|
|
Future Fighter
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Future Fighter // Work in Progress
Post by RichLevy // Aug 9, 2008, 9:07am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Very nice work... the only crit I could offer is about the last clouds the aircraft flew threw. The bottom edge of the clouds was too hard, if you could soften them up it would be a very believable animation.
Very nice work.
Rich |
Post by Breech Block // Aug 9, 2008, 2:57pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Thanks very much Rich. And your right of course. Guess I was just hoping no one would notice. I shall work on it and try and blend that area in more before the final render. Cheers. |
Post by Davin // Aug 9, 2008, 3:01pm
|
Davin
Total Posts: 59
|
This being your third animation is not comforting to me at all. :D
I have a shiny learning disability... I will work on something then my brain will switch to something else that I find interesting and before I know it I have spent 3 hours on 10-20 rogue ideas and don't feel like going back and working on the original project again.
Getting more comments is not always going to be a sure thing. I always check out every WIP thread and only comment when I think I can add something, help out or if I am feeling talkative (not often). I work a lot right now (about 100 hours a week, down 20 hours since I got a new full time job), so I do not always have the time to post, but I will log in at least 3 times a week to check out the forums. In about two months I will be able to quit my part time job, but I will continue to program contracts.
Any way that was too much info, so I will just say that I think you are dong an awesome job on this one. |
Post by Breech Block // Aug 9, 2008, 3:12pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
"Well, there is no fooling you is there Wizard."Lol - I'm not that clever BB. I may have figured out how you did it but I'm damned if I can figure out how to do it myself!:D. After a good 8 hours of making cloud images and masks using Vue I was still not able to get my clouds looking half as believable as yours!! This is leading me to suspect that the reason you're not getting more comments is sheer old fashioned professional jealousy!!;)
Any tips you may have discovered with getting good alpha clouds would be most appreciated.
Thanks Wizard. Its not very often I get the chance to pay you back for all the great advice you have passed on to me. So here's how I did it and please feel free to PM me if my explanation goes a bit wonky.
Realistic Clouds
This method worked first time for me so working on the principle of “it it ain't broken, don't fix it,” I have not bothered to ascertain if there is a more refined\efficient way of achieving the same outcome. In addition, my Paintshop skills are very limited and again there may well be a more direct method of achieving the same result. Please feel free to experiment and post your results on the forum.
The first stage is to scour the internet and get together a real good selection of high quality images. Some of the best cloud images in my now quite extensive library are 3500 x 1500.
For your scene, select a group of consistent images. By this I mean that the cloud type, time of day\the way they are lit and the direction of any shadows are consistent throughout the selection.
Take your first image and find within it a good cloud that offers plenty of texture and shape (see pic 1). Crop the image if appropriate. Copy the image and keep 1 safe for use as your main texture and the other as template for your mask.
In your paint program, roughly paint out the areas you are not going to use in black (see pic 2).
Set your brush shape to round, brush size to 100 and, placing the cursor on the edge of the cloud you want to keep, paint a black circle. Next, move your brushes' cursor to the edge of the black circle you have just painted, again lining it up with the cloud's edge and paint another black circle (see pic 3).
Go all around your cloud until you end up with an image similar to pic 4.
Use the fill command to paint the entire remaining cloud image white (see pic 5). If necessary, use the colour count facility on your program to ascertain you only have 2 colours remaining.
Keep the same brush shape and size, but now change the hardness setting to 75. Find the white border in your image and, by placing the brushes' cursor on each white peak, go around the entire outline of the cloud and paint white circles (pic 6). Any small gaps that remain (see red X in pic 6) place the brush cursor in the middle of the gap and paint another white circle. The end result should be similar to pic 7, your finished mask\transparency.
As the forum limits you to posting just 5 images, this mini tutorial will "continue after the break" as they say. |
Post by Breech Block // Aug 9, 2008, 3:23pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Below, you should see how your cloud from the mini tutorial above should look once rendered in trueSpace. The diverse shape of the cloud is deliberate to avoid any obvious straight lines and to help blend your various images together. Without to much effort, placing 8-10 different clouds in a staggered formation in your scene should prove quite effective. I have reproduced 2 images from my animation work and placed them side by side for comparison. The image on the left uses a high definition image on a sky dome whilst the one on the right uses the process just described.
Forgive the lenghty description, but I thought I'd best make it fairly detailed for other followers of this thread.
Cheers and HTH. |
Post by W!ZARD // Aug 9, 2008, 9:19pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Ah! Thanks BB - that explains everything I think. I was custom making my own clouds in Vue and the issue I was getting was artificial looking banding at the edges of the cloud where it feathered out and the background colour showed through.
Thanks for the insight into your approach - I shall experiment further (although I've already moved on to another project).
Thanks again. |
Post by JimB // Aug 12, 2008, 8:35am
|
JimB
Total Posts: 341
|
Nice looking aircraft :)
Jim |
Post by Breech Block // Aug 12, 2008, 12:31pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
My horse occasionally decides I need a flying lesson though. :D
What's the next stage? Are you going to add sound effects?
LOL. Sounds painful. And yes, I am busy trying to add a suitable soundtrack. I work on it using my second computer whenever I've set my main rig to render out a test shot.
Nice looking aircraft :)
Thanks Jim, much appreciated. |
Post by Breech Block // Sep 14, 2008, 1:03pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Well, what with all the distractions of the SMC and a couple of other projects, its been quite a while since I posted any updates on the Future Fighter project. You'll be pleased to know that the work has still been continuing and that the opening scene has been updated. The list of improvements include:
Colour correction carried out on background plate.
Alpha masks refined so as to provide a wider transition between black and white.
More cloud layers added.
Aircraft flight paths refined.
Engine exhaust trails added.
Vortex effect added to flight leader.
I'm still not sure about the vortex effect. Would be interested to receive any feedback on it and the other improvements. |
Post by Breech Block // Nov 12, 2008, 6:31pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Recently, I've been trying to plan out the special fx for the destruction of the command bunker in my Future Fighter project. I have ascertained I want 3 separate elements. Some particle generators to spew out sheets of flame and smoke. A second batch of particle generators to throw out debris and dust and third, the key framing of physical objects in the scene as they are moved by the blast an example of which will be the Jeeps being blown on their sides/backs and their bonnets flying off.
What I would like to know is whether I should keyframe all the objects being thrown about first, get them just right and then set-up the particle generators to match. Or, whether I should do the opposite and get the particles exactly how I want them and then keyframe all the objects accordingly. Or doesn't it really matter?
Has anyone got any experience with this type of shot and if so do they have any tips? |
Post by noko // Nov 12, 2008, 11:02pm
|
noko
Total Posts: 684
|
I would say particle first or particle in steps followed by your objects in steps. I would think it would be easier to adjust the objects after the particle effects are there. My two cents :). |
Post by Weevil // Nov 13, 2008, 4:49am
|
Weevil
Total Posts: 534
|
Oddly, I'm not so sure as you'd need anything more than a giant cloud of smoke (that travels outward more than upward)...So far as I know you can't really see much else |
Post by Breech Block // Nov 14, 2008, 3:21pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Thanks for your help guys. I can see I'm going to have to give this a bit more thought. Will hopefully be able to post a couple of test renders for you to look at in a day or two. |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 3, 2009, 9:56pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Well, what with all the distractions of the SMCs and MMCs, this project has been shoved on the backburner of late. However, rest assured the work is still going forward. Recently I have been preping the jeeps for the bunker explosion. Work includes Point Editing out a bonnet which can be torn-off by the blast (originally that area of the model was a solid block), placing an engine inside the jeep just in case that becomes visible and dirtying up the tyre textures. Next stage will be animating them being blown over and then adding particle effects. |
Post by tahnoak // Jan 4, 2009, 4:55am
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Oddly, I'm not so sure as you'd need anything more than a giant cloud of smoke (that travels outward more than upward)...So far as I know you can't really see much else
I would agree with Weevil on this one. I am by far no expert on munitions but if it were a bunker buster type weapon then I think the missile would dig deep underground and explode but the only thing you would see is a heck of a lot of dust and smoke. |
Post by Mr. 3d // Jan 4, 2009, 5:43am
|
Mr. 3d
Total Posts: 747
|
Nice jeep Breech, and I like your cockpit view too ! Did you model the pilot ? I'm curious to see who's fighting now....but I've got a good idea. |
Post by Ospreyluvr // Jan 4, 2009, 6:44am
|
Ospreyluvr
Total Posts: 112
|
Great job! I was just curious, are the sandbags a wall with a sandbag texture, or is each bag a object? |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 5, 2009, 9:45pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
I would agree with Weevil on this one. I am by far no expert on munitions but if it were a bunker buster type weapon then I think the missile would dig deep underground and explode but the only thing you would see is a heck of a lot of dust and smoke.
I know what you and Weevil are saying, tahnoak. Its just that there are Bunkbusters and then there are Hollywood Bunkerbusters.:D I'm not certain which one I am going to go for yet; guess that depends on how difficult it ends up being. Especially as I have never done anything like this before so it will be very much trial and error.
Nice jeep Breech, and I like your cockpit view too ! Did you model the pilot ? I'm curious to see who's fighting now....but I've got a good idea. .
Thanks Mr. 3D. The pilot is just a poser figure (unfortunately) although his flightsuit texture is mine. With regards to who is fighting and the enemy, I have 2 scripts for this project; one a longer/more detailed version of the other. I wrote the second (longer) script when Caligari mentioned they were going to increase the file size for animation submissions. In the more detailed movie, you see a spy satelite detecting the enemy camp and the Future Fighters getting tasked to take it out.
Great job! I was just curious, are the sandbags a wall with a sandbag texture, or is each bag a object?
Thanks Ospreyluvr; glad you like the project. The sandbag wall is a low-poly model. I then searched the internet to find a photograph of some sandbags. Surprisingly, there are not that many and it took a lot of work with an image editor to turn an istock photo (see image below) into a reasonable texture. Probably not good enough to stand close inspection but okay for this shot. |
Post by Ospreyluvr // Jan 7, 2009, 4:42am
|
Ospreyluvr
Total Posts: 112
|
OK. They look great! That is the kind of scene I hope to be able to make eventually! :) |
Post by Finis // Jan 7, 2009, 7:54am
|
Finis
Total Posts: 386
|
Hi Breech Block:
Non Hollywood missiles into buildings similar to your model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ENN0JR38o |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 7, 2009, 10:53am
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Thanks for the pointer Finis. Don't know why, but it never occurred to me to look for videos of bunkerbusters on YouTube.
Here is the best one I found.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbbLyfdYYk |
Post by Finis // Jan 7, 2009, 11:12am
|
Finis
Total Posts: 386
|
That video you linked to is a good one. Best of both worlds. It's the real thing so realism is covered but also has the fireball expected of the Hollywood black powder explosions.
For making an animation interesting and adding technical TS chalenge my preference would be the smaller explosions. The big one could just be a particle explosion that quickly hides the building. The smaller one could have smoke, flame, and debris shooting out through the windows, shock wave moving jeep and a dust wave on ground, walls pushed out or over ... lots of interesting effects possible there. |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 29, 2009, 9:37am
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
I have been playing about with the “Bunkerbuster Scene” for a little while now and have finally figured out how to go about it. Please remember, this is my first attempt at a scene of this nature so a) if your looking at doing a similar project project yourself there are probably easier/better ways than this and b) if anyone has some experience/better ideas please feel free to jump in. Anyhows, I decided to break the scene down into 5 separate elements. Animated objects, Smoke, dust, fire and debris.
The animated objects, which in this case are mainly the missile and the 2 Jeeps with perhaps some of the oil drums, will be done first and will be the scenes key elements around which everything else will be built. Why? Well, whilst trying to animate one of Jeeps being blown over by the blast, which incidentally I thought would be a quick 2 minute job, I quickly began to realise that no matter it was being tossed about by the explosion, you (the viewer) still expected the Jeeps to behave in a certain way. My first 4 or 5 attempts just didn't look right at all In fact they were pretty awful. I suppose the brain must subconsciously calculate the weight/mass of an object and as its familiar with gravity and the laws of physics, expects the objects movement to be within certain parameters. Thus, anything outside these predeterminations ends up just looks completely false. I then concluded that if/when I can finally get the movement of the Jeeps to look anywhere near reasonable, adjusting their movement to conform better to the behaviour of the particles would be an extremely bad idea. So Jeeps first, particles second.
I've uploaded a small movie file that shows how I'm progressing. I'm well aware it still needs quite a bit more work but all the errors are a lot easier to spot in a beauty render than they are looking at wireframes or low res tests. |
Post by TomG // Jan 29, 2009, 10:08am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Interesting, I wonder if we are hardwired to know how an object of that mass would behave, given there are few objects of that mass we ever see tossed around. I wonder if it is more a case of being conditioned by Hollywood movies as to what to expect...
Rather like those things they do on Mythbusters to see if you shoot a car, does it really explode, etc. According to movies, cars and bikes and similar are much more prone to explode than in real life :) I also wonder then if our expectations on how one of those would be tossed around is equally invalid and based on special effects and their set-up explosions, compared to what would really happen - or if indeed we can extrapolate our experiences into how such a massive object would react in an extreme like an explosion.
Looking forward to seeing more, either way!
Tom |
Post by robert // Jan 29, 2009, 12:37pm
|
robert
Total Posts: 609
|
...Rather like those things they do on Mythbusters to see if you shoot a car, does it really explode, etc. According to movies, cars and bikes and similar are much more prone to explode than in real life :)...
Such a great show.
Anyway not bad, looks believable enough. How the heck are you going to do the actual explosion though?
Pyrocluster would be great for this. Do you have that?
I kinda want it but can't find it anywhere. |
Post by Finis // Jan 29, 2009, 2:55pm
|
Finis
Total Posts: 386
|
Sounds like a good method.
I had a thought about moving objects due to a blast. You could use the physics simulation by hurling some objects of appropriate mass and speed toward the jeeps. They would represent the force of the blast. When hit the jeeps they might move correctly. The effect could be adjusted by changing the speed or mass of the hurled objects. The 'pushers' could be deleted after the animation of the jeeps was recorded or they could be invisible.
That might work for shoving around lots of things in the scene.
I know the demo video is preliminary (looks good) but one thing that is counter intuitive is the way one jeep rocks back and forth, as if on a hard surface, after it is overturned. I'd expect that it lands on sand. If so then it would settle quickly with minimum movements. |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 29, 2009, 7:32pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
I wonder if it is more a case of being conditioned by Hollywood movies as to what to expect...
Mmm, I never thought of it that way Tom. I think you could well be on to something there. Strange though that anything created in 3d that doesn't look spot on is immediatly flagged as false whereas in a painting\other art form you would probably get away with it. The Last Supper being a classic example.
How the heck are you going to do the actual explosion though? Pyrocluster would be great for this. Do you have that?
By my understanding, Pyrocluster is all done in post, so personally, that has no appeal for me at all. I think I'd rather rather do it the hard way and really get to grips with tS's particle system. In addition, effects done in post will probably not have the ability to cast/catch shadows and reflections ect. so there will be some loss of control. And, I also believe that all the FX are very similair, so in my movie, which hopefully will have quite a few explosions going on, they would tend to be rather repetitive. Don't quote me on that though, it is only my understand. As I said, it doesn't really appeal to me so I haven't really looked at it.
The explosion should be fairly simple. Being a bunkbuster type munition, the missile will penetrate the concrete and detonate inside and the building will contain most of the explosion. if I set up 3 particle generators just inside the windows, I should be able to get a semi convincing set of flames to leap out. The one thing I have really learnt about particles over the last couple of weeks though is that you really have to have a great texture/material to pull it off convincingly.
I had a thought about moving objects due to a blast. You could use the physics simulation...
That's a great idea Finis and it's even easier to do than that. All I would have to do is provide the jeep with an initial velocity and spin vector. And by enabling gravity and ensuring the jeep was heavy enough i could probably get the same effect. I did a lot of work on physics in my Robot Ninja Assassins From Hell animation, even the bullet smashing through the glass in the Breech Block logo was all physics based.
You can check it out here:
Robot Ninja Assassins From Hell (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SCodEkjYKag)
The thing is, I think if your going to use a physical simulation to achieve an effect you need to plan it that way from the very start. The trouble is, I have now designed my set and have my camera position all set. Trying to get the jeeps to carry out their physical simulation and stay in camera may be a tad difficult. Wheras if you did the sim first, kept the movements by keyframing the animation, you could then design your set around the action.
Very good point about the sand dampening the movement BTW, I will amend the animation accordingly.
Ohh, and one other pointer for anybody reading this who is planning a simlair project, if your going to have a vehicle being tossed about, make sure you have a suitable texture on the undernearh of the model. I completly forgot. Doh! :o |
Post by jamesmc // Jan 29, 2009, 8:01pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
You could line up some visible proxy cubes with the cars, group them and have the camera track (point at) the boxes during the calculation of the simulation. Then run the simulation again with the cubes invisible.
A substitute 'null object' if you will. |
Post by TomG // Jan 30, 2009, 3:17am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Pyrocluster was able to cast shadows etc if I remember correctly. The free particle system, PPFX (Primal Particles FX) was not. The full Primal Particles was, but that was for old tS (maybe 4 or 5) and never did get updated for recent tS (even 6.6).
Pyrocluster itself I think was not a particles system, and needed one to go with it, I remember it was used alongside trueParticles a lot. trueParticles is included in the tS install somewhere, though I've not gone looking for it for a while! It is also not post, it generates a series of primitives, and use of good alpha maps will turn it into fireballs and smoke and similar.
Pyrocluster included a LOT of settings so repetition in how it looks was not a problem. Terry Halladay, who has recently reappeared on the forums, was a master at Pyrocluster, see his work:
http://www.3d-ring.org/interviews_detail.asp?InterviewID=20&Name=Terry%20Halladay
http://users.ntplx.net/~thallad/graphics.htm
On the latter, see the Pyrocluster AVIs with shadows and reflections.
Of course, Pyrocluster is no longer available for tS through us, you'd need to contact Cebas, I don't see it on site and doubt it is available, but you could always ask.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by Breech Block // Jan 30, 2009, 11:20am
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
You could line up some visible proxy cubes...
Neat idea james, I hadn't thought of that.
Wow, Tom what a mind full of info you have. Is there anything you don't know? :D Please feel free to contribute to my new thread - Next Week's Lottery Numbers. :p
Seriously, thanks for all the info Tom and the links. Terry's pictures are quite superb and I thought the 3D Ring interview was a great read. :cool: |
|
