Hello Happy 4th... belayed
I was hoping to gain some relieve from the terrible frustration I am enduring while trying to make good cummulus clouds.
A good visual of what Im after can be seen here...http://www.flickr.com/photos/anderani/2601916584/
I know that this is a common topic, but I have still have not gained any kind of mastery.
My problem seems to be in two main areas.
1) Though I can make clouds (some very nice), I cant seem to command their shape, form or feel. To be clear, the image I link to above is the goal, but I cant get anywhere close.
2) Placement is also a difficult thing. Suppose I could create the cloud shown above, I have had a great deal of difficulty positioning clouds where I want in an image.
It seems clear that a cloud will look different when localized from one place to another in an image. But how can I gain more control of what the results will be? And, accepting some randomness in the cloud seed, how can I build clouds like the one shown above? I am guessing that I can build with shaders the same way as a planet surface, but I would rather not just guess my way through it.
Just need some strong direction here.
Thank you.
Ghehe, who doesn't want to make such clouds? ;D
It is possible to some extent, but certainly bloody difficult.
Quote from: TheBadger on July 06, 2011, 03:52:30 PM
2) Placement is also a difficult thing. Suppose I could create the cloud shown above, I have had a great deal of difficulty positioning clouds where I want in an image.
It seems clear that a cloud will look different when localized from one place to another in an image. But how can I gain more control of what the results will be? And, accepting some randomness in the cloud seed, how can I build clouds like the one shown above? I am guessing that I can build with shaders the same way as a planet surface, but I would rather not just guess my way through it.
The cloud node has an option "move textures with cloud" which makes it possible to move a localized cloud while retaining its shape/density fractal. Very useful.
"Sculpting" clouds is really difficult. Basically you need a fractal as a base and add another 1 or 2 extra fractals to add variation and detail.
Finding settings for clouds like these with just one single cloud fractal I consider to be the holy grail of TG2 clouds :)
Well perhaps making these clouds at all is the holy grail ;D
Martin,
Thanks for quick reply.
So, as a better starting point (than what I have been doing), I should...
1)"add another 1 or 2 extra fractals" to gain more form, volume and personality for the clouds?
2)"move textures with cloud" function, to place what I have made?
This already sounds better than what I have been doing. I'll try it now, and post back.
Also, I tell you if I find the grail I'll ask how to make a clip file and I'll post it. I would save everyone from such frustration if I could.
Thanks martin!
Awesome clouds like in your photo can be done. I find the render time is not worth the time and effort to build these. I am using a Pentium 4. When I get my I7 system together and running it may be different.
FrankB has some fantastic clouds like these at NWDA.
Hi again,
cant locate "move textures with cloud" option. Where is it and how dose it work?
I have bought some of the cloud packs, but I would like to try and work my way through this on my own first before using them. Most of the packs have very complex node networks, and trying to learn from them does not often go to understanding.
One of these two appraoches may be what you're looking for...
Cloud Busting:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=10582.0
Cloud Library:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=3691.0
and the idea of using planets (scaled down) as clouds and positioning them to get the kind of towers and more interesting shapes. (in the Cloud library thread - called meta clouds) Yay 2008...
[Added]
- I put a 2-axis blend up here of some parameters for handmaking clouds:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=12721.msg126538#msg126538
Thanks guys.
I think Im in a better place now with these clouds, though its pretty clear I'm not going to get everything I want, but maybe in post.
Still cant find "move textures with cloud" option. Could some one tell me where it is? It sounds like it will help me get better localization results.
Thanks
'Move textures with cloud' is only available in TG2.3 by opening the .tgd/.tgc in a text editor, navigating to the cloud node code and changing the '0' to '1' where you see this option. It isn't an editable feature in the UI of the current releases yet.
You can have a look at similar options for the 'planet' node in .tgd's written by TG2.3 this same way.
:)
In a default planet and cloud, the areas you want to edit in notepad are in bold here(I wonder what 'seed' stands for in a cloud layer?);
Quote<cloud_layer_v2
name = "Cirrus layer 01"
gui_use_node_pos = "1"
gui_node_pos = "-220 520 0"
gui_group = "5. Atmosphere"
enable = "1"
input_node = "/Atmosphere 01"
gui_use_preview_patch_size = "0"
gui_preview_patch_size = "1000 1000"
enable_primary = "1"
enable_secondary = "1"
move_textures_with_cloud = "0"
centre = "0 -6378000 0"
radius = "6378000"
seed = "0"
cloud_altitude = "14359"
cloud_depth = "10"
local_sphere = "0"
local_sphere_centre = "0 14359 0"
local_sphere_radius = "10000"
local_sphere_falloff = "1"
local_sphere_value_at_radius = "-0.5"
density_shader = "Density fractal 01"
edge_sharpness = "1"
cloud_density = "0.01"
coverage_adjust = "0"
cloud_colour = "0.349999994 0.349999994 0.349999994"
scattering_colour = "0.349999994 0.349999994 0.349999994"
sun_glow_amount = "1"
sun_glow_power = "1.25"
light_propagation = "2"
light_propagation_mix = "0.125"
fake_internal_scattering = "1"
enviro_light = "1"
enviro_light_tint = "1 1 1"
darker_unresolved_scattering = "1"
anisotropic_enviro_light = "1"
altitude_offset_function = ""
altitude_offset_multiplier = "1"
depth_modulator = ""
depth_modulator_centre = "0"
final_density_modulator = ""
ambient = "0 0 0"
fake_dark_power = "0"
fake_dark_sharpness = "10"
improved_lighting_model = "1"
flatter_base = "0"
invert_profile = "0"
base_wispiness = "0"
base_softness = "0"
coverage_gamma = "1"
rendering_method = "0"
quality = "0.5104784277"
number_of_samples = "5"
sample_jitter = "1"
ray_fuzziness = "0"
step_optimisation = "0"
enable_ray_traced_shadows = "0"
acceleration_cache = "0"
use_2D_shadow_map = "0"
shadow_map_resolution = "200 200"
shadow_map_blur_radius = "2 2"
>
</cloud_layer_v2>
<planet
name = "Planet 01"
gui_use_node_pos = "1"
gui_node_pos = "-920 -20 0"
gui_group = "3. Objects"
enable = "1"
show_b-box_in_preview = "0"
render_surface = "1"
translate_textures_with_planet = "0"
render_atmosphere = "1"
rotate_textures_with_planet = "0"
lat_long_at_apex = "0 0"
centre = "0 -6378000 0"
rotation = "0 0 0"
radius = "6378000"
import_motion_filename = ""
heading = "0"
elevation = "270"
distance = "6378000"
surface_shader = "Base colours"
atmosphere_shader = "Cirrus layer 01"
displacement_tolerance = "1"
>
</planet>
Glad to see your back, DandelO...and nice question. I'm curious, too.
I made an attempt with, I think, may be a novel approach.
Definitely needs some tweaking but the basic idea and shapes are there.
That sure looks good, Martin. I am quite curious about your novel approach....
Thanks Ulco :)
Ghehe, perhaps a bit morbid, but I call the method "self cutting" :)
I first use a big base fractal and then contracted and invert it, then subtract the second from the first.
As usual it needs a bit of tweaking.
Rest is based on previous cloud work Frank, others and I did.
First post here. I have a simple question. Is anyone working on a GPGPU Terragen cloud solution?
IcePowder
Quote from: IcePowder on July 12, 2011, 01:23:21 AM
First post here. I have a simple question. Is anyone working on a GPGPU Terragen cloud solution?
IcePowder
Simple answer, no.
Simple question two: Why Not?
IcePowder
I suggest you search for "GPU" in the forums. hopefuly all your questions wil be answered
Ok, I read the posts. Clouds are one of the last bastions that refuse suspension of disbelief. They are in a computational set that evades all claim to solution. Alvy Ray Smith said "we're going to have to learn how to cheat to solve the cloud problem" back in the '80's. I had all but given up on seeing a believable solution in my lifetime a decade back. Now, I'm not so sure that it can't happen.
The 13 Dwarf, parallel execution problem, is yielding promising preliminary results. Upcoming announcements will spotlight an industry change that foreshadows a second wave of applied computational solutions.
It's been quiet too long.
Again, why not?
IcePowder
It's not like drawing pixels like in a game, but actually calculating volumes and how they interact with light.
It's complex math which is not always suitable for GPU rendering, since GPU's don't use the same logic and instruction set like CPU's and thus are actually very limited compared to CPU's.
GPU's are extremely fast, but "dumb".
Finding algorithms which are suitable for GPU coding + heavily multithreading (since that's mostly what GPU power is based on) is not an easy task.
If you still find this answer not satisfactory, which is perfectly fine with me, I suggest you continue this specific discussion in the appropriate thread.
Search for "cuda" in the "open discussion" section and you'll find the appropriate thread.
Cheers,
Martin
Hi Martin,
You're referring to scan-line rendering. The next generation are distinct in that they are much more general purpose than the older scan-line based units. I guess what I'm alluding to is that the next generation will be much more adept at double precision floating point arithmetic vs. the scan-line based polygon shaders that have been the norm. I work with Nvidia so I'm completely familiar with what's in the pipeline. I'll bow out if that's what you really want...,
IcePowder
What do you mean with next-generation?
Are the current GPU's considered next-generation already or is it something in the near/coming future (hence you mention "pipeline")?
We're basically made to believe that TG2 is unsuitable for GPU based calculations (see cuda thread).
If your professional(?) opinion is completely different then I'd like to strongly ecourage you to speak to Planetside and Matt explicitly.
I'm curious about your ideas, so I'm happy to hear from you in that cuda thread or PM :)
I have a couple dozen of PDF's at home from which I consider some extremely suitable for integration with TG2.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe
... I suggest you continue this specific discussion in the appropriate thread.
Search for "cuda" in the "open discussion" section and you'll find the appropriate thread.
Let's continue with cumulus clouds here :)
I'm So lost.
What just transpired was a mild debate between two people who know what they're talking about but refused to go into detail in anything, knowing that the topic was large.
Cliffnotes is essentially:
Icepowder was wondering why GPU rendering wasn't being done, and then revealed that he works with Nvidia, and thus has hinted strongly that the next generation of GPU's might be suitable for Terragen rendering.
TangledUniverse was essentially telling him why Terragen doesn't do GPU rendering currently.
The pdf's and stuff they refer to are technical documents of features almost fully explained.
Reduced the setup from 20+ nodes to just 6.
Here and there the shapes and details are very nice.
If you look (not so) carefully it is obvious that the top section has higher density than lower section of the clouds, even though I don't use a density modulator.
It's a known "feature" of the cloud system in Terragen, but I wonder if there's a way to:
1) get a more homogenous type of noise
2) get homogenous density from bottom to top
Any answers about Martin's question about the "seed"?
Tangled-Universe,
You are doing just what I was asking about! Great work. I have no doubt that you will be able to workout the remaining difficulties you bring up in your last post. But I would like you to restate your answer to my questions about placement.
Suppose the clouds you are showing in this thread, turn out perfectly, could you also then control there look and placement? For example, look at the following luminist paintings. This is what I have been trying to do.
Great cloud already, Martin. If you PM me a tgd, I'll be happy to dive into it, see what I can come up with.
Quote from: Dune on July 14, 2011, 02:32:31 AM
...... Martin. If you PM me a tgd, I'll be happy to dive into it, see what I can come up with.
wouldn't we all!
Thanks guys :)
Quote from: TheBadger on July 13, 2011, 05:39:55 PM
Tangled-Universe,
You are doing just what I was asking about! Great work. I have no doubt that you will be able to workout the remaining difficulties you bring up in your last post. But I would like you to restate your answer to my questions about placement.
Suppose the clouds you are showing in this thread, turn out perfectly, could you also then control there look and placement? For example, look at the following luminist paintings. This is what I have been trying to do.
Ghehe, I'm glad you have no doubts, but I certainly do ;)
The clouds I created are 100% move-able. I only need to move the localized cloud and everything will move along :)
Controlling their look is a different matter, depending on what you want. For instance, less/more details, larger/smaller features?
Of course that's all possible, but it will have consequences for the settings which control other aspects for the noise.
So basically you shouldn't tinker too much with it. Changing seeds and moving the noise function within the localized clouds is a better and faster option in many cases.