Just some clouds I've been arguing with.
[attachimg=#]
Thanks for looking! :)
I can relate to the argument. Looking real nice.
Marc
This is a very good start!
Almost anytime you're up to something you manage to pull it off, so I'm looking forward to see where you're going with this!
Cheers,
Martin
Cheers! :)
its prolly not a good idea to argue with clouds, considering their sizes :D :D :D :D
Quote from: dandelO on March 08, 2010, 12:55:45 PM
Just some clouds I've been arguing with.
the clouds look good btw. :)
Not only the clouds here; but also the seed which produces a nice depth/perspective here ...great work - more please.
DandelO , did you or some of you guys tried to place 2 of the same cloud settings each over themselves , with altering of just one of them a little ?
I think someone must have tried this .
I tried it with Bianco's file . I didn't pushed it further .
I don't know which one you think is better , but the lower parts and the parts in shadow have more details in this way.
But too much variation in one of the clouds can end with some strange places as you can see here.
The render time is another concern .
I didn't use high settings because of this . I don't remember the settings now .
But here are same crazy guys that wouldn't mind this , i know :)
Kadri.
Either the one cloud; or, with one over the other are some fine cumulus examples. The second one with more shadows shows some great details.
Clouds are so fun. Thanks for opening this up.
Hi dandelO,
Is it possible to get my hands on your scene?
I have my own cloud setup I want to test, but I can never make those nice shapes you have made.
Just to let you know.... I wont get mad if you don't want to ;)
- Terje
Sjefen: Since I've been wrestling these clouds I don't have the exact setup you see above, that was saved over.
Luckily, I think the current version is much better(still very much the same but altered a little).
Here there is more definition to the layer and it isn't so broken up and fluffy nearer the camera.
A trick you might have learned for the clumpy effect of the cloud, if you've looked at Luc Bianco's example in the cloud library here, is negative 'noise variation' in the density fractal. Try it yourself, negative values seem to stop it breaking up so much and keep your forms more together.
Colour adjusted gamma removes nasty, unwanted floaters, while keeping the main shapes more or less in place.
I like a dark cloud with high scattering, this gives a nice definition to the contours of each feature so, the cloud colour is 0.25, scattering colour is 1(white) and a fake internal scattering value of '1' instead of the default '0.25'.
I read somewhere in here before, I think it was from Frank B, that cloud colour and scattering colour should both add up to a value of '1'. This is probably true. I have noticed that the default TG cloud layers don't match this rule so, I suppose it's just a matter of taste. No idea.
Clouds have never been my strong point in TG, the only other clouds I've been nearly happy with that I made was these... http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5558.msg57474#msg57474
I've learned a wealth of knowledge from all the help and shared gems in here. Go digging in the cloud library... I think the best cloud I've seen in TG was this one by Frank... http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=8887.msg95160#msg95160
It's simply fantastic! I could only hope to be half as good someday!
Thank you dandelO.
I'll have a look and see if I can learn something from this.
- Terje
Quote from: sjefen on March 11, 2010, 03:18:34 PM
I'll have a look and see if I can learn something from this....
...and post it here :) ;) ;D
Thanks a lot for sharing!
Here's the full sized render of the settings I uploaded. (the shared .tgd has the render settings edited for use in TG2 Free non-commercial version, these are my own final quality settings. The only difference is the AA and resolution, though).
A little enhancement post render.
Render = 0.75, Resolution = 1280x800
AA = 6/Customized 1/16
GI = 2/2
Cumulus cloud quality = 1.5(237 samples), no acceleration
Atmosphere = 32 samples.(I should have raised this, there was some grain in the rays that I had to blur out on the horizon and in some dark shadow areas of cloud)
Now to use some in an interesting scene, instead of this soggy old washed out sh*te...
Cheers for looking! :)
[attach=#]
EDIT: Oops! Forgot a signature and frame, no matter, I'm an idiot! ;) :D
Also, we can't edit our older posts any more it seems. At least I can't remove these and replace them with the above sentence this time! ;)
QuoteDandelO , did you or some of you guys tried to place 2 of the same cloud settings each over themselves , with altering of just one of them a little ?
I think someone must have tried this .
Sorry, Kadri, should've replied earlier to this.
I have indeed tried that a long time ago, like you probably noticed, though, this adds greatly to render time, having two cloud layers doing the same areas.
It also makes the cloud twice as dense in appearance and settings must be tweaked in relation to each other to get a balance between both.
What I'm more interested in now(but I'll attempt your idea with this again, too) is applying a second
density fractal, using the first fractal as it's blend shader, so it only appears where the main cloud already is.
I'd been attempting this to try and recreate some
cumulus fractus type forms - The main cloud form has smaller scaled wisps around it's borders. The trouble I was finding there was that the main cloud layer also stretches the secondary, smaller fractal to the same heights as the first, maybe 2 layers of clouds would be better for this, I'm always playing with clouds, just, I never really get anything universally workable.
To quote Sir Marc of Gerbhart: 'Clouds are a *****!' :D
I'm waiting for your results DandelO :)
Fractus is working now, Kadri. Still just one cloud layer. :)
I'm rendering different wisp factor comparison images just now. Post later.