|
|
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 splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 10:45am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Feeling is nice and cosy warm around here Ambrose but thanks for chipping in with your viewpoint. I certainly did not mean to 'insult' you or Wizard and I am sorry if you took it that way. I do have a blunt approach sometimes (apparently it is to do with being a Yorkshireman!) but I definitely don't aim to insult.
As you said though...easily forgotten....now back to that rock...:rolleyes: |
Post by kena // Jan 30, 2008, 2:47pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
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.
<sniff> <SOBB!!!>
I cannot believe that after you were the last person to even comment in my thread
http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showthread.php?p=37563
you forgot all about me!!
I'm crushed!!
:D :banana: |
Post by jamesmc // Jan 30, 2008, 3:19pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Kind of make you wonder about real time rendering.
Glass-real life doesn't need a render engine, yet we can see glass quite well.
Perhaps the lighting isn't just quite right...:D
I made a rock once in Workspace, it was ugly and had toe-like appendages with some apparent "toe-jam" stuck in between the spaces.
It's a grand looking rock Parva - I can only hope that one day I'll be able to match your geological significance. :) |
Post by W!ZARD // Jan 30, 2008, 5:43pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Ah! Communication is the breeding ground of misunderstanding!:D
Having said that I should take some responsibility for any misunderstanding here. Splinters has pointed to my comment "I'm surprised that people are still bothering with ray-tracing renderers " however this was intended as a humorous response to jayr's comment where he expressed surprise at the level of quality achievable with the Real-time renderer - Not that anyone should expect anything but brilliant work from Marcel!!
My comment was certainly not intended as a serious statement - which is why immediately after my statement I wrote "not really".
Splinters I was not offended in any way and certainly did not seek to offend you either. I consider you a good friend and in the years I've interacted with you I've never seen you strive to offend anyone. It would never occur to me to be offended by you or your opinions and for what it's worth I totally admire your "Yorkshire bluntness".
If I was reactionary at all it was to (my perception of) an apparent general belief on the Forums that the Real Time Renderer was not much good for producing 'quality' images.
Jayr expressed surprise, Splinters, you flat out said the RTR (Real-Time Renderer) was unable to produce quality images. I present these as examples of what I see as a fairly widespread belief that quality is either not achievable or very difficult to achieve with the RTR, something I know from experience (and from seeing Marcel's work), is simply incorrect. Tom has covered that 'quality' question very well and FWIW I fully agree with his comments.
Re your 'dabbling' with the RTR - sorry mate I did not realise your experience with it was so extensive - when you said dabble I took that at face value.
Now that I'm a little more familiar with the RTR and it's quirks (and it's got plenty of those, like any other renderer) I find it a delightful environment to work with and I want to encourage others to experience that delight. That's about it really!
@Steinie- Re "I just realized we used dabble, dribble and doodle in the same thread"LOL - It's a doddle to use dabble, dribble and doodle in the same sentence, and after all, any alliteration always amuses ;).
@Kena - D'oh, sorry mate - didn't mean to leave you out. I didn't mention 3dvisualsdude either and he practically lives in the RTR!
@Parva - Re "The great thing is that gpu rendering is so fast due to the simplification. The disadvantage is that simplification....." and "Online or Offline Rendering, finally it's the choice of the user and the area where the benefit counts." - Very true. That's telling it like it is Marcel - with bluntness like that I might almost start to think you are from Yorkshire!!!!:D;) .
I'd love to know more about "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)."I've always tended towards using image based textures rather than procedural ones so I'm not that knowledgeable about them. |
Post by splinters // Jan 30, 2008, 10:19pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Ah, new day fresh glasses. All is well in the world and the sun is shining. Well, actually it is raining heavily and we have gale force winds, but you know what I mean...;)
Any newcomers browsing through this thread should realise that this is a common occurence around here; opinions are put forward, arguments raised etc. and sometimes even a few crossed wires but they are always resolved in a mature and respectful manner which is what makes this forum so special.
Thanks Wizard and everyone else for giving me a prod about the realtime renderer. I intend to explore it better once I get some free time...whenever that may be...:rolleyes: |
Post by jayr // Jan 31, 2008, 12:56am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
Jayr expressed surprise
Too right, when you go from 6.6 where the wire frame and the textures would sometimes go their seperate ways when you zoom in too close to 7.5 where you can do a scene that looks like Half Life 2 before you even run it though an 'ofline' renderer it a supprise.
Then you see something like this, which looks better than a lot of images rendered offline it only adds to that supprise.
I realize that not everyone is capable of doing work like this and it'd probably grind my computer to a halt to try it's still very impressive. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jan 31, 2008, 3:58am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Too right, when you go from 6.6 where the wire frame and the textures would sometimes go their seperate ways when you zoom in too close to 7.5 where you can do a scene that looks like Half Life 2 before you even run it though an 'ofline' renderer it a supprise.
Then you see something like this, which looks better than a lot of images rendered offline it only adds to that supprise.
I realize that not everyone is capable of doing work like this and it'd probably grind my computer to a halt to try it's still very impressive.
Chuckle! When you put it like that I take your point Jayr. :D
Re:"it'd probably grind my computer to a halt " I think that you might get another surprise there - the RTR can happily handle massive polycounts and big texture images on my average PC, specially with scenes built to use the RTR's strengths - shallow hierarchies and so on. But I'll stop now before I start to sound like a fan boy again!
Splinters, I'm glad that all is rosy at your place - all is indeed well in the world! :D
I think it calls for a banana :banana: or 2 :banana::banana: |
Post by parva // Jan 31, 2008, 5:20am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
I'd love to know more about "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)."I've always tended towards using image based textures rather than procedural ones so I'm not that knowledgeable about them.
There are some advantes of procedural like the size independence.
It doesn't matter which size the sky has, you will not see blocky or pixels at the procedural sky. Every color transition is smooth.
The other size factor is the shader itself. There are no additional bitmap files needed to store.
But the greatest advantage is that you can change the sun position in realtime and the color of the sky changes also in realtime.
It based upon the Preetham model. It can't simulate everything (different thickness of air layers etc.) but it's great for realtime.
Here (http://www.vterrain.org/Atmosphere/) a great site with additional info.
I wanted this for archviz but like I said the shader has limitations where I not know how to solve.
I read now a book where the formula is better descripted.
I adapted the shader just from a Quest3d one
(a program where you can do realtime scenes), maybe I make a new one.
Here some screen samples and the shader itself.
10854
10855
P.S.: thanks again to all for the nice comments. I thought I get just negative comments because it's so ugly rock :D keep in mind it's just a "doodle" ;) |
Post by Ambrose // Jan 31, 2008, 6:19am
|
Ambrose
Total Posts: 261
|
ohh my, even Parva is noodling, doodling, where will this end!
soon one is an outsider if not diving deep into LE ;)
Thanks for showing...
SeYa/Ambrose... |
Post by W!ZARD // Jan 31, 2008, 6:21pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Thanks for that fascinating link Marcal - although I must admit a lot of the technical stuff about skies was 'over my head' :D . It looks like a fascinating subject - I justwish I had the time to explore it further.
@Ambrose - Repeat after me: "The LE is my friend, The LE is my friend, the LE is my friend" LOL ;):D |
Post by kena // Jan 31, 2008, 8:44pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
If he wont repeat it, I will. "The LE is my FRIEND"!!!!
I like the LE - I find it easier to use than the old 6.6 way.
If I HAVE to do something in 6.6 for some reason or other, I do it - port it to 7.5 and then have fun with the LE
Not quite up to scripting, but It serves to really organize my space. And make materials. And modify links. And group objects. And. And.. And...
:D |
Post by parva // Feb 6, 2008, 8:26am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
I could solve some of the problems I had with the sky shader.
It works now as ambient light too.
Only thing which is still not possible. The sun don't cast shadow so it must be placed manually.
10947 |
Post by W!ZARD // Feb 6, 2008, 9:13am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
I could solve some of the problems I had with the sky shader.
It works now as ambient light too.
Only thing which is still not possible. The sun don't cast shadow so it must be placed manually.
Very cool Marcel - they are nice looking skies! So does it create an ambient light that is coloured by the sky? That's brilliant.
Is this shader for tS 7.5? I'd like to know more about it - it certainly looks excellent. |
Post by parva // Feb 7, 2008, 5:48am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
So does it create an ambient light that is coloured by the sky?
Yes the sky is actually a kind of ambient light.
It does effect all objects in scene but it don't need to be the same color as the sky itself.
I separated Skydome and ambient color so the user can desaturate or increase/change RGB of global environment light.
Due to the node based design the user can change everything and add what he want.
Here a little test. Left screenshots from the workspace. Right Scene rendered in Fryrender.
10959
Evening looks quite good. Midday is more complicated.
Will try if I find a way for a seamless transition without changing too much parameter ^^
Keep in mind. No dirty tricks. No prerendered stuff. All realtime.
Is this shader for tS 7.5?
No it's count for ts7.6 release and available as part of my shaderpack
which will contain other things like bumpmaps in workspace (use simple greyscale maps instead of only normal maps to bump detail) etc.. |
Post by parva // Mar 21, 2008, 2:54am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
not wanting to create a new thread...
Happy Easter :D
11658
D3D workspace again ;) |
Post by hemulin // Mar 21, 2008, 11:57am
|
hemulin
Total Posts: 1058
|
I can imagine doing the Caligari Easter Egg Hunt with one of your scenes. I don't think anybody would win, they would just be looking around at all of the nice scenery. |
Post by rjeff // Mar 22, 2008, 10:59am
|
rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
|
Parva..how I do love to look at your work. Even as simple as the egg and grasss..just beautiful. Do you mind to say how you did the grass? Was it with the hair tool? |
Post by parva // Mar 22, 2008, 11:15am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
Exactly the hair tool.
trueSpace swapped to 500 MB Ram but scene is still smooth.
I tried to use textures but don't know how to change the uv so that all grass objects have same uv. |
Post by rjeff // Mar 27, 2008, 5:03am
|
rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
|
to be honest parva I think the grass looks good like it is. To me the randomness of the texture is what makes it look very real. |
Post by v3rd3 // Mar 27, 2008, 11:58am
|
v3rd3
Total Posts: 388
|
Wow.... another busy thread.
I love the rock... I spent some very happy times on the east coast of Canada and this rock reminds me of digging for clams and ... beer....
For some reason the wire frame makes me think of my mother-in-law watching TV.
I really appreciate Parva's work and someday hope to understand the LE well enough to really appreciate the effort.
Sign me NOOBINAWE for this one.
BTW Parva... would you mind posting the specs for your hardware either here or in the technobabble section? I have this dream of working with meshes with the level of detail you are showing and need some input on what I need to get there. |
Post by parva // Mar 27, 2008, 12:41pm
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
thank you.
would you mind posting the specs for your hardware either here or in the technobabble section?
sure. Quadcore 2,4ghz , 2gig RAM and a geforce 8800gts.
Not high end as you can see. Especially the 2 gig Ram can be to less sometimes
but I wait until Vista 64bit is more ... solid *g* . I'm not really a fan of Windows Vista ^^ |
Post by kena // Mar 27, 2008, 1:51pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
I'm not a fan of vista either... still using XP.. I waited a year to get THAT because of the bugs. Looks like I may hve to wait a couple of years for Vista to be what will work for me. ;) |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 27, 2008, 1:59pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Parva's right, since it takes 3 Gig of Ram for Vista to run nice there's no sense in getting the 32-bit version. If you're going to go Vista, get the 64-bit version and put at least 4 Gig of ram in the system.
SP1 is out for Vista now, and except for problems with certain brands of sound cards (Creative in particular) it's very stable. Vista is slower than XP, so it's only worth upgrading if you have a fast system, need to access more than 3Gig of Ram, or are buying a new system. |
Post by v3rd3 // Mar 28, 2008, 9:31am
|
v3rd3
Total Posts: 388
|
Thanks Parva.... I now know what I need to shoot for.
I am also in the "stick with XP" camp. Despite some of the good things I have heard about Vista I still here a lot of comments about performance hits on applications that take a lot of time to overcome playing with the config. |
Post by frootee // Mar 28, 2008, 1:17pm
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Hi v3rd3. This may help get you started with the LE.
http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showpost.php?p=44135&postcount=1
Froo |
Post by v3rd3 // Mar 28, 2008, 5:18pm
|
v3rd3
Total Posts: 388
|
Thanks Frootee. I will dig into this over the weekend.....
:jumpy: |
|
