PDA

View Full Version : Snow rock preset for ordinary polygon objects ?.



cove
04-06-2016, 02:37 PM
View image attatched.
After placing a "particle emitter" into the layout scene and activating it in Hypervoxels i then made the particles
quite large so the particles mesh together.
I then opened the "hyper voxels" presets panel [Rock folder] and applied the preset called "Rock_wSnow".
When i apply this preset to the particles i get what i think is a great snowy rock surface.
Unfortunately there is not an equivelent preset that makes such a good snow rock effect in my presets/rock folder
that you have open when applying presets to regular polygon objects eg. landscapes.

Have tried various rock type presets and also tried texture/gradient/slope but none look any were near as good as
the "Rock_wSnow" hypervoxels preset that is avaialable for the partical emitter.

Anyone know of a preset that can do the same as "Rock_wSnow" when applied to a polygon object? [free or commercial].

[Polygon objects i have in mind to use a dedicated preset are landscape meshes that i can load into layout via "Lightwave ground control plugin"].
Thanks for any info.

JoePoe
04-06-2016, 04:43 PM
Looks to be made up of only two things in voxel settings. So not too hard to copy over into the Surface Editor.
1) Gradient on color
2) Dented procedural on bump (I changed the power setting a bit)

(whoops: the dialog boxes are switched. Voxels are the bottom object)

133313

erikals
04-06-2016, 05:18 PM
cool, didn't know always used Gradient Slope Angle,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQobZj8Xx1s

nice share JoePoe   http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

JoePoe
04-06-2016, 06:35 PM
Thanks? :)

The Color is a Slope gradient.
I even think Cove can copy/paste it from Voxels to S Editor.

Bump will require replication. But for the most part at default settings.

:jam:

prometheus
04-06-2016, 09:17 PM
copy slope to surface will work, but whatīmakes the snow looks so nice is the detail of the dented hypertexture, this is tricker to replicate with slope since it would need very high displacement level, or you could use bump for the surface detail, but then you canīt use slope...rather bump in the color channel, and it will yield a more flatter look.

once microdisplacement or something like the octane surface displamement is in place, then it would be really really nice.

cove
04-07-2016, 03:40 AM
JoePoe erikals prometheus
Thanks every one for info/image illustration/link to video.
Never thought to simply copy setting over to texture mode!.

JoePoe
Great that you provided an image showing comparison/settings.
Should make it fairly easy for me to get similar results with
polygon objects.
Will try things out on a craggy asteroid type object first.
When i get the snow rock effect that i want ill then try the settings on
one of my densly polygoned landscape objects.
Will be interesting to see how the snow rock effect looks on a large densly polygoned object.
I suspect that i may have to use only a section of a lanscape for better effect we will see.
Looking forward to testing things out.

prometheus
04-07-2016, 10:05 AM
JoePoe erikals prometheus
Thanks every one for info/image illustration/link to video.
Never thought to simply copy setting over to texture mode!.

JoePoe
Great that you provided an image showing comparison/settings.
Should make it fairly easy for me to get similar results with
polygon objects.
Will try things out on a craggy asteroid type object first.
When i get the snow rock effect that i want ill then try the settings on
one of my densly polygoned landscape objects.
Will be interesting to see how the snow rock effect looks on a large densly polygoned object.
I suspect that i may have to use only a section of a lanscape for better effect we will see.
Looking forward to testing things out.


thereīs also an option to add particles to your object or us the objects vertices to serve the hvīs, so your dressing the object with hypervoxels.

though it might be a lot slower to render, and trickier to use...so maybe not.

cove
04-08-2016, 07:25 AM
thereīs also an option to add particles to your object or us the objects vertices to serve the hvīs, so your dressing the object with hypervoxels.

though it might be a lot slower to render, and trickier to use...so maybe not.

Sorry for the late reply been busy.
Will try out your suggestion as soon as i have time.

prometheus
04-08-2016, 08:17 AM
Sorry for the late reply been busy.
Will try out your suggestion as soon as i have time.


Not sure I should recommend it, you need to understand the ins and outs of the hvīs in order to not get too heavy renders..and in order to get a proper hv surface, However..it may be good to know the principle and in some cases it may work for some special snow parts or rock type etc..a full landscape..not so sure, I made some yesterday..might show later, but I then went on to work with standard surface..which I think is more acceptable.
for hvīs ..you need to find the balance and keep the subdiv patch level to a minimum..while still having enough so you donīt need to large hv size for them to blend properly...hv blending must be on as well.
There may be situations where you only want a small part of snow...on a cliff or on a roof etc..from such scene case, one can copy a part of that object area..paste to another layer in modeler and increase points if needed, then in layout add voxels to that...or use particles on it.

got some things to do today..so not sure I can manage to post the image samples today though.

Michael

cove
04-09-2016, 04:24 PM
Not sure I should recommend it, you need to understand the ins and outs of the hvīs in order to not get too heavy renders..and in order to get a proper hv surface, However..it may be good to know the principle and in some cases it may work for some special snow parts or rock type etc..a full landscape..not so sure, I made some yesterday..might show later, but I then went on to work with standard surface..which I think is more acceptable.
for hvīs ..you need to find the balance and keep the subdiv patch level to a minimum..while still having enough so you donīt need to large hv size for them to blend properly...hv blending must be on as well.
There may be situations where you only want a small part of snow...on a cliff or on a roof etc..from such scene case, one can copy a part of that object area..paste to another layer in modeler and increase points if needed, then in layout add voxels to that...or use particles on it.

got some things to do today..so not sure I can manage to post the image samples today though.

Michael

See what you mean by how difficult it can be to get good looking results with hypervoxels on a large landscape just did not work for me.
So decided to keep things simply as possible as id noticed that when the hypervoxels were sized up but not altogether joined up the
underlying landscape polygon showed through as flat areas inbetween the gaps. I then saw these flat parts as areas of water. Also i
realised that you do not have to create any kind of proper landscapes just an ordinary flat square will be ok as you can move it up or
down if needed to have larger or smaller flat areas show through the hypervoxels as well as being able to resize the particles with the
same effect.
The 2 images provided show what i managed to create and the parameters used.

The sky/rocky landscape/water effect do not quite gell together but i know i can do better. Thought this first effort was good enough
to post as an example of whats possible.
Could not have all panels open in the setting image.
So Surface texture for Landscape is------
Texture color/procedural/procedural type/Coriolis
Texture color 085 085 085 [fairly dark grey].
Finally i used a flat 200x200 polygon square that allowed the displacment map to distort the polygon in such a way that it helped to
create the wave efffect you see in the image plus turned up surface reflection to 50.5. so the rocks show a bit in the water.
Looking forward to seeing any images you have time to provide but do not worry if you don,t have enought time as i appreciate now
how much time is invloved and im perfectly happy with the advice/info you and others gave as ive learned a lot as a result.

prometheus
04-10-2016, 09:45 AM
See what you mean by how difficult it can be to get good looking results with hypervoxels on a large landscape just did not work for me.
So decided to keep things simply as possible as id noticed that when the hypervoxels were sized up but not altogether joined up the
underlying landscape polygon showed through as flat areas inbetween the gaps. I then saw these flat parts as areas of water. Also i
realised that you do not have to create any kind of proper landscapes just an ordinary flat square will be ok as you can move it up or
down if needed to have larger or smaller flat areas show through the hypervoxels as well as being able to resize the particles with the
same effect.
The 2 images provided show what i managed to create and the parameters used.

The sky/rocky landscape/water effect do not quite gell together but i know i can do better. Thought this first effort was good enough
to post as an example of whats possible.
Could not have all panels open in the setting image.
So Surface texture for Landscape is------
Texture color/procedural/procedural type/Coriolis
Texture color 085 085 085 [fairly dark grey].
Finally i used a flat 200x200 polygon square that allowed the displacment map to distort the polygon in such a way that it helped to
create the wave efffect you see in the image plus turned up surface reflection to 50.5. so the rocks show a bit in the water.
Looking forward to seeing any images you have time to provide but do not worry if you don,t have enought time as i appreciate now
how much time is invloved and im perfectly happy with the advice/info you and others gave as ive learned a lot as a result.

Looking good..but I donīt understand what you are trying to show..I can see clearly that the snow is hypervoxels, so why do you show standard surface settings? except if you just wanted to show the water surface that is?
Hvīs in this example is also giving the terrain itīs shape, not properly following a geometric polygon deformation(or you must have used nulls blended)..while I was refering it to use it more as surface detail.
But as you noticed..itīs not easy if you do not now how to use the hv scale..blending proper with the right balance of setting proper amount of subdiv levels to get enought vertices needed for the hvīs.

these images..not particulary good though, but you can see it aproximatly ..I turned the actual object to be 100% dissolve, so there is no polygon surface rendered here..itīs all just hypervoxels...but after some considerations I might be proned to advice to discard it for using on a full surface, it doesnīt work quite the same as if you would use full scale voxels...in fact your sample is looking better in terms of detail bump, since you have mor volume to the voxels, where mine is much more blended together with a lot of vertices..which may overide that volume detail effect, on the other hand..your voxels do not follow the designed poly terrain, it seems to act just as a placement tool in your case.

133369

133370'

133371

cove
04-10-2016, 04:38 PM
Looking good..but I donīt understand what you are trying to show..I can see clearly that the snow is hypervoxels, so why do you show standard surface settings? except if you just wanted to show the water surface that is?
Hvīs in this example is also giving the terrain itīs shape, not properly following a geometric polygon deformation(or you must have used nulls blended)..while I was refering it to use it more as surface detail.
But as you noticed..itīs not easy if you do not now how to use the hv scale..blending proper with the right balance of setting proper amount of subdiv levels to get enought vertices needed for the hvīs.

these images..not particulary good though, but you can see it aproximatly ..I turned the actual object to be 100% dissolve, so there is no polygon surface rendered here..itīs all just hypervoxels...but after some considerations I might be proned to advice to discard it for using on a full surface, it doesnīt work quite the same as if you would use full scale voxels...in fact your sample is looking better in terms of detail bump, since you have mor volume to the voxels, where mine is much more blended together with a lot of vertices..which may overide that volume detail effect, on the other hand..your voxels do not follow the designed poly terrain, it seems to act just as a placement tool in your case.

133369

133370'

133371

I think i just lost my way trying to get particles/hypervoxels and a landscape objects to work together.
So tried creating a rockysnow lake or shoreline scene and ended up with the image posted.
The nice example images you have posted show exactly what id like to create myself.
Now that i can see that it can be done and with the added info in your text im going to try again.
Have now put all your info/advice/comments into a text file so i can more easily refer to how to proceed.
The incentive for persevearing to get a nice snowy rock scenes is that i used to do a lot of fell walking
and remember well some of the winter scenes that i hiked through.
Especially the view of the pinnicles [several rocky outcrops] in the Langedale valley and elsewear.
Not only that i have a folder with .hgt maps covering the north west of England
[lake district area] and hope to find amongst them specific landscapes that ive hiked through.
So lots of incentive here to keep trying for good results but obviously may take me some time.
Have the patience to persevere though.
Patience developed while waiting for a new posts to arrive in the "NEXT" lightwave blogg.
Ive got the patience of a saint now, as they say, and ive got the halo above my head to prove it. :angel: :D
Also don,t forget there,s a new particle system in the "NEXT" lightwave with a new way to manipulate
particle/hypervoxeel effects. Can,t wait to try it out.
Thanks again for help provided much appreciated.

prometheus
04-10-2016, 07:39 PM
I think i just lost my way trying to get particles/hypervoxels and a landscape objects to work together.


That is probably why itīs not working for the whole surface...you tried particles instead of applying the hypervoxels directly on the terrain/vertices.
Particles will be good if you want to place clusters with particles birthrate and image maps, a mud pool, or certain snowy or rocky parts, but using particles on a full surface will distribute particles randomly..so you would probably have a hard time with gaps etc, you also need to be aware of the difference betwee display subpatch level which vpr uses, and the render subpatch level which the final render uses, so those need to be matching.

using hypervoxels directly on the subpatch object, it lets you control amount of vertices when you raise or lower subpatch level of the terrain object..if it is subpatched that is, so there is a balance between having enough...but not to dense subpatch..and then let the hv size and blending size do itīs work to blend together.

Another tip if you just want certain parts of a mesh with snow, you can paint those areas with weight maps in modeler, then apply hypervoxels on the painted weight area, unfortunatly there is this workflow issue modeler/vs layout here..you canīt use displacement map in layout on the object then trying to paint in areas with weights, since modeler has no way of recognizing layout displacement, and the other way around..layout has no weight paint brush or ways to display the map properly..so this is a case of lack of scene context editing of model/paint operations.
So what you have to do is deform the mesh in modeler, at least the underlying main shape, or freeze displacement in layout and then to modeler..paint, then back to layout again.

If you want to use painted weight maps in layout..the UI of applying hvīs to weight painted areas of a model isnīt very good, I hope they can improve that..but I reckon someone needs to make them aware of it...you might think that adding a particle weight gradient
in the hv particle size would do, but no..you have to go to the objects deform tab..double click the hvParticles..only then will you be presented with the settings for setting the particle weight, check it and choose weight map from there, but you still need the gradient in the particle hv size too...itīs a workflow mess.



Also don,t forget there,s a new particle system in the "NEXT" lightwave with a new way to manipulate
particle/hypervoxeel effects. Can,t wait to try it out.
Thanks again for help provided much appreciated.

Yes..will be interesting to see about the new volumetrics.

cove
04-11-2016, 02:58 PM
That is probably why itīs not working for the whole surface...you tried particles instead of applying the hypervoxels directly on the terrain/vertices.
Particles will be good if you want to place clusters with particles birthrate and image maps, a mud pool, or certain snowy or rocky parts, but using particles on a full surface will distribute particles randomly..so you would probably have a hard time with gaps etc, you also need to be aware of the difference betwee display subpatch level which vpr uses, and the render subpatch level which the final render uses, so those need to be matching.

using hypervoxels directly on the subpatch object, it lets you control amount of vertices when you raise or lower subpatch level of the terrain object..if it is subpatched that is, so there is a balance between having enough...but not to dense subpatch..and then let the hv size and blending size do itīs work to blend together.

Another tip if you just want certain parts of a mesh with snow, you can paint those areas with weight maps in modeler, then apply hypervoxels on the painted weight area, unfortunatly there is this workflow issue modeler/vs layout here..you canīt use displacement map in layout on the object then trying to paint in areas with weights, since modeler has no way of recognizing layout displacement, and the other way around..layout has no weight paint brush or ways to display the map properly..so this is a case of lack of scene context editing of model/paint operations.
So what you have to do is deform the mesh in modeler, at least the underlying main shape, or freeze displacement in layout and then to modeler..paint, then back to layout again.

If you want to use painted weight maps in layout..the UI of applying hvīs to weight painted areas of a model isnīt very good, I hope they can improve that..but I reckon someone needs to make them aware of it...you might think that adding a particle weight gradient
in the hv particle size would do, but no..you have to go to the objects deform tab..double click the hvParticles..only then will you be presented with the settings for setting the particle weight, check it and choose weight map from there, but you still need the gradient in the particle hv size too...itīs a workflow mess.



Yes..will be interesting to see about the new volumetrics.

This is turning into a Master class.
How can i go wrong!!! say,s i hopefully.

Seriously though.
Your advice to use particles directly on objects is well noted and with additional info will act upon it.
I had originaly tried this on a few .hgt maps but after applying the rocksnow preset
the effect was that the texture was so densly spread over the surface and just looked
very finely granulated so saw this aproach as a none starter with respect to large
landscapes. But applying ordinary texture/gradient/slope does give some decent results with large landscapes but not with the sort of detail that the rocksnow preset gives.
Seems ill need to use only a particular section of a .hgt landscape and if needed to reduce the Poygon count even further using the Reduce Polys +
feature. I can only then turn it into a subpatched polygon and have the variation in
SubPatch level control that you refer to.

This has become a challenge now that i want to persue to the end.
Just wondering now wether i will get some good results that i can post
before the "NEXT" version of Lightwave is released [looks to be not that far off now]. The race is on. :)

prometheus
04-11-2016, 06:15 PM
This is turning into a Master class.
How can i go wrong!!! say,s i hopefully.

Seriously though.
Your advice to use particles directly on objects is well noted and with additional info will act upon it.
I had originaly tried this on a few .hgt maps but after applying the rocksnow preset
the effect was that the texture was so densly spread over the surface and just looked
very finely granulated so saw this aproach as a none starter with respect to large
landscapes. But applying ordinary texture/gradient/slope does give some decent results with large landscapes but not with the sort of detail that the rocksnow preset gives.
Seems ill need to use only a particular section of a .hgt landscape and if needed to reduce the Poygon count even further using the Reduce Polys +
feature. I can only then turn it into a subpatched polygon and have the variation in
SubPatch level control that you refer to.

This has become a challenge now that i want to persue to the end.
Just wondering now wether i will get some good results that i can post
before the "NEXT" version of Lightwave is released [looks to be not that far off now]. The race is on. :)

Not exactly..particles directly on objects, that assumes aplying particleFX on the objects vertices, you can do that as well of course if a particle emitter has itīs nozzle set to object-vertices..thatīs not originally what I ment though, description wise to be correct(I know..I am picky on such things..almost like I got aspbergers) I was taking about applying hypervoxels directly on the object vertices..and that is different, but maybe you understood that as well and just described it as particles.
Hv particle size is really not directly something to be mixed up with particles as they are in the particlFx emitter.

Agreed...using surfaces and texture slope might be lacking detail, one way is to treat snow layer as double displacement..where you have one or more displacements for the actual rock or mountain, then another displacement specificly for the snow..either by mixing with alpha blending or simply paint in the areas in modeler with weight maps that is supposed to be snow and use that with the displacement map for snow, it may even be possible to use that weight map to serve as adaptive subpatch rendering, so only the snow has a very dense setting of supatching, and the rest is lower, that way you might be able to crank up detail level.

As for hypervoxels surface and cloud stuff, I am forcing myself not to work too much with it now...since the new system probably arrives soon...though it is tempting.

octane is another software plugin I am very interested in now...but it will come at a cost though..it has that crazy surface detail tech behind it, though some reported issues on really large scale items, it also has some new nifty air volume scattering effects I need to look in to.


I am a bit busy the upcoming days..but might post some tips or guide on the hv appliance thing anyway, and weight maps etc.

Michael

cove
04-12-2016, 03:23 PM
Not exactly..particles directly on objects, that assumes aplying particleFX on the objects vertices, you can do that as well of course if a particle emitter has itīs nozzle set to object-vertices..thatīs not originally what I ment though, description wise to be correct(I know..I am picky on such things..almost like I got aspbergers) I was taking about applying hypervoxels directly on the object vertices..and that is different, but maybe you understood that as well and just described it as particles.
Hv particle size is really not directly something to be mixed up with particles as they are in the particlFx emitter.

Agreed...using surfaces and texture slope might be lacking detail, one way is to treat snow layer as double displacement..where you have one or more displacements for the actual rock or mountain, then another displacement specificly for the snow..either by mixing with alpha blending or simply paint in the areas in modeler with weight maps that is supposed to be snow and use that with the displacement map for snow, it may even be possible to use that weight map to serve as adaptive subpatch rendering, so only the snow has a very dense setting of supatching, and the rest is lower, that way you might be able to crank up detail level.

As for hypervoxels surface and cloud stuff, I am forcing myself not to work too much with it now...since the new system probably arrives soon...though it is tempting.

octane is another software plugin I am very interested in now...but it will come at a cost though..it has that crazy surface detail tech behind it, though some reported issues on really large scale items, it also has some new nifty air volume scattering effects I need to look in to.


I am a bit busy the upcoming days..but might post some tips or guide on the hv appliance thing anyway, and weight maps etc.

Michael

Thanks for clarifying a few points.

First thing i tried since last reply was to see if using a section of a .hgt landscape could have subdivision applied to it.
After also using "Reduce Polys+" twice i found conversion to subdvision
worked fine. [Easy to loose shape of landscape if you reduce polygons to many times].
2 other variables that ive played around with that have an effect on results.
No 1.
lighting. The effect of simply changing the light type in the parameters panel can make a big difference to the way your landscape looks.
No 2
Animation frame number.
Given that a particle emitter is attached to a polygon landscape then the particals will change position slighty as you select higher frame numbers.
The particles/hypervoxels will also get progressively larger.
The main thing you need to account for in the beginning is the particle count as sometimes a larger count is better otherwise virtually all other setting can remain at default setting.

I know ive gone a bit off topic here but just trying to contribute something back in my own way as and when i think it maybe of some value to other members.
You would of coarse know what ive descibed already so do not think im telling you something you do not already know.
Hope all goes well with other things over the next few days.
Don,t feel you have to provide more info, unless you want to, as i think i have more than enough to be going on with.

prometheus
04-12-2016, 04:47 PM
Given that a particle emitter is attached to a polygon landscape then the particals will change position slighty as you select higher frame numbers.
The particles/hypervoxels will also get progressively larger.
The main thing you need to account for in the beginning is the particle count as sometimes a larger count is better otherwise virtually all other setting can remain at default setting.

I


I donīt think you do it right if you got particles moving around and not fixed at each vertice, they shouldnīt change because of changing higher frame numbers, neigher in position or in size.
You should check how many vertices your object has in modeler or in the statistics of the object properties in layout, set birth rate to the same, set the particle limit to the same, life time to one more frame than the scene lenght is. or they will die out one frame before the ending.

If that is set right, no particles or hvīs should change in position or in size.

However, You can skip particles and just add hvīs on a subpatched terrain.
You can also copy the terrain in modeler, send it to another layer, and make it 100% dissolve, and just use that layer for the voxels, so that way you can adjust level of amount of the subpatch (amount of vertices) seperatly for the voxels, and have another level of subpatch for the actual terrain.

cove
04-13-2016, 02:01 PM
I donīt think you do it right if you got particles moving around and not fixed at each vertice, they shouldnīt change because of changing higher frame numbers, neigher in position or in size.
You should check how many vertices your object has in modeler or in the statistics of the object properties in layout, set birth rate to the same, set the particle limit to the same, life time to one more frame than the scene lenght is. or they will die out one frame before the ending.

If that is set right, no particles or hvīs should change in position or in size.

However, You can skip particles and just add hvīs on a subpatched terrain.
You can also copy the terrain in modeler, send it to another layer, and make it 100% dissolve, and just use that layer for the voxels, so that way you can adjust level of amount of the subpatch (amount of vertices) seperatly for the voxels, and have another level of subpatch for the actual terrain.


Ive now had my play around with attaching a particle emitter to a landscape.
But now conforming to what you have advised all along "just add hvīs on a subpatched terrain"
Your right hv,s do conform to shape of landscape and by adjusting the particle size
and Subpatch level you can get at least a reasonable result with out to much trouble.
Your suggestion to have the same terrain in 2 layers and apply effects seperately
makes sense. Not had time to try that out yet.
Also i now see the sense of this advice-----
Quote.
"Another tip if you just want certain parts of a mesh with snow, you can paint those areas with weight maps in modeler"

This is something i can see being usefull with respect to the Lake district .hgt maps i have and refered to. The rocky
outcrops [ Pinnicles ] in the Langdale valley can be weight mapped for detailed rock snow effect while the rest of the area
can have a more general snow effect.

Things are starting to come together.
My next task is to check every lake district .hgt map i have till i find the one that i want and hope that the specific area is
not devided by 2 seperate maps but that may not prove to be an issue.

cove
04-16-2016, 05:52 PM
Hi again.
While im trying to produce a winter landscape scene in lightwave i thought id
post a few sample images [Summer view/winter view] of the "Langdale Pyks" [Previously and wrongly refered to as The Langdale pinnacles].
Ive posted these images so you have some idea of what im trying to recreate.

When i first saw the the rock snow preset applied to particles/hypervoxels i was instantly reminded of my time hiking in the Lake District and
got the idea to see if it was possible to model and texture the Langdale Pykes.
Hence my posting my original query.

This is were i am at present.
My Lake District .hgt maps cover to large an area and lack the fine detail i was hoping they would have.
Decided to model a ruff representation of the Landale pykes and created a square polygon devided 50x50 and raised the surface in a few places.
Then applied hypervoxels to this polygon then applied the rock snow preset.
Main issue i had in trying to get a good looking result was trying to get rid of the sort of faint stripy lumpy effect over the whole landscape.
Tried stretching x/y/z and tweeked other parameters but no good.
Eventually i got a very decent look to the landcape by trying the "Size Variation" which also got rid of the stripy/lumpy look.

Then i set the "Particle Size" to default
[343.9693 mm / clicked on Automatic Sizing].

Also turned up Size Variation to maximum 500%

Left Blending ticked/on at default 100%

All i did then was increase the "Particle Size" till the rock snow effect looked very acceptable. The result is as shown in the image posted.

Im pleased with the way things are going. Now only need to model a polygon landscape that more closely follows the actuall mountain
shape in the image and also decide which trees and foliage that i may decide to include in the scene [will use a second mesh for that].
Away to go yet but im getting there.

prometheus
04-16-2016, 06:14 PM
Hi again.
While im trying to produce a winter landscape scene in lightwave i thought id
post a few sample images [Summer view/winter view] of the "Langdale Pyks" [Previously and wrongly refered to as The Langdale pinnacles].
Ive posted these images so you have some idea of what im trying to recreate.

When i first saw the the rock snow preset applied to particles/hypervoxels i was instantly reminded of my time hiking in the Lake District and
got the idea to see if it was possible to model and texture the Langdale Pykes.
Hence my posting my original query.

This is were i am at present.
My Lake District .hgt maps cover to large an area and lack the fine detail i was hoping they would have.
Decided to model a ruff representation of the Landale pykes and created a square polygon devided 50x50 and raised the surface in a few places.
Then applied hypervoxels to this polygon then applied the rock snow preset.
Main issue i had in trying to get a good looking result was trying to get rid of the sort of faint stripy lumpy effect over the whole landscape.
Tried stretching x/y/z and tweeked other parameters but no good.
Eventually i got a very decent look to the landcape by trying the "Size Variation" which also got rid of the stripy/lumpy look.

Then i set the "Particle Size" to default
[343.9693 mm / clicked on Automatic Sizing].

Also turned up Size Variation to maximum 500%

Left Blending ticked/on at default 100%

All i did then was increase the "Particle Size" till the rock snow effect looked very acceptable. The result is as shown in the image posted.

Im pleased with the way things are going. Now only need to model a polygon landscape that more closely follows the actuall mountain
shape in the image and also decide which trees and foliage that i may decide to include in the scene [will use a second mesh for that].
Away to go yet but im getting there.


Good start..You might get there, you got the details very close, and the shape, perhaps just change the actual rock color to a more grey tone..like the real image..when itīs snow at least.
Later subtle things like fog is needed, change the skycolor to be more cyan, you can use the jovian picker if you got the latest lw version, and use color picker and pick from the image whne selecting color for backdrop.
I think you could throw in the foreground mountain as a starter now..work on the sky and fog secondly, clouds..well either you would have to use a backdrop image, or throw in hypervoxels for clouds, but that is tough unless you are really used to them..for getting anywhere near realistic clouds..or keep it clean without clouds, treeīs lastly I would say...but only what I would do, if you do not want a full volumetric cloud scenary, but neither completly without small cirrus clouds etc...you might want to check my little showcase...you might get away with sprites for some lighter clouds...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hTm0xjpis

cove
04-17-2016, 04:11 PM
Intend to change rock color as i go along.
Fog/mist effect not needed for present project but will be required for another
landscape i have in mind associated with the Yorkshire dales.
As for cloud background. Tried the few cloud images i have but none suitable.
Will get more via google search. Need more cirrus type clouds pictures anyway.
I think ill give creating clouds with Hypervoxels a miss for now.
Will be happy either with a whispy sky backdrop image or darken a pale blue sky
color in the same sense that you would use a polorising filter on a camera to get a slightly darker richer blue.
Enjoyed your video will keep it in mind for future reference.
Finaly for forground trees rocks and foliage i have lots of freebies to choose from including Xfrog trees and some
ready textured rocks and can place any of these with the Advanced Placement plugin i have if i want to have a
fair ammount of foreground elements.
Cannot restart my project till about Tuesday onwards and will post any progress as and when i can.
Thanks for info provided its been a great help so far.