Lightwave volumetric Items, clouds and sky moods, planet clouds, fog, godrays Part 2.

[RPSchmidt]

Now we are really confusing each other this late night, or morning over there? to add to the confusion.

Volume connector sounds kinky as well principled volume shader in to the material output is probably the best naming , or volume scatter shader.

Well, it's the node connector marked "volume" on the material output, soooo... even if it sounds kinky, I think I'll stick with it

Then again, you still have Air refraction, but it´s related to the temperature in the region, that is why we can see that hot waving air on the ground very hot summers, but otherwise generally there isn´t any Atmosphere refraction.

As mentioned above, but for volumetric atmosphere, you can´t use any IOR value, no such option with volumetrics..but if you go for mesh surfacing, so be it, I may look in to that more later, but it´s kind of more fun to have something more towards the real thing, and using truly volumetric clouds as well.

But that effect you spoke about with more increasingly transparence and fades towards the center of the volume, I think it can be don by simply changing anisotrophy values with the volume item, or volume material in blenders case.

You can actually use IOR if you connect the principled volume and a principled BSDF to a mix shader and then to the volume material output connector. I've done some experiments with it using the WDAS cloud.

I used the principled BSDF to add IOR and subsurface scattering. I can't state how much either is contributing as a defined value, but when I disconnect the principled BSDF and connect the principled volume directly to the volume material output connector, there was a very clear difference.

The effect I saw was that the streaming tail portions of the cloud became wispier towards their ends, and the cloud itself became softer at the edges.

Also, there was a very nice "godray" effect from behind the cloud with the light source on the opposite side.

Anyway.... I am certain that the same appearance and effect can be attained without using the Principled BSDF mixed in, but it was still worth an experiment.

I will definitely try adjusting the anisotrophy in the atmospheric volume!

Nope..I never said I used VDB`S for the planetary clouds I showed here, I only mentioned briefly that you may be able to experiment with that and embergen, since it has a
preset of jupiter already setup.
You were on the other hand mentioning that you used solidify on VDB`S ..so that was confusing since you can not do that.

Yes, I said VDB when I really meant mesh volume. I know that the VDB is a database file that contains the volume grid information and not a mesh, but I tend to think of VDB and volumes as the same thing, even though obviously the VDB doesn't have a mesh.

So my setups is just a mesh sphere for planet surfaces not the shape sphere,.
Atmosphere is just a volume item, none pyroclastic mode, but without any "hypertexture"
Clouds the same volume item but with a texture obviousl, and completely different scatter settings.

Pretty much the same type of setup I am using, although I need to find a more detailed cloud texture map. The one I am using is a NASA cloud map. It has great detail, but the resolution isn't great. I may just need to search around for some higher resolution maps.

I would like to master embergen a bit more before trying fully spherical cloud layers, probably my machine won´t manage the level of detail and voxel resolution requried though.
Been messing these latest 2 hours with some cloud forming testing with various noises, pressure rates etc, seeking some science help for how clouds rise with pressure rates, buoyancy etc, but very hard to translate the descriptions in to embergen values.

Then again, if they (jangaFX) do Implement a fully scientificly model to get accurate cloud formings, then wheres the challenge and artistry and hard work go then?
Embergen was mostly designed to create fire and explosions and stuff..so you just tweak those settings and reduce fire, combustion and heat to minimum and use pressure rates, wind, and a little fractal noise for density as well, and maybe also fractal noise for force inputs as well.

I think Embergen misses some key functions though in terms of density emission, there are workarounds with fractal noise shapes..but not ideal, the fractal noise you add ass emission density also affects the movement of the cloud smoke rising, it shouldn´t be that way, or at least an option to turn it off.

I think Embergen is focused more on rapid pyrotechnic prototyping. I know they have introduced cloud presets and certainly Embergen should be capable of doing clouds, but I get the impression it's more in the vein of "We do awesome explosions and fire effects really fast and in great resolution... oh, and I guess we can do clouds too".

I still definitely want to get it, though

 

[prometheus]

Well, it's the node connector marked "volume" on the material output, soooo... even if it sounds kinky, I think I'll stick with it



You can actually use IOR if you connect the principled volume and a principled BSDF to a mix shader and then to the volume material output connector. I've done some experiments with it using the WDAS cloud.

I used the principled BSDF to add IOR and subsurface scattering. I can't state how much either is contributing as a defined value, but when I disconnect the principled BSDF and connect the principled volume directly to the volume material output connector, there was a very clear difference.

The effect I saw was that the streaming tail portions of the cloud became wispier towards their ends, and the cloud itself became softer at the edges.

Also, there was a very nice "godray" effect from behind the cloud with the light source on the opposite side.

Anyway.... I am certain that the same appearance and effect can be attained without using the Principled BSDF mixed in, but it was still worth an experiment.

I will definitely try adjusting the anisotrophy in the atmospheric volume!


Yes, I said VDB when I really meant mesh volume. I know that the VDB is a database file that contains the volume grid information and not a mesh, but I tend to think of VDB and volumes as the same thing, even though obviously the VDB doesn't have a mesh.



Pretty much the same type of setup I am using, although I need to find a more detailed cloud texture map. The one I am using is a NASA cloud map. It has great detail, but the resolution isn't great. I may just need to search around for some higher resolution maps.



I think Embergen is focused more on rapid pyrotechnic prototyping. I know they have introduced cloud presets and certainly Embergen should be capable of doing clouds, but I get the impression it's more in the vein of "We do awesome explosions and fire effects really fast and in great resolution... oh, and I guess we can do clouds too".

I still definitely want to get it, though

I have a knit picking disorder, but ..
Node connector is the noodles, the line between node inputs and outputs, each node by themself is an attribute, function etc, such as volume shader, so a volume shader node isn´t a node connector.


Yep..I know you can mix materials like that in blender, that´s great with blender, not something you can do in lightwave with volume items though.
To whatever extra realism it can bring, I don´t know..so feel free to share your findings, though it may be a blender things, so perhaps just post privately.

Yeah..I figured you ment volumes instead of VDB, and it´s easy to put in the same categorie, but as mentioned, my knit picking disorder picked that up
Someday someone will attack me with knit picking on various stuff...I´m guessing.

Embergen is probably one of the best tools, apart from Houdini to simulate cloud formations, what it has as an advantage over Houdini is it´s speed, that speed alone
empowers you with direct feedback and many many more experiments and iterations can be done, you will find your settings of proper values for cloud forming much much faster than in Houdini.


Nick at JangaFX did som cloud presets, spending 50 hours to create those assets ( commercial product) so that you do not necessarely need to spend those hours learning yourself.
And opposed to buying VDB packs, these assets is in the form of presets, which means you can tweak them to your liking yourself with randomizing buttons, or go in and adjuste single parameters yourself.

Some looks very good, some lesser good, render in embergen, or Lightwave/octane or blender, blender probably will give you the best results in rendering of these three, if you know how to setup the shading.( excluding octane from my evaluation since I haven´t tried that in Lightwave yet)

It´s the premium presets,Clouds Volume 1...

There are some scientific software that simulates weather cloud forming more accurate to how it really behaves in real life, but they are visually and speedwise not unpar with embergen or houdini, and you can´t export results to any VDB format.


Godrays you do not need any IOR materials for, below blender setup with the wda cloud asset...

Or in Lightwave...

https://flic.kr/p/2kW7uup

 

[Qexit]

Aside from the Premium Pack, you can also download a basic Cloud Pack from the Free VDB animations page for Embergen:

https://jangafx.com/software/embergen/download/free-vdb-animations/

 

[prometheus]

Aside from the Premium Pack, you can also download a basic Cloud Pack from the Free VDB animations page for Embergen:

https://jangafx.com/software/embergen/download/free-vdb-animations/

Yes, it´s partly these ones, though I am skipping any VDB rendering of cloud volumes in lightwave, this is in blender cyclesX.
With proper light path connections and map ranging, you can push the density and scattering and adjust the depth length of the light balanced with multiple scattering to acheive that softer powder look.

I would suggest to stay away from native Lightwave rendering engine or these types of VDB renderings, with Octane however, maybe.
Those types of more lower clouds forms that works within a none destructive fractal setup and volume materials/volume items, is otherwise in my eyes better to do in Lightwave than blender, even if it lacks multiple scattering.

Hopefully there may be something enhanced with LW vollumetrics and VDB´s.
- Multiple scatter
- Speed up iteration render speed
- Multiple volume item material and VDB material change at once.
- Light path sensing, controls.

And in blender also with same VDB set from JangaFX, but a bit moonstruck, moon rendered with a lot of emission, so it took a while to solve the noise with a lot of samples, also volumetric atmosphere to scatter the emission from the moon, so that is all in render glow of the moon.

 

[inakito]

There are some pretty impressive Lightwave3D renders showcasing its new amazing Volumetric rendering capabilities.
I may be somehow biased but I don't think the blender ones as nicer than the lw3d ones.
Great work indeed!

 

[prometheus]

There are some pretty impressive Lightwave3D renders showcasing its new amazing Volumetric rendering capabilities.
I may be somehow biased but I don't think the blender ones as nicer than the lw3d ones.
Great work indeed!

Seriously doubt it, and you just don´t talk about there are nicer ones, without showing it.
You saw it, you should be able to provide a link to it.
So.. where are those? I haven´t seen any at all.

There are those doing some with octane( multiscatter is essential) that is the only one that could compete..if someone put´s some work in it..and those may not be published here..or not seen by me anyway, but native VDB..is impossible to get the same level as blender VDB.
So some octane samples may be out there, but I haven´t seen any....if you refer to native Lightwave render engine and VDB I would say it´s not possible.

so links please to that.

 

[inakito]

Seriously doubt it, and you just don´t talk about there are nicer ones, without showing it.
You saw it, you should be able to provide a link to it.
So.. where are those? I haven´t seen any at all.

There are those doing some with octane( multiscatter is essential) that is the only one that could compete..if someone put´s some work in it..and those may not be published here..or not seen by me anyway, but native VDB..is impossible to get the same level as blender VDB.
So some octane samples may be out there, but I haven´t seen any....if you refer to native Lightwave render engine and VDB I would say it´s not possible.

so links please to that.

I was referring to the ones on this thread. All the ones shown along this thread but the last blender ones. I don't like them at all, sorry

 

[prometheus]

I was referring to the ones on this thread

Ah..sorry, my mistake.
Yes, the planet clouds, that´s a bit different though, I haven´t shown any blender planet clouds at all, so we cant even compare that.
or the skyscape clouds that doesn´t necessarely ned multiple scattering, though it could help.

But for any VDB cloud, forget Lightwave native rendering of that, what I can spit out in seconds of iterations with multiple scattering with blender vdb rendering of embergen clouds for instance, would take minutes to see iterate in Lightwave, and that witthout multiple scattering.
VDB fire and smoke, explosions, you may get away with that better though.

 

[inakito]

Planet but also the clouds on their own...
I hink they are pretty good and do justice to the current shading volumetrics and rendering engine.

 

[prometheus]

this embergen cloud I simulated for instance, and blender rendered, would be impossible for me to get that look in native render engine of lightwave, despite using the same VDB file.
Though I need to check out free octane and test that.
This is using some curves, map range and light paths node output to adjust the density and ultimately how the scattering behaves with soft shadows edges, this in conjunction with a lot of volume bounces, around 50.
All that is absent in Lightwave native renders of VDB.

Cloud bottom I didn´t work on that much though, so that I need to adress..

 

[prometheus]

Planet but also cloud on their own, I think they are pretty good and so justice to the current shading volumetrics and rendering engine.

That´s because lightwave has Way better cloud fractals and other fractal types than blender, and because of the volume items is much easier to get better quality overall and to set up as opposed to blenders way of applying it to a mesh with volumetric material.

Also...volume item you can feed it´s fractal texture in to scatter, or emission channels and fake illumination or boost illumination that way.
It also includes shadow intensity controls, VDB shading do not have..so easier to get that good looking.

But This I have mentioned before, generally a skyscape with lover turbulent clouds are easier to get nice in Lightwave than in blender, while Fluid simulation high cumulus clouds with VDB´s are much better off in blender.

 

[inakito]

this embegen cloud I simulated for instance, and blender rendered, would be impossible for me to get that look in native render engine of lightwave, despite using the same VDB file.
Though I need to check out free octane and test that.

Cloud bottom I didn´t work on that much though, so that I need to adress..


View attachment 156074

I'm sorry but I prefer the ones you did in LW.
I am founding this one a bit to extreme with all that amount of scattering all around.

 

[prometheus]

I'm sorry but I prefer the ones you did in LW.
I am founding this one a bit to extreme with all that amount of scattering all around.

You can´t do that.
its completely different volume types, different cloud types as well, none is represented from lightwave for the big cloud types, and none is represented from blender for skyscapes, so you do not get to judge that properly.
They can´t be compared...you just happen to like one type of clouds, that´s it, or one image style.

 

[prometheus]

I'm sorry but I prefer the ones you did in LW.
I am founding this one a bit to extreme with all that amount of scattering all around.

Odd...I find it to be one of the better scattering models I made.
But the taste is like the butt, as we say here in Sweden, it´s divided.

and the motion is pretty nice as well..when it billows up and forms as a cloud, you can not do that with the same realism with fractals in lightwave, not a cloud forming like that, cloud moving with some fluctations is possible though..below, the fluctuation/velocity change could have been better, I know what I should have done to fix that, but haven´t had time.

But you see, these lower thinner turbulenc clouds is very different from high cumulonimbus types of clouds.

 

[prometheus]

I'm sorry but I prefer the ones you did in LW.
I am founding this one a bit to extreme with all that amount of scattering all around.

May I ask..
Which ones of the Lightwave renders do you like the best?