|
|
The Rock
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.
The Rock // Image Gallery
Post by parva // Jan 29, 2008, 2:32am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
a little doodle :D
pure d3d workspace
needs just better textures ^^
10812 |
Post by Steinie // Jan 29, 2008, 2:47am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
It needs a flying saucer....:D
The lighting and formation looks real. So you doodle too? |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jan 29, 2008, 3:26am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Wow! Great work Parva!
Was that the displacement or soft paint? In any case the detail is amazing :banana: |
Post by parva // Jan 29, 2008, 4:16am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
both but mostly Displacment and manual correction in soft paint. 350k polygons.
Lighting - one directional shadow casting light, one hemisphere light (made by myself ;))
Texture are a composite of 2 layered textures.
Sky is the procedural sky at a geosphere dome. It doesn't still not work as expected so I decomposed some settings.
Allows now more controls and so you can do also great sunsets (very red or even purple ones).
Yes Steinie I doodle too :D |
Post by jayr // Jan 29, 2008, 7:47am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
That looks amazing, did you say that it's realtime or a render? |
Post by TomG // Jan 29, 2008, 8:39am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
It's both - a real-time render ;)
Naturally every piece of 3D you see on your screen is indeed being rendered, just by a real-time engine. And you can even render to file using the render engine in tS7.5 workspace.
So it's all rendering, just a different engine, either the real-time Direct 3D one, or an offline Lightworks or V-Ray or Dribble, etc. This one is from our real-time engine, and Marcel does an awesome job of showing what it is capable of.
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Jan 29, 2008, 8:56am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
It needs a flying saucer....:D
The lighting and formation looks real. So you doodle too?
This Means Something!
Wow. Looks really cool Parva. Very realistic. Do de do do deee! (Sounds from the classic movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind).
Froo |
Post by splinters // Jan 29, 2008, 9:14am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Nice work Parva. Is this 7.5 or 7.6?
Are you allowed to say?...;) I cannot imagine doing this in 7.5 but it has been some time since I used workspace. |
Post by spacekdet // Jan 29, 2008, 10:18am
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
Oddly enough, I prefer the wireframe version. |
Post by GraySho // Jan 29, 2008, 10:57am
|
GraySho
Total Posts: 695
|
Awesome results. What fascinates me most is the lighting and the polycount, I can't imagine handling this in WS. I'd really like to know how you do this realtime ambient light and hemisphere. |
Post by jayr // Jan 29, 2008, 11:16am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
It's both - a real-time render ;)
Naturally every piece of 3D you see on your screen is indeed being rendered, just by a real-time engine. And you can even render to file using the render engine in tS7.5 workspace.
So it's all rendering, just a different engine, either the real-time Direct 3D one, or an offline Lightworks or V-Ray or Dribble, etc. This one is from our real-time engine, and Marcel does an awesome job of showing what it is capable of.
Thanks!
Tom
It's funny i'm still suprised by how good stuff can look in the workspace before being ran thru lightwave or another offline renderer, when you see stuff like this it really starts to blur the lines. |
Post by splinters // Jan 29, 2008, 11:18am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Oddly enough, I prefer the wireframe version..
Ditto.... |
Post by Burnart // Jan 29, 2008, 12:00pm
|
Burnart
Total Posts: 839
|
The stage seems set. What happens next? |
Post by W!ZARD // Jan 29, 2008, 8:19pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
It's funny I'm still surprised by how good stuff can look in the workspace before being ran thru lightwave or another offline renderer, when you see stuff like this it really starts to blur the lines.
Funnily enough I'm getting to the stage where I'm surprised that people are still bothering with ray-tracing renderers - well, not really but they are so slow compared to the DX9 real-time renders.
I usually aim for images rendered at a minimum of 1600x1200 or thereabouts.
Recent images I've been working on at that size can take 12 or more hours to render in LightWorks, a similar image took 33 hours in Vue 5 Esprit (although that one did have GI lighting). A similar sized image, at maximum quality settings takes between 4 and 10 seconds to render from WS!
Of course there are things that you just can't do without ray-tracing but for anyone looking fo a new area of trueSpace to explore I can totally recommend the real-time renderer as being worthy of investigation - as Parva's magnificent Mesa shows! |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 12:34am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Funnily enough I'm getting to the stage where I'm surprised that people are still bothering with ray-tracing renderers - well, not really but they are so slow compared to the DX9 real-time renders.
I normally read your posts with a greast deal of respect for what you say Wizard but I find your new found love of the real time renderer bordering on 'fan boy'. It is a great addition indeed and has a bright future but there are very few users able to harness the power (even Marcel has admitted to struggling with his images due to the PC power needed to get them this good).
I have dabbled with all available renderers for tS and Vray has the power with LW the flexibiity. Dribble has great potential but in terms of render quality for print or illustration the DX render is right down there on the bottom of my list.
Of course we both have our own preferences but I would not like to think a new user or visitor is mis-lead about the quality of the DX renderer as compared to something like Vray, Maxwell or even LW...not at the moment anyway...:o
As for speed, I doubt it is such an issue if a client wants the best image possible. DX is just not there yet. |
Post by parva // Jan 30, 2008, 2:01am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
agree with both of you.
The great thing is that gpu rendering is so fast due to the simplification.
The disadvantage is that simplification.
Lighting, true reflections and some other things (subsurface scattering etc.)
need many and complex calculations to be accurate and are still the weak parts of this kind of realtime rendering.
As addition realtime rendering can be divided in two categories - dynamic and static.
Dynamic realtime scenes are the difficult part (think on Crysis) where nearly everything interacts together in realtime.
Static scenes instead are mostly used for archviz where the lighting information is baked in light maps, diffuse maps and so on from an external renderer like Vray. These scenes looks real and fantastic but are non dynamic. As soon as you want to move a light or an object the whole scene becomes inaccurate.
Online or Offline Rendering, finally it's the choice of the user and the area where the benefit counts.
In the future the lmits will surely fade away.
btw. yesterday I found a cool video about Geomerics. There Engine can do Realtime Radiosity - take a look (http://www.geomerics.com/enlighten-media.htm) |
Post by Jack Edwards // Jan 30, 2008, 2:04am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Where the real-time render really shines is rendering out HD resolution animations. You can render a full 2 hour movie in 1 day. ;)
Not to mention real-time GI algorithms have already been developed. It would be really awesome if we got GI shaders for DX. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jan 30, 2008, 2:12am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Woah! 'Fanboy'? That's a bit harsh - as well as a novelty - never been called that before!
With all due respect Paul if you've only 'dabbled' with the DX9 renderer then maybe you haven't 'dabbled' deeply enough. I base this suggestion on my own experience whereby when I first 'dabbled' I though it was inferior - having stuck with it and put in the effort to learn more about it my initial impressions have changed markedly.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I don't believe I've seen a 'real-time' rendered image of yours posted in the forum or the gallery. As far as I know Marcel, Bob (Steinie) and myself are the only ones using the DX9 renderer for anything beyond the creation of 3d spaces and as a render preview.
I'm just trying to drum up some enthusiasm for a segment of trueSpaces capabilities that seems overlooked to me. I'm puzzled as to why you have an issue about that.
Quality, especially comparative quality, is a subjective and personal thing of course. It's possible that there is little value in comparing the various renderers anyway - they each possess individual strengths and individual shortcomings. DX9 doesn't raycast so there's no real reflections, no volumetrics, no GI, no HDRI. Vray doesn't have layered textures, it's achingly slow compared to DX9 even though it's faster than Lightworks which does have layered textures and volumetrics. <shrugs>
In a very real sense comparing the various renderers is akin to comparing apples with oranges and pears and bananas. You apparently prefer the flavour of Vray, and fair enough too. I have a liking for the flavour of the Real-time - which is equally fair enough (although in truth LW is still my favourite).
Unless you want to get down to real specifics I will dispute your suggestion that my enthusiasm for the DX9 renderer is in any way misleading about the comparative quality or merits of any other renderer. Quality comparisons must be dependent on a specified criteria - and if render speed is one of those quality criteria then DX9 wins hands down. Furthermore this is a truthful statement and is in no way misleading.
I'm entitled to an opinion as are we all and if a new user or visitor takes my words to be anything more than a statement of my own perception of my own reality - well, more fool them. You shouldn't believe everything you read!
From where I sit it could be said that your comment "I would not like to think a new user or visitor is mis-lead about the quality of the DX renderer as compared to something like Vray, Maxwell or even LW" could be equally seen to be misleading, suggesting as it does that the DX9 renderer is of inferior quality (when in fact it's qualities are merely different).
Perhaps it would be fair for me to say - with all due respect - that I find you apparent antipathy toward the real-time renderer bordering on 'anti-fanboy'.;)
I suspect your definition of 'quality' is perhaps somewhat inevitably shaped by your own preferences. I'm sure mine are. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people who see my art - or yours, couldn't give a toss what renderer was used - they are only interested in the emotional and intellectual stimulation provided by the image itself. A good painting is a good painting no matter if it's done in Oils, Guache, water colours and so on.
And to address your doubts about speed being an issue all I can say is that producing an animation using traditional ray-tracing renderers is horrifically time consuming - particularly if you need to redo the animation for some reason. I've produced far more animation in a couple of weeks using the DX9 renderer than I have in nearly 7 years of 3d art using raytracers. I would feel far more comfortable about tackling say, a music video or a TV advert, using DX9 animation than I would using LW or Vray.
Finally, you say "there are very few users able to harness the power " of DX9 my response is to reframe that statement by saying there are very few users who have learned to harness the power - yet (I sure haven't), and if I can change that by sharing my enthusiasm, well by all means you can call me a Fanboy - but I really don't see how that can be a bad thing!
I normally read your posts with a great deal of respect for what you say Wizard but I find your new found love of the real time renderer bordering on 'fan boy'. It is a great addition indeed and has a bright future but there are very few users able to harness the power (even Marcel has admitted to struggling with his images due to the PC power needed to get them this good).
I have dabbled with all available renderers for tS and Vray has the power with LW the flexibiity. Dribble has great potential but in terms of render quality for print or illustration the DX render is right down there on the bottom of my list.
Of course we both have our own preferences but I would not like to think a new user or visitor is mis-lead about the quality of the DX renderer as compared to something like Vray, Maxwell or even LW...not at the moment anyway...:o
As for speed, I doubt it is such an issue if a client wants the best image possible. DX is just not there yet. |
Post by Steinie // Jan 30, 2008, 2:45am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
OK call me a Fanboy...I don't mind.
To me DX9 is another brush in my toolbox. I have no problem using it for certain scenes. I am amazed more people aren't exploring this realtime renderer. Web content and Animation are one of it's strengths. Remember we are at the beginning of development in this area of Real Time. I can see the day in the future when we flip flop and find it hard to find other rendering engines being used. (as they say Speed Kills)
If you look at Caligari's "Mission Statement" their direction is an application for the Web. Like it or not.
I take Parva's side and agree with both of you. |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 4:44am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Whoooah, slow down there Wizard. This is not a personal attack, I would not do that and certainly not to you, nor did I call you a Fan boy, just that the comments about DX being as good as dedicated offline/raytracing renderers were similar to those heard in the Xbox/Ps3 threads you see (where the term fanboy is often used to imply bias towards one console regardless of it's superiority, or in this case, one renderer over another).
I am also a little disappointed that that you imply I have not really messed with the DX renderer just because I have not posted any images. I clearly believe the DX renderer is inferior to LW or Vray so why would I? I haven't posted anything in the music thread either...does that detract from the fact that I am an accomplished musician?
Add to that I was pushing the DX renderer quite intensely when I was a beta tester (nowehere near as far as Marcel) and gave up even trying to recreate what I could do in Vray or LW.
If you re-read my 'heartfelt plea' thread, you would know I have real gripes with Vray but have to use it.
I also started the Caligari University some time ago which is a realtime based project but I have not had time to develop it..and there were images in there complete with displays showing live action through the cameras. Maybe they were deleted with the rest of my illustrations a while ago...but they were there.
I am not against the DX renderer, quite the opposite but you would you have replied if I said "I cannot believe anyone is using the DX renderer when it it clearly inferior to LW"?
No argument at all here Wizard, each to their own but I have explored the DX renderer and realtime and I am no Vray 'fan boy' at all.
I just don;t believe it can match a dedicated renderer (vray, LW etc.) for output quality. It has a look of it's own and potential but that is all.
Ask Marcel about his sky dome he made ages ago to simulate the HDRI effect in realtime. I had a decent PC at the time and I couldn't even load the scene.
Quick press of the render button in LW and I had a print quality render in minutes...
There is no right or wrong here, just opinions about what works best for each user. There certainly is no place for the DX renderer in my illustration work (at the moment) but as with all things Caligari I remain optimistic about it's future. |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 5:02am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Just a little footnote...
There is nothing wrong with a little healthy discussion especially if it raises a few pertinent points.
"Opinions are like ar**holes," I was once told; "everybody has one!". So there can never be a conclusion to such discussion, just a lot of arguments and perhaps a few piccies to illustrate a point.
But one thing does dishearten me a little, not sure how long you have had tS7Wizard and I am really genuinely happy that you find it so adaptable and useful but I was very active in shaping/testing ts in its Alpha stages and happily pushed the workspace/DX renderer to breaking point at times. I still would be if I had not left the Beta team due to work commitments.
To suggest that my lack of realtime image posts in any way reflects how much I have explored it is, well, a bit of an insult really.
I tried, I tested and I went back to the method that works for me. I have actively explored the DX side as a realtime educational environment and I will explore it further again. But if a client asked for a high quality render I really do not believe the DX side could do it yet.
I have said my bit, nothing else to add really. |
Post by Georg // Jan 30, 2008, 5:52am
|
Georg
Total Posts: 270
|
This thread has moved a bit from the rock. I have to admit that I had no idea what a Fanboy is. I found out they have their own magazine! The question is : who is Splinters and who is Wizard? |
Post by Steinie // Jan 30, 2008, 6:26am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Splinters you did say you "dabbled" with all available renderers for tS, so I kind of read into it the same way.
I didn't know Sergio drew for DC comics, he wrote and drew for "Mad Magazine" He captured Splinters and Wizard really well.
I just realized we used dabble, dribble and doodle in the same thread, when will that ever happen again?.... |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 7:45am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
The question is : who is Splinters and who is Wizard?
The 'S' on the shirt should give you a clue...;) |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 7:51am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Splinters you did say you "dabbled" with all available renderers for tS, so I kind of read into it the same way.
I didn't know Sergio drew for DC comics, he wrote and drew for "Mad Magazine" He captured Splinters and Wizard really well.
I just realized we used dabble, dribble and doodle in the same thread, when will that ever happen again?....
Perhaps my use of 'dabble' was subconcious modesty in light of how much Marcel manages to achieve in terms of render quality. I just find that the time and effort required to get good results in DX is probably greater than how long a LW or Vray render might take. Plus, you can go to the pub while it is rendering, no need to sit and watch it...:D
Still, thanks for injecting your usual humour into this thread, it is a rather amazing bit of work and Marcel remains the master of DX realtime in my opinion (no offence Wizard!). I just know how much time, effort and PC power are needed to get those great results when LW will run on a much more lowly machine...:) |
Post by TomG // Jan 30, 2008, 8:34am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
I don't think the statement " just don;t believe it can match a dedicated renderer (vray, LW etc.) for output quality" is fair, and I think that would put newcomers off trying the engine, thinking that no matter what style they wanted to make, something in the real-time engine would always make it a worse image than one made using the real-time engines. And I think everyone should be free to try all things and with an open mind when they dive into it without them feeling biased against (or in favor!) before they even start :)
Because it depends what you mean by quality. I think Paul has particular concepts of what makes "quality" which would include HDRI, GI, reflection, transparency, etc. That is fine, but it is subjective, looking for particular things that the DX engine does not provide.
However, "quality" really means "fitness for purpose". And in that instance the DX engine can easily produce high quality images. Eg I have a hammer and a spanner, and sure the spanner is not good at doing hammer jobs, and vice versa. If I say though that the spanner is less quality than the hammer, it means it is less good at being a spanner than the hammer is at being a hammer, and that's where I think it becomes misleading to call the real-time engine less quality :)
I have some of Marcel's real-time scenes here such as his spaceship and his sanctuary, and then we have this rock shown here. Marcel's use of lighting is such that he achieves a high quality GI look in his real-time renders (and I can walk through them too, amazing!). I have hit render on those scenes, and what comes out is not "higher quality' than what I had in real-time.
In the same way, W!zard's images win awards on 3DC, Renderosity, and here. They clearly are "quality" or they wouldn't be selected for awards. Increasingly he makes those scenes with the real-time engine (and I can't tell the difference in which is which).
I also believe that for NPR, you could use the real-time engine to make nice cartoon imagery with outlines etc. Again it would be just as high quality, just a different style.
So can you use the real-time engine for finished production or illustration work? I would say that yes, you can (depending on the nature of what you were producing). Quality is really not about how smooth the shadows are, how realistic the glass is, etc.
So I would think it more accurate to say that the real-time engine doesn't produce the results you like. To say it doesnt have the quality implies it has some shortcoming built-in that can't be overcome, some failure to produce finished level work no matter what sort of work that is.
The quality is just as good, but the features are different. If you wanted to produce a stunning image of a bottle of wine that fooled the eye into thinking it was a photo, the real-time engine might not be your first choice - but that isn't an issue of its quality :)
As a final note, people are good with engines like V-Ray or Lightworks precisely because they have practiced and tested and made bad images and found what doesnt work and what settings to tweak in the materials and in the render options - so it does take time and practice to adapt to what is perhaps the most different of the render engines, as it stands many of the principles of offline renderers on their heads :) Moving from LW to VR isnt as tricky and many skills carry across, but the real-time engine will take a bit longer to adapt to.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by 3dfrog // Jan 30, 2008, 8:44am
|
3dfrog
Total Posts: 1225
|
Really nice parva. You really are pushing the realtime renders. I think realtime and vray and lightworks and dribble are all good. It's just a matter of what you want to achieve. Clearly parva can achieve a lot with real time, a lot more than I have been able to accomplish. |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 8:52am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
All fair points Tom and I concede to them. Maybe I am a little out of touch with the workspace side, Can it do real reflections now and HDRI as well as GI and soft shadows without texture baking. Reflections have been the most basic feature of tS as long as I have been using it. Is effective glass now possible? I am not being sarcastic here either I have not used it for a while-maybe I missed something. My art style is very different to Wizard's and I cannot achieve the look I aim for (either Photorealistic products or soft fuzzy felt illustrations). You are aware of what Realtime stuff I started with the CaliUniversity; I have simply been too busy to develop it.
I did not set out to dismiss the DX render engine as 'inferior' I simply reacted to the line "I'm surprised that people are still bothering with ray-tracing renderers" which taken out of context might imply that they are inferior to the DX renderer.
Still, that is getting pedantic and maybe I am lazy but I am pretty sure I would need to spend a lot of time getting the results I need from DX while Vray is the nearest thing I have to 'Render Amazing' button and LW is my old reliable.
As I said before, I look forward to seeing it realise it's potential but it is simply not for me. Can we leave it at that and get back to admiring the rock?
I am off now to explore the wS and prove myself wrong....;) |
Post by TomG // Jan 30, 2008, 9:12am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Indeed, "horses for courses" as they say, in other words different tools for different jobs (and even for different people).
"Real" reflections are not possible (they take raytracing, which is time consuming), but "realistic" reflections are - metallic materials and glass materials are possible, mirrors are possible, etc. Same with GI, calculating GI in real-time is not feasible, but creating a look which is similar to GI or HDRI is possible. Not just at the click of "enable HDRI" of course, things may take more to set up than that.
Which is why you like the offline render engines, and no problem with that! Everyone should find the tool that suits their needs. There is no need for you to "retrain" for 3 months to achieve results you can already get with engines you already know, that clearly would not be good. You know what you want, and you know how to get it already, so stick with it!
My only concern here is I am happy for folks to realise the difference between the engines and what each is good for, but I didn't want anyone to think that the real-time engine is in some way "less good" in a real sense than the other engines - not so useful for some tasks, vastly more useful for others. But it can produce worj that is just as high quality as the other engines, so don't be afraid to give it a go - but do check into what each engine is best at (I find it best to select the engine for a project at the start of the project, based on what I know my output will need).
And yes indeed, let's get back to the core of the thread, the rock! An awesome image, which I did think at first was V-Ray with GI til I read the post with it and saw it was real-time.
I want to see more images from Marcel :) He mentioned being able to change the time of day with his lighting too, wonder if we could see the rock at different times?
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by Ambrose // Jan 30, 2008, 10:17am
|
Ambrose
Total Posts: 261
|
First one word, I love it.
Everything you do comes out great ;)
and I know you do work for it...
Now just a note on the discussions going.
Emails and forums alike it's very easy to missunderstand each other.
It's very hard to write politily correct mails and a bit of that or this can misslead the intent.
Sometimes when mailing one has to think about the other 2 one addresses the mail to, wich offcourse gives funny comments from the first guy ;)
At work I allways take the time to rewrite a mail going to important person or if I feel I'm in a bad mode, can do this 3-4 times until some hours has passed and I don't really understand what all was about, this makes the mail arriving to those people sounding quite ok and allways so I can escape ;)
But on a forum, you take like 5' to write and then you post, temperament can be everything, I know I done it and sometimes enjoyed as well.
Then after couple of days that feeling comes again, it was nothing personal more a funny game or something.
We usually don't intend to do what we do, even if we do when writing the stuff within 2', but later...
I also took your comments Splinter as insults and just waited for Wiz to answer.
At the same time I can say that this is kind of Splinters way of communicating as he mostly does and there's nothing to it...
But can be missunderstood non the letter.
Well no clue were this got, there's soccer on tv now so away I go.
But I hope non of you have something against me taking this up, again :D
then you're more than welcome to burn me a bit, just trying to get that warm feeling back to the forum, reminds me of one of the pictures reasently.
And Parva, keep up the goooood work!
SeYa/Ambrose... |
|
