The long awaited baby is born!!!
Hi all,
... geeez, I don't even now how to begin ;D
OK, so here we go... Ladies and gentlemen, please behold our beautiful new baby. It weighs just a few megs and it's a girl (telling by her beauty). The mother, Tangled Universe, is exhausted but happy beyond compare.
Please welcome to this world: the (http://www.nwdanet.com/buy-packs/7-preset-packs/36-canyon-and-rock-surface-pack-by-tu.html%5B/url) @ NWDA
Close to 5 months of research and testing went into perfecting the TU Canyon Pack. I would not have thought it possible that we'll be able to actually "paint" highly detailed canyons one day, but here it is.
I'm amazed. Bet you will be too!
I'll make it short and let the product page speak for itself: http://www.nwdanet.com/buy-packs/7-preset-packs/36-canyon-and-rock-surface-pack-by-tu.html
Best Regards,
Frank
Cool.
I think I'll be picking this up soonish... will come in handy. Thanks!
Thanks guys :)
I'm very happy with this pack and I have big expectations of the results you will generate using this package.
I sincerely believe that however it is compex it still is very easy to use and adjust :)
This topic is also meant for feedback on this package.
Martin
Outstanding work TU. I'm going to have to get a hold of these at some point. Great idea fellas.
It's unfortunate there isn't a larger image of the canyon with the giant dark cloud over it (middle picture). That's intense!
Quote from: Aagam on May 08, 2009, 08:58:23 PM
It's unfortunate there isn't a larger image of the canyon with the giant dark cloud over it (middle picture). That's intense!
Isn't there??? ;)
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6366.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6366.0) ;D
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on May 08, 2009, 09:03:59 PM
Quote from: Aagam on May 08, 2009, 08:58:23 PM
It's unfortunate there isn't a larger image of the canyon with the giant dark cloud over it (middle picture). That's intense!
Isn't there??? ;)
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6366.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6366.0) ;D
Awesome! Wish I could texture like that... the dirt on the ground is amazing... also wish rendering wouldn't take long, something like that would work well for an animation.
if you wish to do texture like that, why don't you buy the pack ? that's the point ;D
Quote from: Seth on May 09, 2009, 03:13:03 AM
if you wish to do texture like that, why don't you buy the pack ? that's the point ;D
True enough, I will soon :)
Your thumbnail links point to the wrong pictures.
Quote from: kaisersuzuki on May 09, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
Your thumbnail links point to the wrong pictures.
Yes and no, it's because the thumb is one big image and not three separate images. So it only links to the middle picture.
The left one can be found in the image sharing section in these forums: http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6387.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6387.0)
The other one isn't posted anywhere.
Martin
I have a question. What's the approx. render times of these images? I have a decent computer and would love to use these. It looks like they would take a long, long time?
Why is the atmo quality set at 128?
Quote from: buzzzzz1 on May 09, 2009, 12:57:39 PM
Why is the atmo quality set at 128?
Oops :) because I forgot to reduce it primarily. In one my images the sun was glowing at an edge and that gave lots of noise in the atmo and thus I had to increase them to that rather high level.
I prepared the packagefile from that tgd, therefore. (see link below)
I think you can safely start with atmo set at 48 samples and see if that's sufficient. I normally then increase with increments of 16.
With this lighting-setup the shadows really benefit from slightly higher than usual atmo-samples.
Quote from: Aagam on May 09, 2009, 12:49:01 PM
I have a question. What's the approx. render times of these images? I have a decent computer and would love to use these. It looks like they would take a long, long time?
That depends on your computer of course, decent can be anything of course :) For the image linked below my computer rendered around 5 hours (4 x 3GHz Q6600).
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508)
Keep in mind that the rendersettings and especially atmo are quite high, as well as the resolution. Also there's extra complexity with 4 fake stone shaders and my sand (which essentially is my snow-package). Although complex, this technique does render fairly quick. As you may have seen I accidentially left the atmo samples at 128 so reducing that will already reduce the rendertime.
I can safely say that without all the bells and whistles this could be rendered at that resolution and more optimised settings in ~3 hours.
Quote from: buzzzzz1 on May 09, 2009, 12:57:39 PM
Why is the atmo quality set at 128?
because Martin owns a render farm at home so he just put very high value everywhere to impress us all ^^
Quote
Quote from: Aagam on May 09, 2009, 12:49:01 PM
I have a question. What's the approx. render times of these images? I have a decent computer and would love to use these. It looks like they would take a long, long time?
That depends on your computer of course, decent can be anything of course :) For the image linked below my computer rendered around 5 hours (4 x 3GHz Q6600).
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508)
Keep in mind that the rendersettings and especially atmo are quite high, as well as the resolution. Also there's extra complexity with 4 fake stone shaders and my sand (which essentially is my snow-package). Although complex, this technique does render fairly quick. As you may have seen I accidentially left the atmo samples at 128 so reducing that will already reduce the rendertime.
I can safely say that without all the bells and whistles this could be rendered at that resolution and more optimised settings in ~3 hours.
Wow 3 hours per image? Seems around right... there goes my animation idea :)
Quote from: Aagam on May 09, 2009, 01:43:10 PM
Quote
Quote from: Aagam on May 09, 2009, 12:49:01 PM
I have a question. What's the approx. render times of these images? I have a decent computer and would love to use these. It looks like they would take a long, long time?
That depends on your computer of course, decent can be anything of course :) For the image linked below my computer rendered around 5 hours (4 x 3GHz Q6600).
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6272.msg66508#msg66508)
Keep in mind that the rendersettings and especially atmo are quite high, as well as the resolution. Also there's extra complexity with 4 fake stone shaders and my sand (which essentially is my snow-package). Although complex, this technique does render fairly quick. As you may have seen I accidentially left the atmo samples at 128 so reducing that will already reduce the rendertime.
I can safely say that without all the bells and whistles this could be rendered at that resolution and more optimised settings in ~3 hours.
Wow 3 hours per image? Seems around right... there goes my animation idea :)
I wouldnt throw that idea away too quickly. What resolution do you have in mind and which settings? Keep in mind that it were rendertimes for 1600x900 and GI 2/4 with detail 0.85 and atmo 128.
For animation of 800x450 it already takes ~4 times less time.
Then reduce detail to 0.75 and keep AA. GI at 1/3 and atmo samples to 64.
~30 minutes / frame...rough guess, but it won't be far from it.
Martin's right. If we think in terms of a small version of HD (800x400) and maybe lessening of the quality standards, the renders might be much less. The ratio works out differently than you might expect, too.
it will be quite insane to try to do an animation with the same setup than for an HD still render !!!
and insane is not really the word i am thinking of, to be honest ;)
Oh ya I know it's surely possible... just too bad rendering with very high quality doesn't take a few minutes ;D
The animation would probably be around 800px width, I haven't fully settled on it yet. I have yet to build everything of course. I use a pretty powerful iMac that I got last year, fully upgraded, and render times for previous projects haven't been all that bad, so I think something would be possible here. As you said, with some dropping of quality settings it can still look great while making render times doable. I'm just very impatient :D
Anyway when I get stuff going I'll be sure to keep you updated :)
Quote from: Aagam on May 09, 2009, 02:44:22 PM
Oh ya I know it's surely possible... just too bad rendering with very high quality doesn't take a few minutes ;D
The animation would probably be around 800px width, I haven't fully settled on it yet. I have yet to build everything of course. I use a pretty powerful iMac that I got last year, fully upgraded, and render times for previous projects haven't been all that bad, so I think something would be possible here. As you said, with some dropping of quality settings it can still look great while making render times doable. I'm just very impatient :D
Anyway when I get stuff going I'll be sure to keep you updated :)
Yeah surely do! If I can be of any assistance then please let me know.
What kind of iMac is it btw?
Martin
It's the 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo model, 4GB of RAM. It's a great machine, I've been very pleased with it. Render times are good, however I have to be careful with heating since these computers get very hot. I used to render on my Macbook Pro and I found TG2 just pushed the computer too far. It rendered very well until it got very hot, then the computer just automatically slowed everything down. When I started to work with video last year, I decided I might as well upgrade to the iMac.
I have access to Mac Pro's through my University, however since it's summer now, they are out of access. Unfortunate but nothing I can do about it :)
Just a quick point on CG animations at HD, it's common practise to render out at 1280x720 rather than full 1080p, then stretch the render up. For two reasons, one it softens up the sharpness you get with CG renders which fit in better with live capture footage, especially if you need to match up camera noise, and secondly it's just over half the render time.
*edit, the attachment has absolutely nothing to do with this post. It seems to have left itself in the browser for some reason. ???
@ Hetzen: that is actually a quite nice "sea test" :)
What are you planning to do with it? Use it for the NWDA image contest? ;)
Back to the canyon and rock surfaces from TU.... Quite a few people now have the pack, and to be really honest, I can't wait to see a couple renders from you guys published here!
In a sense, such a preset really is like a child - as the father (in this case TU), you want to see it grow and live - if you know what I mean. So at least what I'm concerned, I can't wait to see your renders made with it! :)
Cheers,
Frank
Quote from: FrankB on May 20, 2009, 12:32:27 PM
@ Hetzen: that is actually a quite nice "sea test" :)
What are you planning to do with it? Use it for the NWDA image contest? ;)
Back to the canyon and rock surfaces from TU.... Quite a few people now have the pack, and to be really honest, I can't wait to see a couple renders from you guys published here!
In a sense, such a preset really is like a child - as the father (in this case TU), you want to see it grow and live - if you know what I mean. So at least what I'm concerned, I can't wait to see your renders made with it! :)
Cheers,
Frank
Yes guys, I want some birthday-presents! ;D
Martin
Quote from: FrankB on May 20, 2009, 12:32:27 PM
Back to the canyon and rock surfaces from TU.... Quite a few people now have the pack, and to be really honest, I can't wait to see a couple renders from you guys published here!
In a sense, such a preset really is like a child - as the father (in this case TU), you want to see it grow and live - if you know what I mean. So at least what I'm concerned, I can't wait to see your renders made with it! :)
Cheers,
Frank
I'm looking forward to it to. Once I find some time I'll purchase it and use it in that animation :)
Purchased it today :)
Thank you :-)
Quote from: FrankB on May 08, 2009, 05:14:29 PM
The long awaited baby is born!!!
Hi all,
... geeez, I don't even now how to begin ;D
OK, so here we go... Ladies and gentlemen, please behold our beautiful new baby. It weighs just a few megs and it's a girl (telling by her beauty). The mother, Tangled Universe, is exhausted but happy beyond compare.
Please welcome to this world: the TU Canyon and Rock Surface Pack (http://nwda.webnode.com/products/tu-canyon-pack/) @ NWDA
Close to 5 months of research and testing went into perfecting the TU Canyon Pack. I would not have thought it possible that we'll be able to actually "paint" highly detailed canyons one day, but here it is.
I'm amazed. Bet you will be too!
I'll make it short and let the product page speak for itself: http://nwda.webnode.com/products/tu-canyon-pack/
Best Regards,
Frank
I purchased the non-commercial version of this when it came out. Played with it for a while and decided to put it aside because I wasn't getting results I expected based on the incredible introduction we were given. Maybe I'm just not intelligent or talented enough to use it. Has anyone had a successful render based on this pack? If so would you be so kind to point me to it? I've been looking for something produced with this but haven't seen anything or seen any comments on the use of it?
I know TU put months of work into this and Frank said it was amazing and after all I only paid a few bucks for Martins work but I was expecting to be able to make use of it. Hope this doesn't piss anyone off because I've hesitated saying anything for a while now. I'll just consider it a donation to research that I can't use but hopefully someone else can.
Hi Jay,
I'm sorry to hear you have difficulties using it.
What is it exactly that you find really hard to do or understand?
I admit this isn't an easy pack when it comes to integrating into your own scene since there's a lot of nodes involved, but if you use it as a base for a new scene and build your own stuff into/around it then it should really be easy to use.
Please let me know how I can be of help.
Martin
i used it to do this one some weeks ago : http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6387.0
hi tu
have your canyon pack - 2 questions, did you ever make the mesa file changes and still unsure how to use the 2nd tgc file other strata, have spent some time studing your file and have learned so much
thanks
Hi Folder,
It's a quite advanced and comprehensive set of nodes and it's great to read you've learned much from it.
The .tgc file produces an other type of strata. You should replace the entire strata group with the one from the .tgc.
Just connect the top and bottom node in the chain of nodes.
I'm not sure what you mean with the mesa file changes?
Cheers,
Martin
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=7092.0
Hi TU thanks for the info the above thread is the one i mentioned before called new principle for canyon mesas
thanks again
btw is that wall packet in progress at nwda yours or franks
david
What happened to the link to this? It's broken.
Quote from: calico on May 16, 2011, 08:38:00 AM
What happened to the link to this? It's broken.
fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. We changed the web hosterto www.nwdanet.com
Regards,
Frank
I'm completely new to Terragen and have been using it for about 2 hours now (not counting the overnight render time ;-).
I want to model landscapes to use as references for drawing, so I'm not interested in color or surface texture and photorealistic renders much, but more in the ease of creating shapes. I bought TU's Canyon Pack, and made my first canyons. It all works well, so I'm happy, but I have two questions:
1. I tried to paint a hole in the side of a mesa that I had left standing, but this did not work as expected. Is it possible to create caves or overhangs by cutting away lower parts of vertical walls?
2. I'd like my canyon to be not 800 metres deep but only a small ravine of maybe 5 metres and with comparably larger surface structures. What exacty do I need to do? There are some words in the accompanying PDF-file that say I have to adapt this-and-that, but I haven't found the relevant parts in my version of Terragen (3), or if I have, I have not understood what values I would need to enter for the effects I'm after.
I understand that Terragen is a powerful tool for expert modellers, but creating references being only one small step in my extensive workflow, I really don't have the time and motivation to exlore the depths of this probably wonderful software. If using Terragen is too hard, I'll have to continue finding photographs to draw from on the web. But I'd be very happy indeed, if I could find an explanation for what I want to do that is more newbie-friendly than what is current on the web.
Thank you!
* * *
I'm sorry if this is in the wrong section of the forums. The Canyon Pack PDF said to post questions in these forums, but I could not find a newer thread for that pack.
Hello and welcome!
When you say you tried to "paint a hole", what method did you use? It sounds like you were maybe already using the Painted Shader, which is the right approach for sure. What you need to do though is create negative displacement from your Painted Shader, which you can do by feeding it into a Displacement Shader and setting its amplitude to a negative value. You might need a value in the 10s or even 100s depending on the scale of your scene. You should use Along Normal displacement, but you may need to try Lateral Only. It may not work exactly as you want it to because you're painting on very steep walls, which often have long, vertical polygons, and it can't subdivide them adequately. But it's worth a try.
The other thing to know about that is that you can create any shape this way, just using the Painted Shader and a Displacement Shader to paint terrain forms (either positive or negative). So for your needs that might be quite handy indeed. After you create a basic shape you can use procedural displacement functions to give it more realistic shape.
As for the depth, looking briefly at the canyon pack setup here I see that the initial heights come from two Heightfield Generators, which are adjusted in height to specific values. If you change the values in the Heightfield Adjust Vertical shaders, you get lower heights. The canyon width doesn't change proportionally however, so you'd need to look around to figure out what controls that.
Last but not least, you can always feel free to start a new topic/thread here in the forums with your questions, unless it is really a direct reply to an older thread or on the exact same subject. In this case either approach is fine.
- Oshyan
Here's a quick and dirty setup with 2 painted shaders, first one to raise terrain, second one painted after raising the terrain. You can use a lateral displacement after computing the normal, or use the vector displacement without the compute normal.