I exported the terrain to 3ds max, created a particle system (which took quite a while), transformed it into a (vast!) mesh and imported it into TG.
I had to render this one in several portions since my computer refused to render the scene as a whole. I used image map shaders to create the wet areas on the rock surface and the blue water and a PF for the foam texture. Once again I used my birds to bring in some life. Little PW (contrast, brightness, chromatic aberration).
Nice image Hannes!
Very beautiful image !!! I am not certain unquestionable step of the effect of the water of the fall.
Sorry for my bad English.
I like the terrain and overall image very much, very realistic and having a nice mood. But I'm not convinced by the large particles of the fall. Sorry. Perhaps if you make some white-bluegreenish color under the fall's particles like rushing white water, it will be better. I know it's hard to make a realistic fall, but I think you'll get there.
Fantastic image but I have to agree with Dune.
I think motion blur would take care of the particle issue, but of course that would have to be done externally or in post...
- Oshyan
Not sure but most of them look like color on the water surface and not so much particles ?
Really good :) But I think you could make it better!
I understand that the particle systems take an age to work out (and to calculate!) but could you make an even finer mesh or actually render the waterfall in Max and comp the two together? I find the birds distracting (is that them just above the waterfall?) they kind of look like highlights on the foliage to me.
Where the fall meets the water is perfect, very good effect and the light streaming through the low mist is a nice touch:)
Also I'm not too sure about the foreground tree.
Hope you don't mind the heavy crit, it's a great original image that imho could be so much better.
cheers
Richard
Hannes could get away here with this too probably:
Export the the terrain mesh and crop the waterfall part and overlay it with a little distance with a water shader over it
with some clouds here or there .
But then using particles is fun too :)
Thank you for your crits!!! I really appreciate that. You're right, the particles are a bit too large. The problem is, if I make them smaller, the mesh will be too "thin", i. e. there still aren't enough particles for that. And I can tell you, it's a lot. It took almost an hour to transform the particles into an .obj-file.
Anyway you're right, there have to be some changes. I'll see what I can do. Probably a little more postwork regarding the waterfall would be the best.
Very nice Hannes. This is something I have been wanting to do for a very long time!
If you want smaller particles, but don't want to decrease their actual size then you can also use a "relax" modifier in Max if I'm not mistaken.
Are these Max particles or did you use Realflow? The culprit with Max particles is that it's single threaded and that it meshes on %visible particles, which is rather stupid.
Ideally you would render this with MR or the like with MB and use renderpasses to comp the waterfall into the TG render.
If you feel up to it I would really really like to explore this together with you and bundle our time and experience.
Cheers,
Martin
One of the best waterfalls I have seen; and, I know you will even make it better.
Hannes, is this only for a still, or also an animation?
If its for a still I would do a cloud TG2 water fall and blend in in with your falls mesh. The two together should be very effective?
Thanks again!!
@TU: thanks a lot for your comment. It's ordinary Max PFlow particles. At the moment I am trying some things. If I'll get stuck, I'd be happy to accept your offer.
@choronr: thank you, I hope you're right... ;D
@TheBadger: It's for a still, although I have a particle sequence. At the moment I'm not planning to make an animation, but who knows?? ;)
I already used two localised clouds for the falls. Maybe I'll add some more.
Another try with particles rendered in 3ds max comped together with the TG mesh and postprocessed. What do you think?
...and I left out the birds.
Looking even better Hannes :)
If you have enough frames and would increase MB length you could even make it look like a long-exposure photo :)
Beautiful scene Hannes,
Good balance of the colours and the light.
Cheers
That is indeed much better, although I still think there are some large 'lumps' of foam/water in the air. What if you warp a cloud layer according to the rock/fall layout? Those 'particles' are nice and small.
Much better perhaps a little soft. Love the lighting, I'm also impressed by those rocks.
Thanks, guys. Dune, what do you mean by warping a cloud layer according to the rock/fall layout? I have not the slightest idea, how I could do that :(
Quote from: Hannes on February 13, 2013, 05:25:09 AM
Thanks, guys. Dune, what do you mean by warping a cloud layer according to the rock/fall layout? I have not the slightest idea, how I could do that :(
I think he means something in the line of converting your rock-displacements to a scalar and use that as altitude offset function for cloud layer.
This way, with proper values for altitude offset, your cloud will tend to follow your rock faces.
An additional warp shader can add wisps and the like.
But, honestly, I'm not completely sure if Dune (mr. sss/warp ;D) means this.
That's what I meant. Without warpers, my life would be miserable ;)
looks great!
love the colours!
:)
Ah, that's what you mean. I already used that altitude offset thing in other projects. That might work. But how do I convert my rock-displacements to a scalar? Gotta admit that I haven't yet understood this function stuff. Embarrassing, I know... :-[
Nothing to be emberassed about as these things aren't discussed that often or aren't documented in an other way.
"Compute terrain --> Displacement shader to vector --> Length to Scalar" should give you the scalar value of every point's vector.
Scalar = point in space with a value/magnitude
Vector = point in space with a value/magnitude + direction
So the reason that this works is because for an altitude offset function you need "altitude" which is a scalar (hence, altitude has no "direction").
What you need is to have the terrain represented in scalar values for displacement, so you need to strip the vector of its direction as this is not important and not applicable to a scalar.
Thank you for the explanation, TU! Very much appreciated!
Thanks, Martin. You beat me to it.