Here's another mystery. I need to make a 8x1m panorama of a streetscene, and need to do it in 2 frames/renders, second frame 45ยบ rotated. So I set up 4:1 render ratio, checked preview (looked okay), and rendered. But the outcome is quite different. Here's a simple testfile. If anyone can explain, I'd be much obliged. It probably has to do with vfov and hfov, and I have done something similar years ago with the huge museum file (85x3m) (also using PTGUI in some way, which provided me with pixelperfect fitting of frames), but can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Turn off Motion blur and set to 0 in camera .
This one has got me a few times in the past.
Motion Blur on.jpgMotion Blur off.jpg
Thanks Richard. I did turn of motion blur, but didn't change the 0.5. Strange actually, that it works that way.
This comes up all the time. I think Matt will say "what the heck" and will change it at last ;D
Shouldn't be too hard, I think; when motion blur is unchecked set default value to 0.
Even you forget it Ulco :)
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,18307.msg177566.html#msg177566
:D
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,20166.msg199131.html#msg199131
I'm just a bit slow :P Unlogical stuff don't linger ;)
Quote from: Dune on February 22, 2020, 11:45:15 AMI'm just a bit slow :P Unlogical stuff don't linger ;)
;D
I like that idea though.
Quote from: Oshyan 21/06/2015, 14:26:29Some kind of warning when blur is disabled that "blur length is non-zero" (pop-up?) might be a way to mitigate this.
I added a feature request in the project tracker to have this warning popup (or something similar).
For now we can just create a modified default scene with camera blur set to 0 and motion blur disabled:
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,24478.msg248669.html#msg248669
I've changed how this works for v4.5 (coming soon).
Terragen 4.5+: When the motion blur checkbox is off, the image is rendered as though motion blur length and shutter offset are 0 so that it renders exactly on the camera values for that frame without any interpolation. This change also causes the motion vector render elements (tgSurf2dMotion and tgCloud2dMotion) to be empty/black when motion blur is turned off. To output motion vectors and get the same results as in v4.4, you now need to enable motion blur and set the motion blur method to "Vectors only, for post".
Nice to hear Matt. But isn't there a possibility that the problem is now on the side who wants to use those features (tgSurf2dMotion and tgCloud2dMotion)?
At least there will be less users affected maybe i don't know. Will be there a warning popup or something similar? Just curious.
Thanks, Matt! Though Kadri has a point, a small line with the motion blur checkbox may do.
Wouldn't it be simplest to have a confirmation pop-up similar to the pop-up we have when selecting "Intersect underlying > Displacement intersection" that prompts us to change the setting (or not) as required.
This would avoid any backward compatibility issues and leave the motion vector render elements un-effected.
Yes, that's a good idea.
Quote from: cyphyr on February 24, 2020, 06:39:49 AMWouldn't it be simplest to have a confirmation pop-up similar to the pop-up we have when selecting "Intersect underlying > Displacement intersection" that prompts us to change the setting (or not) as required.
This would avoid any backward compatibility issues and leave the motion vector render elements un-effected.
That's a bad popup. It just yells at you and does the change regardless if that is actually what you want.
Most the time I choose that option it's by accident or fiddling and my answer to the popup is usually "oh crap, no" lol
What's bad about it? It warns and does what it should do in most circumstances. If you want to alter, you're warned at that moment. I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Dune on February 24, 2020, 12:12:29 PMWhat's bad about it? It warns and does what it should do in most circumstances. If you want to alter, you're warned at that moment. I have no problem with that.
Lol cause it is just a prompt and manually alters your project. Usually we have an "OK" and "Cancel" regarding automatic changes to people's stuff. I've never actually needed the feature but run into the prompt and have to manually undo it. It's simply bad UX.
Quote from: WAS on February 24, 2020, 12:14:56 PMQuote from: Dune on February 24, 2020, 12:12:29 PMWhat's bad about it? It warns and does what it should do in most circumstances. If you want to alter, you're warned at that moment. I have no problem with that.
Lol cause it is just a prompt and manually alters your project. Usually we have an "OK" and "Cancel" regarding automatic changes to people's stuff. I've never actually needed the feature but run into the prompt and have to manually undo it. It's simply bad UX.
Stopped reading after that... Stop with this childish behavior of laughing at people when you disagree. Grow up and act like it.
Lol. Like I care what you think, Martin. You're a joke. You seem to be in a far more childish kick, stalking just to instigate situations, including reading far to deep into things to put words in people's mouths, or continuing to act like you got it all figured it out confusing people with tgd setups while simultaneously talking about how less complicated it is. Like I said, just do not respond to me, Martin. You need to grow up too bud.
What Iaugh at or think is funny considering the normal of user prompts or modifications is of no harm to anyone else unless they let it. That's their problem. I was laughing cause what's bad about it was clear.
Heeft geen zin, Martin ;)
Makes plenty sense. It forces the user. It's not clear on what's being activated for user, and is an annoyance in its current state, doesn't help when it forces the change and doesn't offer the decision. And considering it's rarely needed and destroys most terrains... Ehh. Cause it takes some sense and experience in UX.
Gonna speak pig Latin next? Lol talking about immaturities.
We're not talking about the intersect underlying pop-up just the fact that it exists as a warning to the user that they have made a change that may require attention.
I agree that in the intersect underlying example there is a case to be argued to give the user the option (confirm/cancel) that closes the pop-up mad makes the desired change.
However in the case of the motion blur being set as a default at 0.5 no change would be forced or chosen for the user.
It would merely be an advisory and the user can act accordingly.
There are times when you want to disable motion blur and still output the motion vector render elements (tgSurf2dMotion and tgCloud2dMotion) for use in a comp program.
A warning pop-up would not change anything with older files and preserve backward compatibility and would give the user all the information they need.
And if I may suggest that you treat people as if you were in a working studio environment. Respect their opinions even if you disagree with them. You might learn something from them and indeed they may learn something from you since you have not alienated them.
Quote from: cyphyr on February 25, 2020, 01:54:37 PMAnd if I may suggest that you treat people as if you were in a working studio environment. Respect their opinions even if you disagree with them. You might learn something from them and indeed they may learn something from you since you have not alienated them.
What all becasue of a "lol"? Well, Lol. I think the clear lack of respect is initially excusing someones opinion being "no problem" when someone explains a clear problem (they are having). Seems people want to put words and actions in my mouth rather than comprehending the scenario, probably for preconceived opinions, which probably means you shouldn't bother replying to me???
Also, you said "Confirm popup" I hope you can see the confusion...
Yes confirm/cancel would not be that good, I was confusing myself with the intersect underlying reference.
It could/should be simply "ok" to close and then go and do what you want. That would work for the intersect underlying as well?
I'd imagine and Ok or Cancel would be the most standard approach. It is intending to change the surface layer to smooth, which from the get go isn't very transparent to new users. I myself would hit Cancel and than go lookup what that was. And than in 99% of the cases as a user now accidentally hitting that option in the drop-down would also hit cancel as I don't want to go and undo it as I didn't need it.
If the motion blur issue intends to change the speed to 0 than it should also be an OK/Cancel option. I can't off the top of my head think of any software that just warns you it's about to do things, and does it, it always allows you to cancel these automatic procedure outside of manual changes.
Like, imagine hitting stop render or the X on a render and it just warns you it's going to close the render, and all you can do is be like "Noooo!" And hit OK and watch that happen lol
Or another context, you forget about automatic changes you were warned about but didn't necessarily need, forget about them, and experience project issues. A lot of people don't commit to memory when just being told something they need to learn, they need to do it, so may forget. Being able to simply cancel out of the unknown is beneficial.
In general warnings are usually about something you did, not something it's going to do. That's a prompt situation; ok/cancel.