy functions”, to deliberately generate a terrain that would be very sensitive to the actual scale of the water sphere as compared to the planet. The change I was demonstrating, 1 metre, is less than 0.0001% of the radius of the planet. If you are using standard power fractals to create your terrain it is far easier to move the terrain relative to the water than if the terrain is function based. I could have lowered the terrain by 1 meter to obtain the effect I was after but that would have been fiddly compared to just being able to raise the water.
Ah ok. So unless you want specific manufacture terrain features at a particular altitude relative to the water then you would use functions?
The choice of functions or Power Fractals will depend on the type and shape of the terrain you need. I used functions for the example because I wanted a terrain where large areas were at or very close to zero altitude and no areas below zero. I just thought it was quicker to string a few function nodes together than to set and test power fractal parameters.
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 18, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Oshyan on January 16, 2009, 03:00:51 AM
I believe the numerical accuracy has been increased in internal builds since the last beta. These fixes will be present in the final release.
- Oshyan
That's good to know. Although there does not, for this example at least., appear to be a problem with numerical accuracy. It is simply that not enough significant figures are being written to the .tgd file.
Aren't these essentially the same thing in practice though? In any case I think it is this exact problem that is remedied with the changes.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 18, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on January 18, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Oshyan on January 16, 2009, 03:00:51 AM
I believe the numerical accuracy has been increased in internal builds since the last beta. These fixes will be present in the final release.
- Oshyan
That's good to know. Although there does not, for this example at least., appear to be a problem with numerical accuracy. It is simply that not enough significant figures are being written to the .tgd file.
Aren't these essentially the same thing in practice though? In any case I think it is this exact problem that is remedied with the changes.
- Oshyan
Numerical accuracy and significant figures; are they the same thing? Yes.
The problem is not with the way numbers are stored and manipulated during editing and rendering but with the degree of accuracy with which they are stored in the .tgd file. It should also be noted that there is a similar reduction in the accuracy to which very large or small ar displayed in the editor.
As you say this problem has been fixed any further discussion should be reserved for English tutorial 09:15 Tuesday. Well that was when it was when I was at school. :)