PDA

View Full Version : 11.5 Content Space Station weird glitches



Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 08:01 AM
In the 11.5 content, under the Instancing folder, there's a Instanced_SpaceStation folder with the Starship.lws scene which I left rendering overnight, and it rendered from frame 0 to 155 in two machines using Amleto. The only two things I changed were maximum samples to 16 and the multiplier to 100%, so the frame size is 1920x1080.

So when I put the sequence together in After Effects I noticed some weird glitches, most noticeably in the front of the larger ring, but paying close attention it shows on other areas as well. It would be difficult to explain exactly what this glitch looks like, so I just uploaded it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8dhRdhgeGU

Loading the scene in Layout again and going frame by frame I can't tell what's wrong, but there is so much wireframe from the instances that I can barely tell.

The other thing I noticed is that the stars are not visible. There is an lwo named stars, which I opened in Modeler and it's a giant sphere made of points. In the Layout scene it's listed as an object, and there are hypervoxels assigned to it, but they don't show up either in VPR or the render. If I go into perspective mode and back out a lot I can see the cage when I select the object, so it's definitely there. I took some screenshots of the HV settings so you can see and perhaps tell me what's wrong:

119970

119971

119972

119973

Thanks,

Sebastian

prometheus
02-08-2014, 08:48 AM
119974

go to volumetrics tab, and make sure the hypervoxels are activated, it was off by default...set it to on.

As for the glitches I donīt know for sure, havent rendered it out..but maybe increase minimum samples, change AA method and use classic or fixed, it could also possibly be related to the dome lights
a setting of four in the lights render panel is usually enough, but maybe you could raise that to 6-8 perhaps.
Cant tell for sure what it is though.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 09:03 AM
The stars object doesnīt seem to be usefull for final render though, it is way to small and you have points from it that intersects with the station and overlap the planet body too, so that was probably some sort of
experimental addition of the stars, it should be rescaled a lot, and placed quite a bit behind the main scene objects, stars arenīt suppose to be dotīs showing up in front of a space station or a planet :)

Michael

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 09:19 AM
119974

go to volumetrics tab, and make sure the hypervoxels are activated, it was off by default...set it to on.

As for the glitches I donīt know for sure, havent rendered it out..but maybe increase minimum samples, change AA method and use classic or fixed, it could also possibly be related to the dome lights

Thanks, but could the AA method or samples change the position of objects in some way? I mean it seems to me that the instance engine is getting confused and drawing them in different places but not in the right sequence. I'll try changing to classic or fixed just in case.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 09:23 AM
It might be something with instancing too, no idea really...try re render some frames...maybe test with settin the dome lights to 0 in angle...and as mentioned test with higher aa...but I donīt think
the aa is connected to the issues of the instancing, more likely it could be the motion itself from the instances that causes it.

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 09:59 AM
The stars object doesnīt seem to be usefull for final render though, it is way to small and you have points from it that intersects with the station and overlap the planet body too, so that was probably some sort of
experimental addition of the stars, it should be rescaled a lot, and placed quite a bit behind the main scene objects, stars arenīt suppose to be dotīs showing up in front of a space station or a planet :)

Michael

Right, wouldn't it be a better solution to have a sphere roughly the size it is now, but have particles assigned to the model? That's possible, right? That way the hypervoxels wouldn't be in the middle of the action, just around it.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 10:18 AM
Right, wouldn't it be a better solution to have a sphere roughly the size it is now, but have particles assigned to the model? That's possible, right? That way the hypervoxels wouldn't be in the middle of the action, just around it.

You can do that, but if you do not want partices, you can use the create/star sphere....I think that is what they used here, and itīs nothing wrong with it except for the scale, the star sphere creates points in the surrounding
sphere bounding box so to speak and not within the sphere, the star sphere also lets you use different magnitudes of luminosity.

if you were to do it the way you say, you have to deal with two objects, the sphere and the particles, and that means make the sphere object set to 100 dissolve and set no shadowing etc..then set particles right etc, so itīs easier to just use the star sphere command in modeler.
You could also use textured environment and some procedurals for background stars, but I would not recommend it for animations.
Basicly you should just rescale the stars in the scene, adust hv size and your done...

I think starpro also been widely used in pro-production for films..commercial plugin for lightwave...

http://www.maasdigital.com/starpro/

image below ..I just rescaled the stars in the original scene, and as you can see they are indeed spherical in their boundaries so to speak...however I noticed that since the planet has some object dissolve in the planet render properties and in itīs layers, the stars seem to shine through to much behind, so much that it looks like the stars are over the planet surface, you could set the object dissolve for the star sphere to dissolve by distance or some other trickery to avoid that.

Edit...the stars next to the planet looks like they overlap the planet surface...in VPR...might look correct in final render it seems.
Also...I think the lenflare for the sun light behind the planet should use glow behind objects, as it is now it seems like it glows to much in front of the planet.

119975

prometheus
02-08-2014, 10:49 AM
Another glitch with this scene, except for these..

1. hypervoxels not activated, turn it on in volumetrics panel.
2. star sphere too small..needs rescaling and adjustment of hv size.

3. hypervoxels do have a turbulence fractal in the luminosity channel to make the stars have different brighness, but the layer opacity is set at 200, and that makes the stars exceed some values in darkness, thus you get some stars becoming black, and in the final render they show up as dark points/splotches, so..itīs bes to set that layer opacity to 100.

4. Lensflare seem to glow too much over the planet.

Michael

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 11:33 AM
Actually I deactivated the HVs so I could focus better on that instancing problem because it's been driving me crazy and at some point I would like to use this scene for some project. I narrowed the problem to the first instance generator of the Space station wheel object, the one that is set to polygons and has 6712 instances. I've been running several renders at low resolution and AA of 96 frames isolating the different generators but also the two inside the surface generator. So after a few renders I realized that the problem is definitely the Polygons instance generator, but I still can't figure it out what's wrong, it could be because of my inexperience with Lightwave, or perhaps some other glitch. Perhaps this worked perfect in 11.5 but something changed in 11.6 that makes it go crazy like that. I changed some things in the generator but the glitch is still there and I already spent most of the morning rendering tests so I will leave this for another time. It had a crazy long number as Random Seed, I changed that to 1. I also changed all the properties that had any "Random" to "Uniform". Other than that, I have no idea what to do. I changed the camera so it's really close to the glitch area, and it's like the surface of some instances change positions between frames.

Thanks for the suggestions on the stars, that's very useful because one of the main reasons I want to use Lightwave is sci-fi related stuff, so it's good to know how to do stars properly.

Sebastian

prometheus
02-08-2014, 01:03 PM
Actually I deactivated the HVs so I could focus better on that instancing problem because it's been driving me crazy and at some point I would like to use this scene for some project. I narrowed the problem to the first instance generator of the Space station wheel object, the one that is set to polygons and has 6712 instances. I've been running several renders at low resolution and AA of 96 frames isolating the different generators but also the two inside the surface generator. So after a few renders I realized that the problem is definitely the Polygons instance generator, but I still can't figure it out what's wrong, it could be because of my inexperience with Lightwave, or perhaps some other glitch. Perhaps this worked perfect in 11.5 but something changed in 11.6 that makes it go crazy like that. I changed some things in the generator but the glitch is still there and I already spent most of the morning rendering tests so I will leave this for another time. It had a crazy long number as Random Seed, I changed that to 1. I also changed all the properties that had any "Random" to "Uniform". Other than that, I have no idea what to do. I changed the camera so it's really close to the glitch area, and it's like the surface of some instances change positions between frames.

Thanks for the suggestions on the stars, that's very useful because one of the main reasons I want to use Lightwave is sci-fi related stuff, so it's good to know how to do stars properly.

Sebastian

for scifi-space scenes...lightwave is an outstanding package for it and used widely for it, so I donīt think you can go wrong with it, and in fact might be easier and faster to work things out in Lightwave than modo for
that topic...as for now.

I promised to showcase some more voxel stuff, and I just uploaded some fiddlings and experiments on picasaweb, mind you..some renders are very poor quality and in some cases interrupted vpr renders, and thereīs a mix between using hypervoxels on particle emitters,on nulls, on vertices etc...mixing with dp_sunsky and in some cases I used volumetric lights to acheive godrays, but I wouldnīt attempt doing animated scenes with both hypervoxels and volumetric lights for godrays, you need volumetric aa for volumetric godrays to be good in quality ..and as I mentioned, you are better off saving render time to turn volumetric aa off, the lightwave team need to improve such volumetric handler in order to make use of them both in acceptable render speed.

Thereīs also some turbulenceFD stuff for testing on volumetric item etc..and theres some images/screenshots of houdini cloud fx, and thereīs a few ogo taiki renders..the only infinite procedural texture layer for clouds available for lightwave as a plugin except from crappy old skytracer and ozone.

I havenīt done any description of the stuff, so if you wanīt to know about some image and what I used or did..you have to ask..filenames arenīt correct either to match what the scene is called etc, due to how vpr saves draft renders and the naming of them.

hereīs the link to picasaweb with a lot of fiddlings and experiments,not really finished projects.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100944643113557837045/CloudsAndNebulaTests


and hereīs a little clip ...., camera aa minimum 3
3hours and 46 minutes for 101 frames, thatīs approx 1,20 min per frame and increasing to about 3.20 min per frame depending on how much of the voxels are seen.
Ridiculous flying motion, but you get the idea, I might put some cape on him and do a better motion of it later :)

http://vimeo.com/86189990

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 01:21 PM
I know, that it had been used in BSG, Iron Sky, Defiance and some others was one of the main reasons I bought it. In fact I wouldn't even know what it is if it hadn't been mentioned in one of the BSG Blu-ray extras.

Those renders are really awesome, I love the nebulas. However, how much of that is just Lightwave and how much is with Turbulence FD?


I like the guy flying up the clouds, those clouds look really good, if you wouldn't mind sending me the scene just so I can see the settings I would appreciate it.

The Hypervoxels presets I get with F8 in Lightwave are barely OK, but they don't look too realistic. The nebulas and clouds you have in that Picasa album look way better, but I don't know how much of that is done using Turbulence FD.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 01:31 PM
I know, that it had been used in BSG, Iron Sky, Defiance and some others was one of the main reasons I bought it. In fact I wouldn't even know what it is if it hadn't been mentioned in one of the BSG Blu-ray extras.

Those renders are really awesome, I love the nebulas. However, how much of that is just Lightwave and how much is with Turbulence FD?



I like the guy flying up the clouds, those clouds look really good, if you wouldn't mind sending me the scene just so I can see the settings I would appreciate it.

The Hypervoxels presets I get with F8 in Lightwave are barely OK, but they don't look too realistic. The nebulas and clouds you have in that Picasa album look way better, but I don't know how much of that is done using Turbulence FD.

The nebulas are all hypervoxels, some sprites, some are mixes between sprites and volumetric lights..volumetric lights with sprite mode on, and textures in volumetric lights, a few of them are using volumetric modes..so none of the nebulas are turbulenceFd, you can do it all with hypervoxels and volumetric lights.
hypervoxels sprites and volumetric ligths in sprite mode renders very fast.

Michael

- - - Updated - - -


I know, that it had been used in BSG, Iron Sky, Defiance and some others was one of the main reasons I bought it. In fact I wouldn't even know what it is if it hadn't been mentioned in one of the BSG Blu-ray extras.

Those renders are really awesome, I love the nebulas. However, how much of that is just Lightwave and how much is with Turbulence FD?




I like the guy flying up the clouds, those clouds look really good, if you wouldn't mind sending me the scene just so I can see the settings I would appreciate it.

The Hypervoxels presets I get with F8 in Lightwave are barely OK, but they don't look too realistic. The nebulas and clouds you have in that Picasa album look way better, but I don't know how much of that is done using Turbulence FD.

well ...no, that cloud flying scene I will not send, takes a lot of work, some things I have given away, but not this one, advices I can give.

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 01:34 PM
well ...no, that cloud flying scene I will not send, takes a lot of work, some things I have given away, but not this one, advices I can give.

No problem, I understand, but I would like to know if in this case the clouds were also done only with Hypervoxels, no Turbulence FD?

prometheus
02-08-2014, 01:35 PM
The flying clip was to show you rendertime, that rendertime for 101 frames isnīt bad, I didnīt use full quality in aa and hypervoxels or a full hd render, but similar things could take ages in vue for example...even though vue is quite fast..but
broadcast quality in vue for clouds and in higher resolution, you can excpet 45 minutes or up to hours for a single frame, in this case it took a couple of minutes in lightwave for each frame.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 01:37 PM
No problem, I understand, but I would like to know if in this case the clouds were also done only with Hypervoxels, no Turbulence FD?

Also only hypervoxels, volume mode, no volumetric aa, medium render quality, no textured shadow, a lot of ambient lighting, some local density dissolve..the rest is a lot of tweaking and balance between thickness opacity and right amount of shadow strengh,and some local density luminosity.

we still need a fix on thickness channel for hypervoxels...It doesnīt work as it should..as it doesnīt work at all, same goes with falloff.
I wish I had some of the newer voxel stuff in modo though, they seem smoother in blending and edges/thickness.

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 01:42 PM
we still need a fix on thickness channel for hypervoxels...It doesnīt work as it should..as it doesnīt work at all, same goes with falloff.
I wish I had some of the newer voxel stuff in modo though, they seem smoother in blending and edges/thickness.

It seems that way to me too, which is why I was surprised to see the stuff you did with Lightwave Hypervoxels, it seems much smoother than those presets, and I tried smoothing them but I didn't get great results.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 01:54 PM
It seems that way to me too, which is why I was surprised to see the stuff you did with Lightwave Hypervoxels, it seems much smoother than those presets, and I tried smoothing them but I didn't get great results.

add a local density gradient in the dissolve channel...the voxel volume might be reduced a little, but you can adjust that by increasing density instead, this trick is helpful to smooth hypervoxels, but it should be located in the
thickness channel I think, dissolve can sometimes give artifacts over the whole density volume..so one has to be careful with it, it would be best if we could have a density curve function for smoothing out the hypertextures falloff or thickness.
CloudFX in houdini does this kind of density smoothing brilliant....and thus using houdini for cloud effects in superman movies isnīt a surprise, but thatīs just one part of the story.

See image of how to smooth it out...smoothness might help too, but it also increases rendertime, and might change overall look too much.
119983

Michael

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 01:57 PM
Thanks Michael, great stuff. I'll give it a try later.

prometheus
02-08-2014, 02:46 PM
I did some small caption description in my gallery, so you can see a little of what I used, if it was hypervoxels, volumetric lights or ogo taiki or turbulenceFD, and did some re arrange of them.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100944643113557837045/CloudsAndNebulaTests

turbulenceFD experiments was only on six images.

I suggest you also look up erikals youtube videos on ogo taiki, and check Mercury3d videos on youtube and his turbulenceFD cloud sample.

To be honest though, I think modoīs voxels might have surpassed lightwave hypervoxels as of today, maybe it might be easier and faster to setup in lightwave, little has been seen from the modo community, and maybe not many people are using it... and also using it correctly, but given time I think we migh see some very good stuff from them too.
And I still have to install that awful 15 day trial of latest modo version before I can tell for sure, what I have seen in blending modeīs and type of items to apply too, and light control, they seem to be more advanced though.

this thread has now officially gone off topic :)

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 02:51 PM
That's very useful, I'll definitely look into that. One thing that Lightwave has that I wish Modo did is lens flares. I have Video Copilot's Optical Flares, but I don't like doing too much in post when it comes to placing things in 3D space.

Now, to do clouds, I assume you start with Puffy Clouds, or something else?

Sebasvideo
02-08-2014, 05:55 PM
I spent a while trying to get a nice looking cloud, using some of your suggestions and tweaking what I didn't know. I got a fairly decent result, but it seems to me that Modo is better at Hypervoxels. It took me a lot of time in Lightwave to tweak the settings to get to something close to a cloud, but in Modo it was just a few things and that was it. But more importantly, the rendering time is much faster to get the same result. The Lightwave render, using Amleto to slice it so I could use two computers, took 30 minutes and 19 seconds, while the Modo render took 6 minutes and 14 seconds. Both had similar hypervoxels settings, Render quality to "Very Good" in both (actually in Modo is called "Best", but regardless or name, both are the highest setting), and volumetric shadows were set to medium in Lightwave and "Very Good" in Modo, which would be "Good" in Lightwave. So Modo's settings were a notch higher for volumetric shadows, and still rendered in less than one third the time Lightwave did.

Lightwave render:

119990

Modo render:

119991

I'm not saying this to upset anybody, to brag about Modo or anything, perhaps my test is not totally accurate, I'm just talking about my findings.

prometheus
02-09-2014, 08:23 AM
I spent a while trying to get a nice looking cloud, using some of your suggestions and tweaking what I didn't know. I got a fairly decent result, but it seems to me that Modo is better at Hypervoxels. It took me a lot of time in Lightwave to tweak the settings to get to something close to a cloud, but in Modo it was just a few things and that was it. But more importantly, the rendering time is much faster to get the same result. The Lightwave render, using Amleto to slice it so I could use two computers, took 30 minutes and 19 seconds, while the Modo render took 6 minutes and 14 seconds. Both had similar hypervoxels settings, Render quality to "Very Good" in both (actually in Modo is called "Best", but regardless or name, both are the highest setting), and volumetric shadows were set to medium in Lightwave and "Very Good" in Modo, which would be "Good" in Lightwave. So Modo's settings were a notch higher for volumetric shadows, and still rendered in less than one third the time Lightwave did.

Lightwave render:

119990

Modo render:

119991

I'm not saying this to upset anybody, to brag about Modo or anything, perhaps my test is not totally accurate, I'm just talking about my findings.


I donīt know what you used here, points, particles, nulls? equal amount of particles in lightwave vs modo?
Iīt doesnīt take me that long to set up a cloud type voxel in lightwave, but that is because I know them quite well..and I think I got a general good eye to match how they actually look to some degee.

Anyway, you might be right that for someone not custom to it, modo might be easier to set up, but I canīt tell since I still havenīt got it installed...but as mentioned, modoīs newly implemented voxels did go further
than what we got in lightwave hypervoxels now, the blending mode in modo Is better between each particle or two voxels on nulls for instance, and modoīs voxels can be applied on full geometry ..which should be able to produce better cloud formation than lightwave can produce today.

As I mentioned before...Lightwave just recently introduced a blending mode for hyperoxels volume, which before was only available in surface mode, to my discovery I was very dissapointed with it, it doesnīt do much for
the look of it, and you can just as good do without it, it should look like the old dynamite plugin for lighwave, it had this nice blending tension between two hv volumes or particles, it was a bit slow though.I think that is a problem they are facing...anyway, modo seem to have similar blending like dynamite and they are smoother than hypervoxels in lightwave.
so there are three or four or more features in modo voxels that are much better, depending on your project you might as well work with modo to get to know them, and maybe alternativly test lightwave from time to time.
modo also uses shadow maps which renders faster..and maybe improved on the calculating algorithms for it.


All this might change for the next lightwave...I do hope so, because otherwise both houdini,cinema4d and modo will leave lightwave behind in the volumetric department...and that I will not have patience with.
Did you turn of volumetric aa? as I mentioned regarding my clip on vimeo of the guy in the clouds, it took around 1 min 20 seconds to 3 min 20 seconds per frame and rendered out 101 frames within 3 hours and 38 minutes.

That isnīt so bad in render times, in fact trying to render clouds with houdiniīs mantra (which is said to be fast for volumetrics) it was much slower..but itīs so different in system since I used the cloud fx tools, and the openGL preview is REal time which is fantastic....but starting the render in houdini is a Joke, it takes almost a minute for it to even start the renderer, and then not so fast to render if you want to get rid of noise, lightwave starts to render directly..and this confuses me why houdini does that.

I need to clear some space on my harddrive then Iīll try to test modo again, but another reason I havenīt tested it..that is becuase of the lousy 15 day limit demo, I will hardly be able to evaluate it enough.

For clouds hypertextures I generally use turbulence, that was used for the clip of the guy in the clouds, the only fractal that generates a good edge of the clouds, gardner clouds, fbm, turbulence noise, flow noise is interesting too, but mostly for such billowing thick volume clouds, they do not produce good enough edges as seen in real life clouds.

Helios is a plugin coming to vue for much better clouds, I think itīs just been released..so I have my eyes on that, it will face difficulties like the other workflow with vue Xstream and lightwave together etc.

Dax Pandhi Is behind that one...
http://www.quadspinner.com/helios/
Dax Pandhi google..
https://www.google.se/search?q=dax+pandhi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=I533Uv7iMYK8ygPuw4HwDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1760&bih=804

By the way, not sure what look youré after, but I would make the clouds thicker or with more density, also install the free dp_pont renderman collection for textures and dp_sunsky
I used that a lot in my images as you could see, dp_sunsky is fast, and you get additional lights suitable for a sun.
After installing you go to lights panel and choose the Sk_sunlight, I would suggest checking the "use manual" that means you can control the sun position with lighwaves native rotation tool, otherwise
you have to set it by location and longitude etc...which I find harder to use.

For hypervoxels I recommend make use of the random sizing, you need to get different scale in the volume or it will look to uniform and not natural, you could also do that with the use of textures
in (hv)particle size.

You donīt have to excuse yourself about bragging of modo, itīs a fact as I have seen in results, modo voxels have made some enhancements that current lightwave voxels donīt have...but everything
changes in time, so we have to wait and see:)
I didnīt know modo didnīt got lensflares yet? is that really so...what the other got the other donīt:) how typical.

Michael

prometheus
02-09-2014, 09:03 AM
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=120000&d=1391961666

120000


frame extracted from the clip, the frame res at 1536x642, cam aa 3, one, distant light and one light dome for ambient occlusion lighting 90 degree angle, which means the need of higher light aa set at 4 samples.
Medium quality in both render and shadow quality, high ambient light setting for the hvīs, turbulenceFD used as procedural, depending on choice of procedural it could affect rendertimes a lot.

200 particles and the particle container was 50 meter in height, for this focal view it works, but if you want to zoom out or pan you would need a larger size and more particles.
Hv size was fairly small since I have a few of them, 2 meters roughly..but with a random size of 204.5, which means they are bigger than 2 meters in some places.

For these frames, I would like to get even better edge smoothing(preferably directly in lightwave) and you can for instance raise render quality to very good which helps that, but increases rendertime of course..but I think modo seem to have a better smoothing of itīs voxel engine.

I would also like to get deeper shadow for more pronounced cloud, but just a little...not too much, the problem is whit lightwave blending mode and shadowīs it will appear around each particle instead
of larger cloud volume areas, thus I am very careful and only have a small amount of shadow strength and a lot of ambient light going on, you could try and fake with distance to object in luminosity then
add another turbulence layer affecting that to give variations over the whole volume and not only per particle basis.

Modo seem to have implemented mie scattering, I donīt know that much about it, but it should be a better method of light scattering for clouds..but I donīt know really.


rendertime somewhere between 1.20-3 minutes for this frame, (3 hours 38min for 101 frames) so how you end up with splitting the render on two computers and end up with 30 minutes?... I donīt know., kill volumetric AA as I mentioned, turn of textured shadows..find a balance between amount of particles and hv size, and avoid using all lights, or two lights, one light is enough for most cases unless you need lightning from true light sources within the cloud.

Mr Rid has done some nice samples too, and he often simply renders out the hv cloud or smoke effects in lower resolution and scale up, to get faster renders and the scaling helps smoothing out, I am not so experienced with that workflow and prefer true scale for interaction with other elements, but it might be good to look into for some situations when you can do it that way.

image and clip rendered on my laptop, it would have been much faster on my desktop, still down for the moment..so I could cut the rendertimes much more.

Michael

Sebasvideo
02-09-2014, 10:47 AM
Thanks Michael, lots of great information to assimilate and test things, too much to get back to you in one reply, but just briefly I wanted to mention that you're absolutely right in that Turbulence as a procedural texture is a much better choice than Puffy Clouds; I changed it in my cloud scene and I was able to get a much better looking cloud, and this even setting the quality to medium. In the cloud I did yesterday I forgot to check off the volumetric AA.

So today I changed to Turbulence, set it to medium, turned off Volumetric AA, did just a couple of other tweaks and got this:

120002

The best part is, this took like 11 seconds to render with just my main machine and it looks quite decent for a cloud. Turning on Volumetric AA took 1m and 18 secs but the render as far as I can tell is identical. I kept going back and forth between both and I can't tell the difference:

120001

prometheus
02-09-2014, 12:42 PM
Thanks Michael, lots of great information to assimilate and test things, too much to get back to you in one reply, but just briefly I wanted to mention that you're absolutely right in that Turbulence as a procedural texture is a much better choice than Puffy Clouds; I changed it in my cloud scene and I was able to get a much better looking cloud, and this even setting the quality to medium. In the cloud I did yesterday I forgot to check off the volumetric AA.

So today I changed to Turbulence, set it to medium, turned off Volumetric AA, did just a couple of other tweaks and got this:

120002

The best part is, this took like 11 seconds to render with just my main machine and it looks quite decent for a cloud. Turning on Volumetric AA took 1m and 18 secs but the render as far as I can tell is identical. I kept going back and forth between both and I can't tell the difference:

120001


Strange I donīt get any mails for the update of just this particular thread, I could answer faster otherwise:)
have to check the settings for the thread.

And yes, volumetric AA Is very hard to spot any difference between with or without, thus itīs better off, but if using volumetric lights with hypervoxels, you need to have it on, or you will get poor quality in volumetric lights.
so these samples are impossible without the volumetric AA for godrays when using volumetric light and hypervoxels, and that means extremly long rendertimes for such things, and you can expect 45 minutes to hours of rendering for a single frame, but then we are matching roughly rendertimes in vue which needs a certain level of aa to get rid of noise in godrays too, and thus you end up with renders of 45 minutes and hours just the same.

Enhancements of using volumetric lights and hypervoxels would be nice, but Im not sure which other software would handle all those volumetric elements much better?
have you tested modo and add some point cluster or a particle emitter and add a volumetric light and having them cast a shadows and godrays from the gaps in the clouds?
interesting to see how that looks and rendertimes.

I did check modo gallery for clouds, and there are to my surprise very little in that area, maybe the new voxel system is too new so we have to wait before some guys becomes comfortable with it?
Some cool stuff with the volumetric item though, where you can turn any object volumetric(the blanc aeroplane commercial)...and that is what Ivé been shouting for to come to lightwave...for years, but nada so far.

Filling an aeroplane with particles and then use hypervoxels will not be able to match up the quality and look of rendering volumes in shape forms..that is way we need volumetric items such as modo has.

There is a fill solid tool..which is a little hidden, go to modeler menu setup and search for fill solid and put it under create/points...you can use any geometry and fill it with points...it should be enhanced though, you have no good control
of how many points you add, and to fill it with a lot of points you have to run it several times, and there is no tool to erase points with a brush either, so you have manually delete by different selection methods, which is annoying.
Erase points brush please.

images...hypervoxels clouds on particles, volumetric lights for godrays...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sq1ESuTKqoI/UvZ9TLXMT5I/AAAAAAAACJ8/4-VlmODEHUo/s1024/sunsky%2520setups%2520v134.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-b2BFI2PfE9U/UvZ84IU2nXI/AAAAAAAACJs/f7WgXxBtyuU/s1440/volumetric%2520ray%2520test%2520godrays%2520v042.j pg


These latest post should be moved to some of my cloud threads I posted before maybe...it doesnīt fit the thread question anymore:)

Michael

jwiede
02-09-2014, 02:29 PM
Michael, is there a thread where you describe your Ogo-Taiki settings and experiments? I finally gave in an purchased a license (even if it means having to switch to Windows to run it -- shame there isn't a MacUB64 version), based largely on some of the stuff you've shown from it, and its site's examples of volumetric atmospherics (the setting sun one, in particular).

As for modo, digging into its volumetrics is on my todo list, but got pushed behind MeshFusion... :devil:

prometheus
02-09-2014, 02:54 PM
Michael, is there a thread where you describe your Ogo-Taiki settings and experiments? I finally gave in an purchased a license (even if it means having to switch to Windows to run it -- shame there isn't a MacUB64 version), based largely on some of the stuff you've shown from it, and its site's examples of volumetric atmospherics (the setting sun one, in particular).

As for modo, digging into its volumetrics is on my todo list, but got pushed behind MeshFusion... :devil:

Nope...I donīt have any direct description of settings or direct tips on it really, just showcased images as far as I know,

I would have to revisit them and disect and get back, but donīt know if I have time to do so in the nearest future, depends on.
Any particular image you were thinking of,easier for me to track down maybe....imageīs posted above are all hypervoxels and dp_sunsky...but some images in the picasaweb gallery is marked with the caption ogo taiki, so those
are done with that.
I have two or three issues with working with ogo taiki..

1. user interface with to many quality settings to adjust.
2.user interace with layers in a drop down list instead of the workflow of having them available like in vue or ozone...though ozone has too many other stuff I donīt like...compared to ogo taiki.
3. Itīs hard to set up air properties ...and itīs not really a spectral model ..i think as dp_sunsky is...but sunsky isnīt volumetric...so were lost on both in some ways.

Hereīs some ogo taiki samples..
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mVrJdkPAW-0/UvZ_YOe37nI/AAAAAAAACM8/ZHjeXJPu85A/s1280/world%2520machine%2520terrain%2520cloud%2520and%25 20shadow000_004%2520%25282%2529.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-P9dNo1Qiiug/UvZ_GZyHqKI/AAAAAAAACL8/4a8BdhrOfqM/s1152/ogo%2520taiki%25202.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ht2WEv6Fdno/UvZ_TqYsLyI/AAAAAAAACMk/gwy3Q1u3JcQ/s908/world%2520machine%2520terrain%2520cloud%2520and%25 20shadow000_002.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5ZDd2fp9IxU/UvZ_Jo6ltPI/AAAAAAAACME/e6egeBtKGAI/s1152/ogo%2520taiki%25205%252021min%252021%2520sec%2520a a%25203.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-lWya0GRn1MA/UvZ_DlEblgI/AAAAAAAACL0/8r9pRyClwS0/s1152/ogo%2520godrays.jpg

The first and the last one are showing to low quality settings...the others are better, at the same time I wasnīt pleased with the air properties..and I would need to get a better blend in the horizon etc, what also could help...that would be infinite ground planes if lightwave could make a button for that...might work with a ridiculously large poly too maybe:)

prometheus
02-09-2014, 02:59 PM
I would like to see 64 bit version, since turbulenceFD now is only 64 bit, you canīt combine ogo taiki and turbulenceFD sadly, or you have to use an instable turbulenceFD older version together with turbulenceFD, and thereīs
nothing to like about that.

Best is if the lightwave group extract all the best stuff of the ogo taiki tech and make something new, or if they could get hold of the creator of ogo taiki and buy it ..if it is possible.
I have forwarded my complaints over ozone not being what I think it should be to the e-on team, and they replied and thanked and stated my points should be forwarded to the e-on ozone team...so I still have hopeīs for that..but itīs a long
list of stuff ogo taiki can do which ozone canīt, and I donīt think they can pull it off to work with particles and with lightwave procedural textures as ogo taiki can.