What do you think we should call the new Easy Clouds in Terragen 4? Do you have any ideas for a better name?
Matt
I have no problem with the name. Actually i think it sounds good.
Because of the hard nature of Terragen for many newcomers it might look kinda appealing even.
Still curious with what others might come up.
I looked at as many Nouns and Adjectives for the word Easy and it appears Easy seems to work quite well. The name sounds like what that node should be, Easy... Any other name would seem too lengthy, too technical, too abstract, too unappealing in sound and so on.
Agreed. Though some are not very easy on the processor, there's not really another suitable name, I guess. 'Canned Clouds' (Just Open and Digest) :P
A few old standbys - Rapid Clouds, Jiffy Clouds, Zip Clouds, Zap Clouds, Insta Clouds, Super Clouds, Popup Clouds
Insta clouds sounds the best. Rapid clouds is very tricky to use :P
I like easy, why change something that works. :)
So are they really 'Easy'? Certainly they reduce a lot of the complex set ups from past TG versions. Seems like a lot of 'Blue Nodes' are under the hood here to create this cloud tool(s), so from my view they're 'Easier' but that name has no marketing pizzazz. I see why Matt posted this thread as the word 'Easy' is a simplification that may frustrate some users. And, as Dune pointed out, the new cloud types are processor intensive, but 'no pain no gain', so the trade off is higher quality imagery. As a former marketing guy I'm all for descriptive labeling and not setting false expectations from a name. To me the new set ups are 'optimized'. The entire set up is 'simplified' as there are certainly less parts to the node network to create a similar effect from past TG versions (and no pesky blue nodes...). Also, as the set ups are categorized as Cumulus, Cirrus, etc. they are indeed fine tuned to create the desired type. Having waded thru Frank Basinski's brilliant cloud set ups in the past it occurred to me that I might never be smart enough to figure what the hell he was doing and could only hope to marginally achieve some of those results. The 'Easy' clouds probably can't do those things either, but at least I can forgo the headache meds ;). Plus, and this one is huge: They are much faster to set up and get great clouds. That, coupled with the RTP, which btw does an amazing job of previewing the changes, makes a quantum leap for showing TG's already formidable atmospheric engine. So I think "Optimized" would be my suggestion for the new cloud set ups, after all isn't that what's really occurring here? One definition in the OED of 'optimize' is "rearrange or rewrite (data, software, etc.) to improve efficiency of retrieval or processing". The ad stuff would look something like: "New Optimized Cloud Settings" ("NOCS" for the twitter damaged folks). The creation of atmospheres in TG will never be truly simple or easy, that's what tgc files are for if you want to just copy and paste to get a nice sky. So how about "Optimized"?
My concern would be that "optimized" would imply *faster* (faster rendering). That is, in my experience, the *most* common use of that term in computer graphics.
Personally I think Easy Cloud is not bad. I can't think of anything better yet... ;)
- Oshyan
I think Easy Clouds works. The only other thing I could think of is Cloud Model.
"Simple Clouds" would be the other thought that occurs to me. Or "Simplified Clouds". But that doesn't necessarily have good connotations either. "Easy" is pretty good... :D
- Oshyan
Preset Altocumulus, Preset Stratocumulus...?
Quote from: Hetzen on August 10, 2016, 04:50:57 PM
I think Easy Clouds works. The only other thing I could think of is Cloud Model.
I am liking Cloud Model, it's what it is
Generic
Easy Clouds seems to me like the best of the names that's been floated. It ain't broke.
MetaCloud (all in one node)
ParaCloud (an other way to create cloud)
PowerCloud (reference to the Terragen power fractal)
PolyCloud (multiple clouds in one node)
There must be thousands of applications named easy-'something', so EasyCloud sounds already very familiar, and that's a good think :)
MegaClouds!
:D
seriously though, 'easy cloud' sticks, a tough one, not always 'easy' on the processor as already mentioned... not always 'quick' either, but what about 'TGClouds'?
:)
I don't understand how "Cloud Model" even makes sense. It's a term to refer to what the thing is, but it applies equally to the old and new, er, cloud models. If you see what I mean? ;)
I'm pretty sure "meta cloud" is a Vue/E-On term. PowerCloud is kind of the opposite of what it is, although that could be a good way to rename the old/normal/more complex clouds perhaps.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on August 11, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
I don't understand how "Cloud Model" even makes sense. It's a term to refer to what the thing is, but it applies equally to the old and new, er, cloud models. If you see what I mean? ;)
I'm pretty sure "meta cloud" is a Vue/E-On term. PowerCloud is kind of the opposite of what it is, although that could be a good way to rename the old/normal/more complex clouds perhaps.
- Oshyan
Ok good to hear, how about some ideas other than Simple Clouds? It's great to always hear what you disagree with, but some positive input will help the situation, don't ya think
what about "AutoClouds"?
In a sense, they are much more automated than the regular clouds. This goes in the same direction as Simple Clouds or Easy Clouds.
I lik InstaClouds as well
Quote from: Oshyan on August 11, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
I don't understand how "Cloud Model" even makes sense. It's a term to refer to what the thing is, but it applies equally to the old and new, er, cloud models. If you see what I mean? ;)
Ok, stick two letters on the end. "Cloud Modeler" :P
Seriously though, Matt is designing some different cloud types and at the moment you choose which model you want to apply. So Cloud Model Shader sort of made sense to me.
Sorry, I had another thought. The Cloud Layer v2/v3, could quite easily be renamed to Open Cloud Shader v2/v3. You have full access to it's functionality.
It really is semantics and I have no problem with Easy Cloud Shader. :)
In keeping with one being a black box and offering great results and one exposing more controls and generally requiring more expertise ...
Simple Cloud Shader
Advanced Cloud Shader
Because if you have "Easy" ... then anything else must be "Hard", and you don't want to put that in a name! (Even if it is the truth. :) )
The problem when comparing the two Shaders for naming purposes is that Matt mentioned there are things the Easy Clouds are currently tuned to do internally that you cannot (yet?) do with the normal Cloud Shaders even with their more exposed and more numerous controls. So, in that case, which one is more "Advanced"? The current Easy clouds give you a faster setup of detailed, realistic clouds at the expense of black boxing a number of the settings and controls to get there. On the other hand the legacy cloud shaders offer you much more fine grained control, but apparently are not able to produce the same results as easy clouds, no matter how much tweaking you do.
In that case, perhaps ...
Pleasant-and-fun-to-use Cloud Shader
I-want-to-pull-my-Matt's-hair-out Cloud Shader
Just a couple of ideas. :)
Simple Cloud Shader and Advanced Cloud Shader.
I like those. Or just Simple Cloud and Advanced Cloud?
OneClickCloud... MultiClicksCloud :P
NowClouds
CloudReady
InstaClouds (or InstaSteam Clouds)
ReadySky Clouds
I like Easy Clouds as even on my slow computer they show up fast enough and RTP helps that tons. I don't think there's a better name really.
I still like Hetzen's "Cloud Model" unlike the other cloud nodes that need tweaking to right, This is a drop in Cloud Model...
The way I see it is that the way Easy Clouds are implemented now id that they are a Cloud Layer v3 packaged together with a new kind of density function, Cloud Fractal Shader v4?
Should these not then be referred to as Integrated Clouds as opposed to Open Clouds which would be created in the way we are used to; a Cloud Layer v2 or v3 with a Cloud Fractal Shader v3 as density input or assuming that it can be separated a Cloud Fractal Shader v4.
The cloud creation menu would then contain three types of entry:
Global Open Clouds:- Cloud Fractal Shader v3 linked to Cloud Layer v2.
Localised Open Clouds:- Cloud Fractal Shader v3 linked to Cloud Layer v3.
Integrated Cloud Pre-sets:- Integrated Clouds (Current Easy Cloud).
Even if it is not possible or desirable to expose the new cloud fractal as a stand alone node the names Integrated and Open are at least descriptive of the way clouds will be added to the scene.
You need an Idiom like "cloud nine" that says something about how awesome they are.
..but I couldn't find one. :)
Glenn
Open Clouds gives a different impression, IMO, that they are kind of open clouds. Also, Matt will do some changes, perhaps add more variables, so that will change the nature of its 'internals' and 'presetness'. Why not just call them what they are; V3 cloud (versus V2), and then the name of a type. We have param C also, which has no recognizable name. Users get use to it, and once you click it open, the parameters say it all.
I don't think the term "open" would really mean anything to a new user. To people who are familiar with the fact that the previous cloud shaders were more "open", it may make sense, but I don't see it as a name that has inherent sense to the average person.
Auto Cloud is not bad, and Simple/Advanced is also not bad. I do note the point about "Easy" implying there is a "hard" in converse", and we want to avoid implying that...
Ulco, v3 cloud shading model is not the same as Easy Cloud. Easy Cloud uses the v3 shading model, but you can also have the same control as v2 clouds but with the v3 model (non-easy cloud).
Param C is intended to be renamed before release...
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on August 14, 2016, 02:43:23 AM
Param C is intended to be renamed before release...
That was the intention, but it probably won't be.
Quote from: Dune on August 14, 2016, 02:17:26 AM
and then the name of a type
I like the idea of naming the nodes by cloud types. However, I'm planning to add a mixing feature so you can blend between different types using masks and so on. We'll still need a name for the node that does this. Perhaps that could be "Mixed Cloud" or something like that. But even with the non-mixed clouds I think it's useful to be able to switch between cloud types on an existing node.
Thanks for all the ideas so far :) Please keep them coming. I'm still reading...
Quote from: Oshyan on August 14, 2016, 02:43:23 AM
I don't think the term "open" would really mean anything to a new user.
Good point, change Open to Component.
QuoteWe'll still need a name for the node that does this.
... Cloud Composer?
Quote from: Grassynoel on August 13, 2016, 09:37:05 PM
You need an Idiom like "cloud nine" that says something about how awesome they are.
..but I couldn't find one. :)
Glenn
But you'd need to get Button 9 reinstated for that.... surely ?
Wonder Clouds
Clouds Lite
Sheep Gen
Barry White's Pillows
Feel free to use all. :)
Or Easy Clouds.
Some serious, some not so much, but useful sometimes anyway:
Cloudastic Clouds
Phenomenal Clouds
WOW! Clouds
Cool Clouds
That-New-Car-Smell Clouds
Olympus Clouds
Magic Clouds
...and I like the Dune's "Cloud Composer" for the... cloud composer.
Quote from: Matt on August 15, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Dune on August 14, 2016, 02:17:26 AM
and then the name of a type
I like the idea of naming the nodes by cloud types. However, I'm planning to add a mixing feature so you can blend between different types using masks and so on. We'll still need a name for the node that does this. Perhaps that could be "Mixed Cloud" or something like that. But even with the non-mixed clouds I think it's useful to be able to switch between cloud types on an existing node.
If the use of the Easy clouds nodes and the others will be the same in the end,
using just the same naming scheme (naming according to the cloud type) would be the best.
If not, then something along "Easy" or similar what is suggested above would be more relevant probably.
I think I'm liking "Auto Cloud" best so far, as the "Easy" clouds basically automate a lot of stuff under the hood to get a good look, and they don't allow you to do things manually as much. The alternative could be "Power Cloud" or "Manual Cloud" perhaps. The thing is I see these as being potentially separate from the cloud types. Wouldn't you want both an "auto cloud" version of Cumulus *and* a "power cloud" version?
- Oshyan
"Auto" as in Automatic? Having spent some hours on this node it seems far from automatic to me. Plus, that name diminishes the effort and creativity that goes into getting good results. Auto and Power have connotations that may be problematic, at least in my opinion. Perhaps just a 'generic' label that doesn't try to explain what truly is a rather sophisticated set up, something non-descriptive like type A, type B, etc?
Poof * Clouds
Seems a lot of ya know more about the magic that happens with Terragen than some of us can even barely fathom.
Later, Ron
Before the release, it says to change the parameter names of "Param B" and "Param C", but the name has not changed yet :S
What kind of work is this a parameter?
Is it different from Mie and Rayleigh scattering?
I agree that Param C doesn't make much sense and all parameters need to get proper names, any beginner without knowing the cloud feature's history will have no way to tell what it does.
Param B is greyed out...does it make any sense to keep it then?
Quote from: pokoy on April 27, 2018, 08:54:24 AM
I agree that Param C doesn't make much sense and all parameters need to get proper names, any beginner without knowing the cloud feature's history will have no way to tell what it does.
Param B is greyed out...does it make any sense to keep it then?
The actual use of Param C hasn't been fully dialed in. It's effects not fully understood, I think by Matt and the community, which is why it's there for us to
test.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
I am glad that this calculation is the parameter B and the parameter C, but I could not understand what effect it was just by testing.
Quote from: Mid-Knight Acchan on April 30, 2018, 09:46:56 AM
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html
I am glad that this calculation is the parameter B and the parameter C, but I could not understand what effect it was just by testing.
Interesting site. :) You figure out the clouds, I shall see about DOF and f stops. In high school physics, I think I got about as far as Newton's Third Law. :) As I am old and gray, following the US space program develop over the years, I soon found I could never be an astronaut as I get vertigo occasionally. How disappointed was I.
Quote from: fleetwood on August 11, 2016, 08:23:53 AM
Generic
Actually, that's a pretty good description. Like generics in the market, they often lack features/flexibility/control of the brand names. Easy Clouds, fit this bill nicely. They work great, but lack the finer control of v2/3.
http://www-ljk.imag.fr/Publications/Basilic/com.lmc.publi.PUBLI_Inproceedings@117681e94b6_1e9c7f4/clouds.pdf
It is an additional document.
Introduction of "multiple scattering" seems to be very successful if you look at these materials!
However, I do not know how Terragen calculates it (: D
Quote from: Mid-Knight Acchan on May 01, 2018, 02:15:49 AM
http://www-ljk.imag.fr/Publications/Basilic/com.lmc.publi.PUBLI_Inproceedings@117681e94b6_1e9c7f4/clouds.pdf
It is an additional document.
Introduction of "multiple scattering" seems to be very successful if you look at these materials!
However, I do not know how Terragen calculates it (: D
Whoa, information overload! Thanks for posting this! *Bookmarked*
One thing I've wanted to see is surface refraction scattering from bright surfaces.