Have you seen this? If i had spare money i would think about this.
http://www.blenderguru.com/product/rock-essentials/
If it wasn't for Blender........................ :-\
Quote from: yossam on August 05, 2016, 11:32:03 PM
If it wasn't for Blender........................ :-\
Yes but it should be exportable. Not sure how good-and or easy. Any Blender users around ?
Plus its got a funky EULA like Speedtree..............can't share anything you make with it. :-\
Quote from: yossam on August 05, 2016, 11:51:37 PM
Plus its got a funky EULA like Speedtree..............can't share anything you make with it. :-\
Yes that is a little more problematic.
The plugin still requires to some degree using Blender to make changes.
The maker claims each rock model has been re-topologized to shrink mesh size. There's an option to get 3 sample rocks for study/test so I'm doing that 'cause would like to see how these models would actually render. There seems to be quite a few items included in the package. Not just rocks, but brushes and ground scans (which sort of takes away the fun of terragen, though) .
So got three demo rocks and rendered them in T4. Looks pretty decent, even has a modest poly count.
Didn't realize at first that these apparently come through Andrew Bart, who is to Blender what Dune is to Terragen.
Got a new image I'm working on now, might try to work these into it.
Looks good. Any problems at exporting?
Quote from: masonspappy on August 07, 2016, 07:59:43 PM
So got three demo rocks and rendered them in T4. Looks pretty decent, even has a modest poly count.
Didn't realize at first that these apparently come through Andrew Bart, who is to Blender what Dune is to Terragen.
Got a new image I'm working on now, might try to work these into it.
Andrew Price, actually.
He's the guy that put together *tons* of free Blender tutorials and some paid courses, including ...
The Nature Academy
The Architecture Academy
as well as a number of plugins/resource projects for Blender:
Grass Essentials
Rock Essentials
Pro-Lighting Skies
Pro-Lighting Studio
He says he employed 8 artists creating the Rock Essentials pack and it cost over $100,000 to produce. It's definitely worth it to check out the artwork that was produced to promote the product:
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?404220-The-Rock-Essentials-Artwork
That's a major reason why his EULA does not include the right to re-distribute. He says he's been burned in the past where someone bought his resources which included the OK to include in a product and they then packaged them all up in one .blend file and sold it on TurboSquid.
Anyway, quite knowledgeable and very approachable. I'm considering going all out and just buying all of his resource packs and powering through the Architecture Academy this Fall.
Quote from: Kadri on August 07, 2016, 08:06:41 PM
Looks good. Any problems at exporting?
Becuase I only exported one-at-a-time (so I had three .OBJ files instead on one .OBJ file containing 3 rocks) I had to make sure "select only" was checked on the export dialog. Also had to save out the image files manually because they didn't export with the .OBJ files. (Wouldn't swear that wasn't a short-coming on my part). Otherwise they rendered fine.
Quote from: mhall on August 07, 2016, 09:08:03 PM
Andrew Price, actually.
Ahhhhh....see, this is what happens when you get old. ;D Andrew Burt is a sci-fi writer and founder of the Critters writers workshop (http://www.critique.org/ (http://www.critique.org/) ) that I belonged to for a few years. But I can truthfully say that Andrew Burt is to writing what Andrew Price is to Blender what Dune is to Terragen. ;D
Quote from: masonspappy on August 07, 2016, 09:09:53 PM
Quote from: Kadri on August 07, 2016, 08:06:41 PM
Looks good. Any problems at exporting?
Becuase I only exported one-at-a-time (so I had three .OBJ files instead on one .OBJ file containing 3 rocks) I had to make sure "select only" was checked on the export dialog. Also had to save out the image files manually because they didn't export with the .OBJ files. (Wouldn't swear that wasn't a short-coming on my part). Otherwise they rendered fine.
Thanks.
Quote from: masonspappy on August 07, 2016, 09:15:16 PM
But I can truthfully say that Andrew Burt is to writing what Andrew Price is to Blender what Dune is to Terragen. ;D
Hahaha! Yeah ... I can relate to that getting old thing. I've been having the darnest time with words slipping my mind lately. I can sit and describe the concept perfectly, but the word eludes me. And I've always been accused of having a painfully good memory, so it's quite irksome.
Hey guys, pretty interested in this too.
Cam, would u mind trying a photo real quality render of one of the exports? Would like to hear about how you are able or not to use them in TG at a high level.
Also, can anyone describe the plugin for this? Read the links and watched the video, looks pretty nice and all, but I'm rather weary of promos, especially when the product cost several hundred dollars... money back guarantee or not.
Also thinking about giving in and doing a blender course this fall.
Up and running again, just gotta move apps and files to the newer machine. Better processor but only one so fewer cores. curious how it will handle things. Not a bad but not a great GPU... looking forward to buying a real workstation to last the next 5-6 years, hopefully ::)
Anyway...
Quote from: TheBadger on August 09, 2016, 03:09:07 AM
Hey guys, pretty interested in this too.
Cam, would u mind trying a photo real quality render of one of the exports? Would like to hear about how you are able or not to use them in TG at a high level.
See below
Quote from: TheBadger on August 09, 2016, 03:09:07 AM
Also thinking about giving in and doing a blender course this fall.
If you only knew the power of the dark side.... ;D ;D
Did he say "Real rocs are organic"? That's not what I learned in chemistry and geology.
Bump or dis, cam? looks like bump. I guess the only way to edit them is in blender? The plugin looked optimized for exactly these rocks so, thats interesting. But TG still has no material editor like in most complete packages... Guess that would make sense given TGs focus, but I still feel like that can't last too long.
The render of the rock in the blender images looks immensely better than the rock in TG, is my point. I guess I am questioning if it will ever be possible to make an imported object look good in TG as they do in the apps that created them. But to be clear, stuff we make in TG with TG render just fine in TG, just that we really need to open that up a bit more yet.
Im thinking the only reason to get this rocks is if I get good with blender first and for using them in blender or a full 3d package only.
What do you think? Since you can see the whole picture?
QuoteIf you only knew the power of the dark side....
What do they say, "the way of pain" or something, can't recall. But you seam to be saying Im in for a world of hurt. I believe U.
Michael i think the surfacing of imported objects in Terragen is week-or hard too.
But there are users who use imported models of any kind quite good.
So yeah there is room for improving but you should be able to use any object in the way you want.
It just might take some work depending on the object.
But rocks are not the kind of objects i think would be so hard.
If you do go through that Blender course, please let us know how that turns out.
Michael, these are bump maps. Not sure if they were created in Blender or another package. I usually create objects in Blender, mapping surfaces to image files where needed, but then I use that image file to create SPEC and BUMP maps in Crazybump. Crazybump can also clean up the original photo image a bit if necessary. Even though the the image file is mapped to the object surface in Blender, I do not apply the SPEC and BUMP files until the object is imported into Terragen. Once I'm satisfied with how it looks in Terragen I usually save as a TGO.
AFA getting good with Blender, you don't have to be a Blender expert just to use the functions necessary for working with these rocks. Blender's learning curve is probably steeper than Terragen (unless you're working with blue nodes in which case being drunk, crazy or registered democrat probably helps) but there are many, many functions you won't be using. Kinda like using Microsoft Excel, where most people only ever use about 2% of the functions that are actually available).
What struck me about these demo rocks was that I don't think they meet the standards of 'Hero' objects. Think that's more a problem with the smaller sizes of the JPEG files. I'm going to reach out to Andrew Price and see if higher-resolution images are available. If so, I'll re-render and post here.
Thanks. Ill watch for it. It would be nice to have assets like that if they can be moved though a pipeline very easily.
In the demo he called them secondary objects, which may be true, but coming from TG, secondary must mean super deathmo important. ;D
Has anyone ever tried making hero rocks from the cube or sphere? Perhaps just as easy as having them made in an external app and imported, and more flexible. Add some strata, some warp, vector displacement, use PF colors to drive dents and such (and you have the dark areas inside the dents at the same time), and place wherever needed.
Yes, I have made over fifty different types of rock using mostly spheres.
That's what I mean; you don't really need external rocks, as they will become recognizable in due time... 'hey, there's that rock again' ;)
A decent amount of those rocks will be hard to reproduce but not to say entirely impossible. It takes some serious fractal know how and good enough realism, no doubt. The challenge to do this procedurally is there has to be a very good understanding of the nature of rocks, the patterns, the varying layers of eroded, fractured, warped and compressed parts. Also, it would be very helpful to be able to internally populate Terragen objects so we are not limited to placing hero-only rocks. Fake stones are good but more limiting in many cases. I want to experiment more in this area soon. For now, this will have to be a hero rock only task.
I agree it's not easy. 3D'd real rocks will undoubtedly be more realistic.
True, the only two real issues is not all rocks types will be cataloged as that is impossible and the obvious clone copies say imported rocks are made into populations.
Quote from: AP on August 13, 2016, 03:24:24 AM
Yes, I have made over fifty different types of rock using mostly spheres.
If it's not too much trouble, would you mind posting images of a few of these rocks? Very curious to see what they're like.
No, I do not mind. Later today or the next day.
These are still very experimental and use just some standard fractals.
Nice job. Trying to imagine these with various colors/patterns, I think they would be great!
Thanks for posting
More experiments.
Bottom right looks most 'rock-like'. Top left almost reminds me of some sort of organic structure.
Have you tried coloring them?
Yes, the top left was very experimental. I will try and color them as soon as possible. That is another challenge. I also need to experiment with cracks, fissures, stratification, warps.
Nice. Looking forward to some colored specimen.
These real rocks look incredible. What a project! They're tricky to make in CG. My approach has been to use a plugin for Softimage called something catchy like FC_Rock, then kick those out into Mudbox for sculpting and retopologising and then out of there to Software of choice. Even then they still don't quite look right, thanks to the limitations described on the page there.
Being how almost every outside scene is littered with rocks it'd be great to nail this at last as fake stones still often look fake to my eyes.
Good start AP. Bottom right as a base for sure.
Some basic color experiments.
I don't know how to do what I'm about to suggest, but the rough surface of the last rock would almost lend itself to a mossy texture, I think
Very nice sandstone-like texturing there! In the previous test, the top-left is a really cool result, I'm curious how you achieved it. All of them look a lot like coral formations...
- Oshyan
Quote from: masonspappy on August 16, 2016, 01:08:00 PM
I don't know how to do what I'm about to suggest, but the rough surface of the last rock would almost lend itself to a mossy texture, I think
That certainly should be easy enough to change into a mossy surface. I can post some examples later.
Quote from: Oshyan on August 16, 2016, 04:35:52 PM
Very nice sandstone-like texturing there! In the previous test, the top-left is a really cool result, I'm curious how you achieved it. All of them look a lot like coral formations...
- Oshyan
Yes, sandstone texturing was exactly the idea. There is a decent amount of functions involved with the latest experiments. I am currently experimenting with convexity. Coral sounds like a neat idea, imagine the colors involved.
Nice playing indeed! But the skill is one thing, the time it takes is another.
Seems the point of the pack is missed a little bit, since the point is to have these assets so that you don't have to spend days making them.
I think the fix to all this is in Matt making an "Easy" button in the rock department. :) which will probably not be easy at all. Curious how hard it was for him to make a easy button for clouds. Also curious if now that he has done it, if that means he can and will do it for the other areas of TG. Or if its all different and just because he did the one does not mean he can to the other?
Anyway, with the limited noise choices, I don't see how it can be claimed that you would end up having too much similarity with a pack, but not with TG. Just look at the examples here and throughout the forum. But efflux has ranted on that enough.
For me two things lead to nirvana (in addition to all the new goodies)
1) Proper object materials editing and texturing process (in addition to the power TG already has for texturing.) Where objects and be used and worked on and rendered similarly to the rest of 3d software that have modeling tools.
2) More noise and an easy button- to include a separate window and optimized work space for both objects and rocks.
From a modelers perspective, the way things are you work on your rocks/objects in TG on the planet. which is kinda silly. I mean why do I need all that other stuff going on to make a rock? There should be a modeling window that dose not have the planet or any node connected to it or the sun or anything, just a grid the rock and the relevant tools and such.
Assuming the above is possible and that we got it, then welcome sublime happiness where the above topics are concerned.
These aren't complaints, and I haven't lost my patience yet. If anything I am more optimistic than even having been reading about all the new developments and seeing some of the open testing, that we will get some more tools, once matt is happy with the TG fundamentals he has been improving. I hope.
Time, indeed.
In the meantime, I am still exploring more ideas and will continue to do so for now. Convexity seems to be working most of the time.
I should probably move these experiments over into a new thread.
@ AP: When you create a rock from a sphere, are you able to rotate that rock? I created (what might pass for ) a rock, but now find that it always presents the same face to the camera, no matter that the rotate transform numbers keep changing when try to turn it in different directions. For better description and illustration of problem, go to link below
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21984.msg221273.html#msg221273 (http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21984.msg221273.html#msg221273)
I rotated a non-spherical object along all axis but the displacement will not rotate, only the object itself.
Quote from: TheBadger on August 17, 2016, 11:43:55 PM
From a modelers perspective, the way things are you work on your rocks/objects in TG on the planet. which is kinda silly. I mean why do I need all that other stuff going on to make a rock? There should be a modeling window that dose not have the planet or any node connected to it or the sun or anything, just a grid the rock and the relevant tools and such.
Assuming the above is possible and that we got it, then welcome sublime happiness where the above topics are concerned.
Michael I kind of agree with you. I would love it if Terragen could do some of the things I see going on in other software packages, but the truth is that there are things Terragen simply can't do ( or can't do adequately) and you're really better off learning how to create those effects in other packages and then import into Terragen. I'm not knocking Terragen, just acknowledging that it's not a Swiss Army knife of Graphics. It's one of the primary reasons I work constantly at learning Blender - it's painful to have a really good image messed up by an inherent Terragen inadequacy. Take waterfalls, for example. There have been quite a few attempts in this forum to devise a decent waterfall in Terragen , but the best waterfall I've ever seen here is still only "kinda, sorta, somewhat" and isn't something I would be happy putting in an image. So I take the best parts where I can find them (eg, Blender, xfrog, Crazybump, 123DCatch) and assemble inside Terragen. And so far I've been happy with the results (although I've still got a long way to go with a lot of this stuff). At least I understand how I got to where I did, which isn't the case with, say, Blue Nodes.
Quote from: AP on August 19, 2016, 09:00:07 PM
I rotated a non-spherical object along all axis but the displacement will not rotate, only the object itself.
Durn, I was afraid of that. Thanks for checking! :)
You can rotate a displaceable sphere with fractals etc.
It is just kind of tricky and does have one small gotcha. You have to put the origin where the sphere is in the transform node too.
Otherwise the transform node rotates (if you are rotating) the fractals probably around the zero axis.
So you have to translate the fractals were the sphere is to get a real rotation.
Not sure if we are talking about the same thing..
The animation and file.
Oh wow. Thanks Kadri! I'm one of those people who work much better at seeing how something works (as opposed to just having it described to me) and once I examined your tgd it made sense to me. Now able to rotate my rock. :)
So, attached image profiles a few rocks made using various methods.
'A': These are sample Rocks from Andrew Price's collection. Looks very decent, easy to use and ready to use immediately. Downside is that the image plates used for texturing aren't available in larger (ie more detailed) sizes, so the resolution here is as high as they will go. (Confirmed that with a followup email to BlenderGuru).
'B': Some dude.
'C': rock made using internal displacements. I think this is how AP did his. (and yes I'm well aware that AP's experimental rocks are more realistic than what I've got here. It's the concept that counts :) ) It's extreme detail makes it first choice for up close, highly detailed ('Hero') images . And thanks to Kadri for explaining how to rotate a PF.
'D': A boulder that was made in Blender, imported into Terragen and externally displaced with a Power Fractal. Texturing done with an image file.
'E': Rock made using 123D-Catch (freebie from Autodesk). It's about 16 photographs of a single rock taken at various angles. The photos are uploaded to Autodesk website (it's free), are processed into a single 3D .OBJ file which gets downloaded to PC. Had to clean up the .OBJ file with Blender to get rid of image parts that aren't need, but result was pretty decent. It's detail and usability are about on par with sample rocks in 'A'. Only downside (besides lack of extreme detail) is that 123D-Catch is going away at some point and I haven't played with the replacement product yet.
Quote from: masonspappy on August 20, 2016, 07:23:10 AM
... I'm one of those people who work much better at seeing how something works (as opposed to just having it described to me)...
Me too :)
C looks promising.
From the look at his page the A rock looks too much different.
Seems different then only a image size problem. Curious. Does he use normal maps i wonder?