This is an image i have been working on a little while.
The grass and trees are from Lightning.
I don't really like the lighting. I am trying to get that morning lighting so any suggestions would be appreciated.
Here is the full version (http://www.visualrivetstudios.com/vrs/terragen/grassy_mountainszn2.bmp) 1440X1080
Where the edges of the mountains are sharp it is more likely to be rock, so some more slope constraint on the grass would expose the rock beneath it there. Maybe increase the mist value and height to give an early morning feel.
John
I agree about slope constraint and add that having less dense clouds would add realism.
Consider increasing the GI settings a little, lowering your sun to about 1 or 2 (or thereabouts) and then increase the sun strength.
Thanks for the tips calico and schmeerlap
What's wrong with the GI settings? Looks fine to me in that regard. I agree with much of the other feedback however, some exposed rock would increase realism to be certain.
- Oshyan
I have run into an issue on fixing the rock. Before, i had used a powerfractal for the rock/grass mask because i didn't want the displacement from the rock layer to be where there is grass and vice versa. I agree that it would be better to use the slope controls in the surface layer but I can't use one surface layer as the blending shader for both the rock and the grass. If I invert the blend shader in the surface layer for the rock, the coverage is the same as if it is not inverted. Is there a way to use a mask of what a surface layer doesn't cover without creating a duplicate surface layer with opposite settings which might not be exactly the same? It would be simple if i didn't care about the displacement from the rock layer being on the grass, but i don't want that.
Sorry if that is confusing. Devin
On the morning lighting, I'd suggest doing as the others suggested, and also perhaps change the colour of the sun to a v. light yellow.
Quote from: dwilson on February 21, 2009, 12:04:01 AM
I have run into an issue on fixing the rock. Before, i had used a powerfractal for the rock/grass mask because i didn't want the displacement from the rock layer to be where there is grass and vice versa. I agree that it would be better to use the slope controls in the surface layer but I can't use one surface layer as the blending shader for both the rock and the grass. If I invert the blend shader in the surface layer for the rock, the coverage is the same as if it is not inverted. Is there a way to use a mask of what a surface layer doesn't cover without creating a duplicate surface layer with opposite settings which might not be exactly the same? It would be simple if i didn't care about the displacement from the rock layer being on the grass, but i don't want that.
Sorry if that is confusing. Devin
It sounds pretty confusing, yes :)
However, I think I understand what you want and you can try the following:
Use a powerfractal with a negative offset for patchy rockstructures on the mountain.
Create a surface-layer and set correct heigth/slope-restrictions for where you want your grasses to appear. Use this surface-layer as densityshader for your grass.
Blend the surface-layer with the powerfractal of the rockstructures, and invert it.
You probably already tried it, but... When you connect the output of the powerfractal to a "multiply colour" function-node and connect a "constant colour" to the other input of the mulitply color, you can more or less control how "tight" the mask is. In your case you should increase the constant colour value >1, which will "blow up" the fractal a little bit (depending on the setting of course).
Of course you should connect the output of the multiplier to the blendshader port of your surfacelayer/densityshader. When you invert this blendshader, as said, the blown up fractal will then actually decrease the coverage of the grass on the rocks even more.
Hope that's a bit clear and not confusing ;)
Martin
Here is an update. I just used two surface layers, one for the grass and one for the rock. I just played with the slope settings until i liked the results.
Full size (http://www.visualrivetstudios.com/vrs/terragen/grassymountainszsMod.bmp)
Not wrong. Just a suggested change to make it better.
Quote from: Oshyan on February 20, 2009, 11:51:14 PM
What's wrong with the GI settings? Looks fine to me in that regard. I agree with much of the other feedback however, some exposed rock would increase realism to be certain.
- Oshyan
Cool improvements! Now it's time to render at higher settings :P
I will, it just takes awhile because i don't have a very fast machine. The first one took 24hrs to render
Quote from: MacGyver on February 28, 2009, 05:05:12 PM
Cool improvements! Now it's time to render at higher settings :P
I would recommend that it's not yet time for a larger render.
You really should do something about the color of the clouds - they have a very stained look.
I suggest to increase exposure for the image, and light up the cloud color, too.
Frank
Here is another minor update. I think i am going to render the "final" if there isn't anything majorly wrong with it
Full size version (http://www.visualrivetstudios.com/vrs/terragen/grassy_mountainszv5mod2.bmp)
Another Variation (http://www.visualrivetstudios.com/vrs/terragen/grassy_mountainszv6.bmp)
Well, I wouldn't say 'wrong', but I'd like to see some snow up there. These are those kind of mountains...
I prefer the second one with more contrast.
Iain
The clouds look good now, but for my taste there's way too much (and too saturated) green. A little less green and some nice rock texture plus a little bit snow would be perfect.
I made the rock a lot better by enabling intersect underlying on the grass layer and some other tweaks. Also I forgot to mention before that the grass is lightning's, and the trees are from xfrog
Devin
(http://www.visualrivetstudios.com/vrs/terragen/grassy_mountainszy.bmp)
Geez. My first response outloud was, "That can't be real (meaning a TG2 render).". I actually thought this was a photo at first. I love your foliage color - save that. It's perfect. 8)
Thanks