what are the differing results with different detail levls in the registered version. to rephrase that, are the higher levels of details worth theadded render time and are they really noticable. Also, if anybody knows what are the detail levels for the images in the planetside gallery, or would that not really be possible without the final verson of tg2 ???
The greater levels of detail are the difference between absolutely beautifully realistic and shabby. If you've seen any of the Alpha testers who have posted here with beautiful pictures, these are often times a step up from the demo version in their settings.
I'm not sure about your second question. Give that another try, please.
Calico,
My interpretation of the second part of the question it would appear that this individual is asking what detail setting Renderers > Quick Render > Quality Tab > Detail is needed to achieve the quality of the images found in the gallery over at the main Planetside site. I think the question from my understanding of it is how different detail levels impact render time with the Tech Preview (Currently Un-Threaded as you know) worth the render time with a system that must be dual or quad core at this time and weather the effect of increasing detail level from say the default level of 0.25 to say 0.75 would have any noticeable affect as regard to perceived render quality.
I think that what we have here is lack of basic fundamental operational concepts with perhaps the assumption that the version of TG2 (Save the images done with Alpha versions) where done with a fundamentally different (Architecturally Specking) version of the Technology Preview (IMHO).
I am not sure if any of the above is true, just my take to try and help out.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel :)
Higher settings for detail and AA have noticeable effects, although sometimes they may be subtle. How much of a difference they make can depend on things like the distance from the camera to the nearest surface/object/cloud. Whether it's worth it depends on your individual taste and how picky you are.
If you wish to actually see the difference simply load up one of the trees say for example the BL02a_Sweet_Birch.tgo[the highest res tree] and do a close up of the leaves at max size [800x600] first at default and then one at a higher resolution, eg: DETAIL .25 AA 3 GI DETAIL O SAMPLE 0, and another at, DETAIL .8 AA 3 GI DETAIL 2 SAMPLE 1. see cropped pics. Hope this helps a bit.. ...
Thank you all, you answered my questions, or at least what I think I asked now that i'm not sleep deprived ;D A better way to rephrase the last question would be to ask if anybody has a vauge idea of the detail settings that the alpha testers used in their images.
Bobby - Thanks for the clear example!
The settings for the images in the Planetside Gallery vary quite widely. The only likely commonality is a main Detail level of 0.5 or above, most of the time 0.75 to 1.0. Seldom is detail above 1.0 used, and even 1.0 is often not necessary. For complex vegetation images it can be helpful to smooth out the results, as can High Population Detail (set in the populator), but otherwise I tend to use between 0.5 and 0.75 and get very good results.
Atmosphere and cloud sample levels will also very tremendously depending on the scene characteristics so the guidelines there are really only very general - use 32 or more atmosphere samples for best quality in most scenes. Never go above 128 unless absolutely necessary and you're willing to wait for good results (as an alternative you might consider post-processing the noise). For clouds the Quality slider can work pretty well and should generally be at 1 or slightly above (1.25 for example). I use 32-64 samples for the average volumetric clouds and get good results. In scenes with complex lighting and/or heavy shadows I go up to 128 or 256, but seldom above that. 512 is sometimes necessary, and some very dense and noisy clouds need 1024 but I would *never* go above that. If your clouds need more than 512 samples I would consider adjusting the other cloud settings instead of increasing samples. You will get a faster render and it's likely that with the other settings you're using that are causing high noise, your results may not be that great even with high samples.
Of course both of these areas can be set to similar levels in the free version. The 2 areas where the free limitations probably show the most are resolution and antialiasing. Most people will use 6-12 AA for final renders. With complex vegetation sometimes more will be necessary, but seldom greater than 16.
GI is another area that sometimes gets pushed up, but 2/2 is actually very good for *most* scenes and increasing these settings dramatically raises render time.
- Oshyan
You could also try upping the 'detail blending' in the 'more settings' tab for the renderer, renders will be affected though, a detail bending level of '2' will(to my testing at least) take twice as long as the same scene rendered at blend level '1', but the difference is quite apparent in the final render.
Ok, thankyou for the explination Oshyan.
Quote from: Oshyan on January 26, 2008, 01:59:15 PM
For clouds the Detail slider can work pretty well and should generally be at 1 or slightly above (1.25 for example).
For clouds did you mean the "quality" slider?
Matt
Quote from: Matt on January 28, 2008, 11:40:13 AM
Quote from: Oshyan on January 26, 2008, 01:59:15 PM
For clouds the Detail slider can work pretty well and should generally be at 1 or slightly above (1.25 for example).
For clouds did you mean the "quality" slider?
Matt
I think they were referring to the render dialogue Matt, tho 1.25 isn't available to free users.. ...
Quote from: bobbystahr on January 28, 2008, 04:33:51 PM
Quote from: Matt on January 28, 2008, 11:40:13 AM
Quote from: Oshyan on January 26, 2008, 01:59:15 PM
For clouds the Detail slider can work pretty well and should generally be at 1 or slightly above (1.25 for example).
For clouds did you mean the "quality" slider?
Matt
I think they were referring to the render dialogue Matt, tho 1.25 isn't available to free users.. ...
Well, I'm 99,9% sure Oshyan meant the quality slider in the cloud settings tab, like Matt suggested.
Mm, yes that would be correct - sorry about that. ;D
- Oshyan
I sit corrected....heh heh heh.. ...