Recent posts

Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
41
Terragen Discussion / Re: Large Scale PFs and Planet...
Last post by WASasquatch - August 16, 2019, 11:29:04 pm
Quote from: Matt on August 16, 2019, 11:22:33 pmWhat other shaders are involved? Is there a Fractal Warp? That is only 2D.

Thanks for your reply. There is a fractal warp, but it's on a low scale for roughing terrain. There was Warp Shder where I was warping terrain by a PF, which I thought was 3D, I also tried a Redirect with 3 PFs on XYZ.

Edit: Seems that Fractal Warp despite it's scale causes this (maybe not super small scale but the level I'm using to rough up mountains and stuff)

Does this mean that Alpines wouldn't work right on planetary levels?
42
Terragen Discussion / Re: Large Scale PFs and Planet...
Last post by Matt - August 16, 2019, 11:22:33 pm
What other shaders are involved? Is there a Fractal Warp? That is only 2D.
43
Terragen Discussion / Large Scale PFs and Planets
Last post by WASasquatch - August 16, 2019, 11:04:33 pm
So Ulco pointed this out in another topic. When you actually amplify displacement to a visible level across the entire planet (not just mountain peaks here or there) the Power Fractal creates straight lines across the equator hemisphere on Y axis. I assume this is due to XYZ noise. Is there no way around this? I've tried noise colour to displacement, PFs displacement, and tried world position with both, but the effect still occurs.
44
Image Sharing / Olive Grove Sanctuary
Last post by bobbystahr - August 16, 2019, 11:04:20 pm
A peaceful place to come and meditate on myths.
Artemis Fountain by Rigsters at Sketchfab
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/artemis-fountain-b9985a307aac41bbad4339fa46122d7a
45
Image Sharing / Re: Bored...again
Last post by bobbystahr - August 16, 2019, 11:00:38 pm
Quote from: Hannes on August 16, 2019, 08:17:02 am
Quote from: Dune on August 16, 2019, 12:58:58 amI'd do the moss procedurally.
Yes, I guess, in this case, that would be the best.
Otherwise, great image, Bobby! The first image looks way better, I'd say.
Thanks Hannes, I think I agree....starting a new thread with a different approach. Stay tuned.
46
Image Sharing / Re: Bored...again
Last post by bobbystahr - August 16, 2019, 10:59:26 pm
Quote from: Dune on August 16, 2019, 12:58:58 amI'd do the moss procedurally.
It may be best but in my 'bloody minded' state I really want to get pop on irregular objects like this to work. This, IIRC, doesn't happen when I pop on to an imported rock/boulder .obj.
47
File Sharing / Re: Water Library
Last post by WASasquatch - August 16, 2019, 07:43:37 pm
Quote from: Dune on January 25, 2017, 12:35:14 pmDroplets and rings can be made procedural with this method. I don't say it's perfect, but you won't need an array.
It's funny I was just thinking of doing this in a similar way, forgot about it, than came here for the advise Oshyan dropped on animation, and saw yours. Well done, in my opinion. I think it's just missing an outward lean, and center lift in some of them, and inward dimple in others for the drop impacts. 

Thanks for sharing.
48
Image Sharing / Re: Forest Sunrise
Last post by Tangled-Universe - August 16, 2019, 05:57:56 pm
Great potential in this scene! I think I definitely feel what you are trying to achieve here, scenes like these are on my TG bucketlist too, so to say :)

Given your experience and TG expertise I think you can definitely pull off to make this more photorealistic.
At the moment I find the indirect lighting very bright and too green. Overall contrast is too low, especially if you consider how a photograph would look when made under similar lighting conditions in the real world.
As Hannes said it looks flat because of these two issues. The path tracer is vastly superior to the legacy renderer when it comes to shadow depth and indirect lighting accuracy, so this scene should definitely be a very suitable one for it.
49
Image Sharing / Re: Planetoid Crater Shader te...
Last post by WASasquatch - August 16, 2019, 04:43:21 pm
Another iteration. Downscaled form 3k. Speaking of that, does anyone else try supersampling their renders manually? IE rendering at a higher resolution and downscaling to desired resolution? I wonder if you could save any resources doing that by lowering quality for scaling to compensate. 

Anyways. I am almost happy with the surface shader, but I"m having issues. While warping the shaders by the terrain gives the shaders nice flow and interesting shapes, it causes the weird distort by normal like patches where it just flips colours and looks weird. I wish there was a way to blend this better like noise and such. I tried extra colour adjustments like smaller patches of multiplied colours and hue adjustments but it still kinda shows throw pretty well.

I find that the small scale impacts are far too exaggerated. Their divider constant should be higher.
50
Terragen Discussion / Re: crevices?
Last post by WASasquatch - August 16, 2019, 03:13:46 pm
Here are two revised versions which are a little more straight forward to what they need to do.

Lateral is still broken.

This method is best for large crevices that are differences between your main smoother displacement, and your detail displacement.

Very curious why even when you have a defined map from Y it's not showing on the shape right, and just solid when on lateral surfaces.
Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10