I haven't decided if to upgrade to v2 or v2+Anim and would like to know if there is a way of using the rocky outcrop pics I've seen to create caves and cavern systems?
What I'm tasked to do is some new 3d models, anims, and pictures all being underground within a caves network for a new project. I am assuming that reversing the process for the terrain map will give me chasms and pits that could resemble cave systems?
btw - I'm going to need to export everything between max9 and back. If this sounds weird I'm a NooB to TerraGen. Thanx
Modeling a cave would probably be handled best in Max. Heightfields aren't well suited to creating caves and although displacement can create good-sized depressions and basic cave mouths, a cave network would be pretty well beyond reasonable to create with displacement, and even if you could it would be very difficult to control. Modeling geometry in Max would give you the most control and probably produce the best result.
- Oshyan
the best thing I can think of... is create very deep thin canyons, and displace the above terrain on both sides into each other to close it off.... that'd make a basic cave hallway / tunnel... but making large cave "rooms" would require large ammounts of displacement and infalabal control over it's shape and spread. No easy task.
Thanx for the thoughts and ideas. Like all systems there should be a better way, alas I'm still searching for one
You could always try the crater shader and make the depth very large so that it seems like a cave, then maybe even use the strata and outcrops shader to give the inside of the deep crater some bumpiness. Not sure how well that would work though.
Quote from: MeltingIce on December 26, 2006, 04:55:39 AM
You could always try the crater shader and make the depth very large so that it seems like a cave, then maybe even use the strata and outcrops shader to give the inside of the deep crater some bumpiness. Not sure how well that would work though.
Thanx for the tips, atm anything is worth a try, I'm just surprised that no one has come up with a solution I mean fractal landscapes are available (and for sometime) but things seem to have stalled in features like this. Even with rivers and such, they all look not quite right.
Cheers again as I'm at the point to trying anything :D
At time, the problem is the limitation in the definition for a heightfield.
I am thinking about establishing a new heightfield definition, which would be able to show caves as well, and much more structures in high sloped areas.
But because GeoControl does not offer high qualtiy rendering, it is up to the rendersoftware developers, to start up a dialog, where such new definition are discussed, to get a new standard.
Here is my idea:
The new heightfield definition is build up on a normal heightfield, like it is used now. A second byte heightfield contains a table, where for all points of the heightfield it is stored, how many heights are assigned to this point. A cave, simple would have here one entry, what means, there are all over two heights assigned to one point. A third heightfield now holds the heights, in the typical format, in the order of second heightfield. So, if there is a point, with four heights assigned, in the third heightfield, these four points are followed directly.
Such a construction would allow use -terrain generator developers- to create new algorithm, for more realistic and more detailrich terrains.
I agree, the rivers are still a problem in heightfield generation. But be sure, we, the developers of terrain generators, are working on this problem.
Quote from: cajomi on December 27, 2006, 01:34:02 PM
At time, the problem is the limitation in the definition for a heightfield.
I am thinking about establishing a new heightfield definition, which would be able to show caves as well, and much more structures in high sloped areas.
But because GeoControl does not offer high qualtiy rendering, it is up to the rendersoftware developers, to start up a dialog, where such new definition are discussed, to get a new standard.
Here is my idea:
The new heightfield definition is build up on a normal heightfield, like it is used now. A second byte heightfield contains a table, where for all points of the heightfield it is stored, how many heights are assigned to this point. A cave, simple would have here one entry, what means, there are all over two heights assigned to one point. A third heightfield now holds the heights, in the typical format, in the order of second heightfield. So, if there is a point, with four heights assigned, in the third heightfield, these four points are followed directly.
Such a construction would allow use -terrain generator developers- to create new algorithm, for more realistic and more detailrich terrains.
I agree, the rivers are still a problem in heightfield generation. But be sure, we, the developers of terrain generators, are working on this problem.
Good to see someone is working on this problem and your theory sounds excellent. How are you trying to achieve this?
I thought of using procedural textures within say 3ds max and asigning a certain material as the "sandstone", you could then remove that material from the material and create a hollow, hence a cave.
I am no programmer so I'm unclear if my idea would even be viable, but seems like another possible solution. Although calculations could be huge if it in fact worked?
why cant we do negative displacements? I sure it would be easy to at least mold out a cave....
Quote from: BPauba on December 28, 2006, 12:52:38 AM
why cant we do negative displacements? I sure it would be easy to at least mold out a cave....
That is surely one approach but there are reasons why we are looking at new ways to create cavern systems. For one any heightfield style image by itself is only a 2d representation on the needed terrain, caverns not only have x/y co-ords but must take into acount the z-axis with height data olong this path as well.
Quote from: cajomi on December 27, 2006, 01:34:02 PM
At time, the problem is the limitation in the definition for a heightfield.
I am thinking about establishing a new heightfield definition, which would be able to show caves as well, and much more structures in high sloped areas.
But because GeoControl does not offer high qualtiy rendering, it is up to the rendersoftware developers, to start up a dialog, where such new definition are discussed, to get a new standard.
Here is my idea:
The new heightfield definition is build up on a normal heightfield, like it is used now. A second byte heightfield contains a table, where for all points of the heightfield it is stored, how many heights are assigned to this point. A cave, simple would have here one entry, what means, there are all over two heights assigned to one point. A third heightfield now holds the heights, in the typical format, in the order of second heightfield. So, if there is a point, with four heights assigned, in the third heightfield, these four points are followed directly.
Such a construction would allow use -terrain generator developers- to create new algorithm, for more realistic and more detailrich terrains.
I agree, the rivers are still a problem in heightfield generation. But be sure, we, the developers of terrain generators, are working on this problem.
I agree, the fact that you've put
some thought into a simple open format that could be
adopted by others to develop unique algorithms apon
is a fantastic idea.
I'm not sure if it hasn't been tried,
before or their is a better method
than the one you've mentioned.
But for simplicty sakes, your idea
does sound quite plausable.
I would seriously like you to get a dialog
going with Matt, or if not creators of similar
software like Mojoworld/Vue/WM or even Google
or other developers could support over time.
PS the work done on Geocontol is exceptional,
and the filters for erosion are among the best
implentations of any software i can find.
Having a enhanced heightfield format,
from Geocontrol and TG2, enabling
some of the benefits mentioned
would be well worth it.
I'd like to see this go from idea
to implentation.
QuoteAt time, the problem is the limitation in the definition for a heightfield.
I am thinking about establishing a new heightfield definition, which would be able to show caves as well, and much more structures in high sloped areas.
But because GeoControl does not offer high qualtiy rendering, it is up to the rendersoftware developers, to start up a dialog, where such new definition are discussed, to get a new standard.
Absolutely, here here!, this is surely the next step for terrain. As you say we need a dialogue. We do have a good opportunity to reach some consensus of opinion. imo it would be a shame and a waste if all the the terrain app devs went off and embarked on their own implementations which differed wildly from one another's. At the end of the day, the render software has to support the new standard(s) so a dialogue between all is ideal. Also, we need something as standardised as the heightfield to maintain the workflows between terrain apps.
QuoteHere is my idea:
The new heightfield definition is build up on a normal heightfield, like it is used now. A second byte heightfield contains a table, where for all points of the heightfield it is stored, how many heights are assigned to this point. A cave, simple would have here one entry, what means, there are all over two heights assigned to one point. A third heightfield now holds the heights, in the typical format, in the order of second heightfield. So, if there is a point, with four heights assigned, in the third heightfield, these four points are followed directly.
Using existing data structures is a good idea. Viewing the extra detail/info as simply more heightfields (on different axes/vectors) has the advantage of being elegant: 'more of the same' and has the benefit, as Ray Gardener commented on the TS, of not being super-rocket-sciency for devs and users. I couldn't comment on the technical merits or advantages as I'm not a coder.
QuoteI would seriously like you to get a dialog
going with Matt, or if not creators of similar
software like Mojoworld/Vue/WM or even Google
or other developers could support over time.
Exactly! There is a forum already set up for just this kind of meeting of minds:
http://terrain.cg-arts.org/forum/index.php
Please get involved! :)
We've started a convo on this subject already over here:
http://terrain.cg-arts.org/forum/index.php?topic=48.0
I hope people don't mind, I'm going to link to this thread over there.
monks
Hey, it's been done!!!
http://www.ashundar.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=3457
;D