PDA

View Full Version : Open street map,Free alternatives to get the data to lightwave or exported to obj ?



prometheus
05-25-2017, 12:04 PM
there is an add on to blender on git hub for getting openstreetmap (osm) in to blender, I am thinking of getting it ($5.90.)..but is there any other alternatives? a free editor somewhere that simply can export to obj or some standard format that lightwave or blender can open?

prometheus
05-25-2017, 02:31 PM
weird, it seems I had a type of osm addon in blender, though it wasnīt to be seen in the normal addon preference menu.

I tried merkaart, that load osm maps, and can also load from google earth map link adress, merkaart can export to KML, and I though I could get that in by downloading a script for sketchup, the script installed in sketchup but it failed to load the data.
so then I looked for a kml addon for blender and found one, though it doesnīt seem to install it, but instead I found the osm addon, activated it in blender preferences and then it could acutally load a open street map from my area..so it sort of solved itself, but I really donīt understand why I didnīt see that addon before.

prometheus
05-25-2017, 02:42 PM
weird, it seems I had a type of osm addon in blender, though it wasnīt to be seen in the normal addon preference menu.

I tried merkaart, that load osm maps, and can also load from google earth map link adress, merkaart can export to KML, and I though I could get that in by downloading a script for sketchup, the script installed in sketchup but it failed to load the data.
so then I looked for a kml addon for blender and found one, though it doesnīt seem to install it, but instead I found the osm addon, activated it in blender preferences and then it could acutally load a open street map from my area..so it sort of solved itself, but I really donīt understand why I didnīt see that addon before.

Edited...may not be useful as it is, seems that addon is a test version, I only get the outline of the street map, or I may not follow it correctly...have to check it out more..

What to follow....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ROxTnD3E0

prometheus
05-25-2017, 02:55 PM
double post

prometheus
05-26-2017, 08:18 AM
Found another option, this sketchup plugin works...but only tested to work with sketchup 8, sketchup make 2017 isnīt recognizing that plugin.
Anyway, create an account in the openstreetmap site , itīs free..only then can you select a region and export to osm, if you have insttalled this sketchup plugin in sketchup 8, it will simply show up as a choice in the importer to select the osm file format and import.
select the group and go to edit explode to make it editable, pull up extrude in sketchup or export to obj for instance and use in lightwave or blender or other software of choice.


working for sketchup 8
https://github.com/vvoovv/skp2osm/

openstreet map site...(create an account in order to use the export function)
https://www.openstreetmap.org

lertola2
05-26-2017, 01:41 PM
Qgis (http://www.qgis.org/en/site/) has OpenStreetMap data download built in. What I have done is to build maps in Qgis, export them as a pdf file and open it Adobe Illustrator. From Illustrator you can save an Illustrator 8 file which you can import into modeler. Here is a tutorial that shows how to bring OpenStreetMap data into Qgis: http://learnosm.org/en/osm-data/osm-in-qgis/

prometheus
05-26-2017, 05:29 PM
Qgis (http://www.qgis.org/en/site/) has OpenStreetMap data download built in. What I have done is to build maps in Qgis, export them as a pdf file and open it Adobe Illustrator. From Illustrator you can save an Illustrator 8 file which you can import into modeler. Here is a tutorial that shows how to bring OpenStreetMap data into Qgis: http://learnosm.org/en/osm-data/osm-in-qgis/

Yes..I found out about qgis as well, havenīt installed and tried though, but I wonder, isnīt it more work to make it pdf and open in illstrator then save out to modeler and apart from that ..trying to get polygons right? instead of just exporting it to osm directly from streetmap and open in sketchup, all you have to do there is explode the object group then extrude away in sketchup or export to lightwave or blender from sketchup.

prometheus
06-11-2017, 04:41 AM
Latest findings..
There is a built in or somekind of free osm plugin in blender,but it doesnīt import faces correctly...so this one works much better, once done in blender, export to obj or some other format that works best to lightwave.
https://github.com/domlysz/BlenderGIS

download as zip and install from file in blender, it comes extruded in to blender and you can choose to just open the GIS options and under import choose osm and import any exported osm file you have made from within open street map, easy and nice.
however..you can also use blender with the map location visible and searchable from Within blender and either manually trace your areas..or choose to import from open streetmap ..and you will have your map with buildings imported..this looks very nice indeed.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137040&d=1497177571

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=137041&d=1497177624


hereīs a spanish vid on blender and the GIS addon ..it is free..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaYkN7cEEuo

Marander
06-11-2017, 05:12 PM
hereīs a spanish vid on blender and the GIS addon ..it is free..


Doesn't look convincing to me (yeah it's free). The end result doesn't seem to have any textures on it (or maybe the tutorial left this out?). And in LW it's not even parametric, not very useful. This is how it's done right (in my opinion), check out the feature list (like image download, GPX importer for tracks, way splines, pinpoints etc.):

https://cinemaplugins.com/c4d-plugins/dem-earth/

https://youtu.be/YfcBpxSmED4 (old version, interesting from around 5:00)

https://youtu.be/DEGs-3LujFk

https://youtu.be/vqcJ77Ahyog

prometheus
06-12-2017, 11:53 AM
Doesn't look convincing to me (yeah it's free). The end result doesn't seem to have any textures on it (or maybe the tutorial left this out?). And in LW it's not even parametric, not very useful. This is how it's done right (in my opinion), check out the feature list (like image download, GPX importer for tracks, way splines, pinpoints etc.):

https://cinemaplugins.com/c4d-plugins/dem-earth/

https://youtu.be/YfcBpxSmED4 (old version, interesting from around 5:00)

https://youtu.be/DEGs-3LujFk

https://youtu.be/vqcJ77Ahyog

Textures??..
that was only the open streetmap with roads and buildings, and I donīt think textures for buildings would be available Even in Dem earth as I understand it, if we talk about terrain textures, that is a different thing, there is a terrain option in blender which I havenīt checked.

Anyway...sure, it looks nice and sweet in cinema4d, and I look forward to see something similar when lightwave next and beyond starts to do itīs magic..if there is developers and interest that follows..but itīs really not something I personally would consider since I do not work in architechture or in the GIS field, itīs purely for fun, for fast viz and concept ideas for a hobbiest, and for any other in the same situation it would be madness to even go there to cinema4d, if you are in the field and you or your company can afford the price of dem earth which is almost the same as my latest lw upgrade, and then also having or invest in cinema4d itself which is Even more to pay up for..then shoot.

For blender, itīs all free including the main software, limitations..sure.

Marander
06-12-2017, 12:55 PM
Textures??

In this video from about 7:25 is what I mean, not for buildings, and 10:50 for data like streets, POI, railways etc. https://youtu.be/YfcBpxSmED4

However I agree the price is quite high for a GIS plugin and I don't have a use for it right now. For (fantasy) landscapes I use WM and Vue.

I'm only a hobbyist too but I can't stand the UI of Blender and workflow / limitations / instability / bugs / lack of rendering quality of LW and therefore invested in C4D with Vray, Cycles4D, Forester, X-Particles, TFD and a ton of other plugins.

Still looking forward to LWNext for some tasks if it delivers what was promised.

prometheus
06-12-2017, 01:29 PM
In this video from about 7:25 is what I mean, not for buildings, and 10:50 for data like streets, POI, railways etc. https://youtu.be/YfcBpxSmED4

However I agree the price is quite high for a GIS plugin and I don't have a use for it right now. For (fantasy) landscapes I use WM and Vue.

I'm only a hobbyist too but I can't stand the UI of Blender and workflow / limitations / instability / bugs / lack of rendering quality of LW and therefore invested in C4D with Vray, Cycles4D, Forester, X-Particles, TFD and a ton of other plugins.

Still looking forward to LWNext for some tasks if it delivers what was promised.

I am looking in to how blender handles terrains, I think I can notice that Lighwave handles displacements in terrains much better in terms of speed anyway, the ANT addon for creating fast landscapes in blender is half ar...ed, itīs great for creating a base terrain fractally, but once you have made it..it seems there is no way you can go back and re-edit that landscape...in lightwave you can at least correct procedurals non destructively, then again so can you with standard displacements in blender, but I really thought that ANT plugin should handle that too..but not as I can see, what was good with it is also that it gives you instant landscape with zero edges, which on the other hand is a bit of a pain in the...in lightwave with procedurals.

Marander
06-12-2017, 03:14 PM
I am looking in to how blender handles terrains, I think I can notice that Lighwave handles displacements in terrains much better in terms of speed anyway.

Yes I agree (don't know much about the Blender plugins though). Procedurals are nice in Lightwave, specially with the (must have) IFW2 plugin. The corresponding plugin (actually almost exactly the same) for C4D is the Biomekk Enhance:4d plugin.

But LW lacks of micropoly displacement. I guess this is part of the new Geo Engine in LWNext since all other Apps and Renderers support this, even with GPU tesselation in the viewport.

Here's a hightmap I created in WM (some comparison tests I did a while ago):

Map creation in WM (man that UI is ancient):
137059

In Blender:
137052

In LW:
137053

In C4D with Cycles4D (you can see I don't know much about it :) and way too bright)
137054

In C4D with Vray (just default sunsky lighting)
137060
137055


But finally rendered in Vue, just a test with some standard atmosphere without much tweaking.
For close up rocks and mountains (sci-fi landscapes) I mostly prefer doing it completely in Vue with procedural terrains without WM. Lack of detail in the front even with 8k eight maps. The nice thing about WM is the flow, deposit and wear maps (which I didn't use in this render, but the color map is created that way with the corresponding erosion outputs as seen in the WM screenshot).
137056

I must add (as of course you already know), Terragen 4 and Houdini Indie 16 would probably be my recommendation for doing landscapes, considering their quality and pricing. The H16 terrain tools beat the crap out of WM, for example how maps can flow into each other smoothly, the integration of physics etc., absolutely amazing tools. But it requires so much time to do or learn all this stuff.

prometheus
06-12-2017, 04:16 PM
Yes I agree (don't know much about the Blender plugins though). Procedurals are nice in Lightwave, specially with the (must have) IFW2 plugin .The corresponding plugin (actually almost exactly the same) for C4D is the Biomekk Enhance:4d plugin.

But LW lacks of micropoly displacement. I guess this is part of the new Geo Engine in LWNext since all other Apps and Renderers support this, even with GPU tesselation in the viewport.

Here's a hightmap I created in WM in Blender (some comparison tests I did a while ago):

Map creation in WM (man that UI is ancient):
137059

In Blender:
137052

In LW:
137053

In C4D with Cycles4D (you can see I don't know much about it :) and way too bright)
137054

In C4D with Vray (just default sunsky lighting)
137060
137055


But finally rendered in Vue, just a test with some standard atmosphere without much tweaking.
For close up rocks and mountains (sci-fi landscapes) I mostly prefer doing it completely in Vue with procedural terrains without WM. Lack of detail in the front even with 8k eight maps. The nice thing about WM is the flow, deposit and wear maps (which I didn't use in this render, but the color map is created that way with the corresponding erosion outputs as seen in the WM screenshot).
137056

I must add (as of course you already know), Terragen 4 and Houdini Indie 16 would probably be my recommendation for doing landscapes, considering their quality and pricing. The H16 terrain tools beat the crap out of WM, for example how they can flow into each other smoothly, the integration of physics etc., absolutely amazing tools. But it requires so much time to do or learn all this stuff.


yep...looking good, and I agree with you mostly here..
world machine builds are quite easy to get good looking though, there is however a problem..if you think it is a problem:D with those generated maps or even extracted dem elevation maps, None take in account overhangs from cliffs or rocks, and they do look good for larger views, but getting close will not look soo good, unless mixing with normal deformed or sculpted rocks I would say.

clouds in the vue image is looking pretty decent, in the middle there is however some puff balls which is typicly due to the bad noise fractals in vue, not sure if you rendered that in scene fully, or used a pre-rendered map?
If you would opt for realistics physics..I think there should be more ground shadows casted from the clouds...I do not see anyone..so I guess you turned that off, or used an pre-rendered image in the backdrop, or simply got lucy when tweaking the cloud position? :)

Currently I am fiddling with lightwave procedurals, freezing them and send to blender to continue to sculpt over, may add additional send back to lightwave and then further procedural layers on that sculpt, that is more for defined and also fantasy landscapes that can have overhangs.

Terragen..well, yes, it became better in the last release, but still too slow for my liking, and since you talked about world machine UI, I think terragens UI really suck.
Otherwise is vue the best in UI and in performance, but it canīt compete with the lighting quality and the cloud fractals of terragen...and perhaps the AA quality as well.

Marander
06-12-2017, 04:30 PM
Thanks for the feedback. The Vue render is directly out of Vue, no prerendered elements. I was hesitating posting this because I know you're the cloud master ;)
There was not much tweaking but with the endless possibilites in the function editor (where the time factor plays again...) you can achieve also nice results. However on this pic there is a bit too much different types of clouds I guess.
Thanks for the tip with the missing cloud shadows, I think I mostly pull down that slider because I think the pic is becoming too dark. I will look into this scene again and try to improve based on your input.

Marander
06-12-2017, 04:44 PM
Edit1: Yes overhangs is not possible with height map based, you're right and I also see this as a problem (again, for sci-fi landscapes specially), in Vue this can be sculpted in 3D.

Edi2: For Vue I'm a bit disappointed about the 2016 and 2016.2 improvements. I mean why would I need 16(!) viewports or a crashy path tracer that cannot even render clouds or procedural materials??? (of course the old renderer still works but some materials are broken) And the new heightfields didn't work initially at all and now take forever to calculate even in medium settings on a fast machine. Also the new exports don't really work well. I have paid 2x about 350 bucks for the maintenance but so far it wasn't worth it at all. Basically the only new thing I can use is that sculpting is created as a new user meta node and some of the new procedurals, maybe at some point the better plant variation. I'm still using Vue 2015.2 most of the time.

prometheus
06-13-2017, 11:11 AM
Thanks for the feedback. The Vue render is directly out of Vue, no prerendered elements. I was hesitating posting this because I know you're the cloud master ;)
There was not much tweaking but with the endless possibilites in the function editor (where the time factor plays again...) you can achieve also nice results. However on this pic there is a bit too much different types of clouds I guess.
Thanks for the tip with the missing cloud shadows, I think I mostly pull down that slider because I think the pic is becoming too dark. I will look into this scene again and try to improve based on your input.

Dont worry, your clouds looks decent and can only improve to become very good I suspect, it is also a question of time tweaking them, unless you find a good preset or have made one before to continue to work on..but all that takes time, I know about that for sure...but time is one thing it takes to master someting, generally it is the scale of the clouds the density distribution and small puff balls because of the fractals used and also too much detail folks through in there in so many vue renders that doesnīt really look good, in this case it mostly looks good ..except for some small puff balls where I pointed out, Terragens new preset clouds gives you instant much more realistic fractals and they also seem to dissipate/dissolve when there are such smaller cloud areas..as they tend to do in real life as well.
I noticed..I think you have more than one cloud layer? which is good..most skies often do in various ways..so that is better for realism..may be a render hit though.

cloud shadows...yes, that can give a scene more drama and realistic lighting, depends on how high up the clouds are ..but if they still are in the cam view, if they are on high altitude, skylight seem to disperse out well enough to light up mountains and landscape without casting much hard shadows, also depends on general fog mist or if there is other cloud layers blocking out the strong sungligh..but thin enough to let a lot of skylight penetrate it.

I think itīs actually easier to direct light and shadow casting in lightwave..Even with the old hv system ..than in vue, partly because vpr is faster, larger view, and easier to pick things in other viewports when rotating..moving etc, that said..hv point o particles have itīs other limits ..such as blending and thus point clouds can still look puffy, I so wish they could pull off a volumetric infinite procedural cloud layer, so the cloud texture is purely based on the fractal, not around points...we have seen that in ogo taiki before that it is possible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6PDjQdPyus&list=PLdaQ-nxd0g2dAB9HoRi9prVqaUh0b_w63&index=4


Edit1: Yes overhangs is not possible with height map based, you're right and I also see this as a problem (again, for sci-fi landscapes specially), in Vue this can be sculpted in 3D.

Edi2: For Vue I'm a bit disappointed about the 2016 and 2016.2 improvements. I mean why would I need 16(!) viewports or a crashy path tracer that cannot even render clouds or procedural materials??? (of course the old renderer still works but some materials are broken) And the new heightfields didn't work initially at all and now take forever to calculate even in medium settings on a fast machine. Also the new exports don't really work well. I have paid 2x about 350 bucks for the maintenance but so far it wasn't worth it at all. Basically the only new thing I can use is that sculpting is created as a new user meta node and some of the new procedurals, maybe at some point the better plant variation. I'm still using Vue 2015.2 most of the time.

Thanks for the heads up on vue, i think I will wait still a while before purchasing the full version, I still want better cloud fractals designed for that purpose in another edition of vue, I also want a way of arranging metaballs or sculpted geo for metaclouds, I do not like how you manually have to order spheres, in Lightwave it would be as simply as drawing a tree structure and add particles to it and attach hvīs to it.

regarding overhangs, I have tested a sculpted rock/ cliff...and then extracting a heightmap from that (think I did that extraction in sculptris) then sent that heightmap to worldmachine, and added erosion , that way I could mix both erosion and overhang, though I suspect it isnīt perfectly perfect :) so once the erosion map was done, I could simple load it back on to/ on top of the sculpted clliff.

Marander
06-13-2017, 06:20 PM
Interesting info thanks. Yes I was hoping too for atmospheric and cloud improvements in the recent vue as well as speed enhancements. Maybe the new pathracer should do this in future but the renders are not convincing, no cloud or procedural texture support and very crashy in 2016 (haven't even installed 2016.2 yet).

Maybe you should also consider Houdini 16 Indie? For your interests (environments, rocks, clouds, particles, simulations) it would be awesome I think. Needs some time to get into it, but you know how to use nodes and there are starting points for each type of effect and many free training resources. $200 a year is a great offer. I don't know if you do coding but that helps for more advanced stuff and the integration is impressive. But for personal stuff I would say it might not be required.

Because there are still many things I want to learn better first, I haven't subscribed yet but use the Apprentice version from time to time.

Sorry, bit offtopic part here :) :hijack:

I remember, 1997 there was a film called "Lexx", effects done with Houdini. Both H and LW were about on the same level but LW was more popular (Babylon5 etc.). Houdini already had everything procedural at that time, but required much more work due to its complexity and computing power (SGIs and the software license was around $17k). I watched a making of and it was impressive but scary for my basic 3D knowhow. LW on the other hand was very affordable (but not to me), maybe not so crazy particles but good and fast rendering. And LensFlares haha! But I couldn't afford LW back then.

Around 8:20 and 11:30
I remember the making of more fascinating and in depth but maybe my mind is tricking me because 3D info was so rare on tv and there was no youtube of course.

https://youtu.be/sOzsj98EB0A

Back then they were still showing some nice internal processes while today you mostly just see a compositing breakdown (if it happened to be shown on tv).

H16 however is really nicely improved in the UI and usability.

Edit (still offtopic):

Found the info about the making of (I think Prisms was also from SideEffects):
"Our artists are equipped with Silicon Graphics hardware running a variety of
2D and 3D animation software including Prisms, Houdini, Alias Power Animator,
Flint, Renderman, Amazon Paint, and stuff we write ourselves."

prometheus
06-14-2017, 11:46 AM
Interesting info thanks. Yes I was hoping too for atmospheric and cloud improvements in the recent vue as well as speed enhancements. Maybe the new pathracer should do this in future but the renders are not convincing, no cloud or procedural texture support and very crashy in 2016 (haven't even installed 2016.2 yet).

Maybe you should also consider Houdini 16 Indie? For your interests (environments, rocks, clouds, particles, simulations) it would be awesome I think. Needs some time to get into it, but you know how to use nodes and there are starting points for each type of effect and many free training resources. $200 a year is a great offer. I don't know if you do coding but that helps for more advanced stuff and the integration is impressive. But for personal stuff I would say it might not be required.

Because there are still many things I want to learn better first, I haven't subscribed yet but use the Apprentice version from time to time.

Sorry, bit offtopic part here :) :hijack:

I remember, 1997 there was a film called "Lexx", effects done with Houdini. Both H and LW were about on the same level but LW was more popular (Babylon5 etc.). Houdini already had everything procedural at that time, but required much more work due to its complexity and computing power (SGIs and the software license was around $17k). I watched a making of and it was impressive but scary for my basic 3D knowhow. LW on the other hand was very affordable (but not to me), maybe not so crazy particles but good and fast rendering. And LensFlares haha! But I couldn't afford LW back then.

Around 8:20 and 11:30
I remember the making of more fascinating and in depth but maybe my mind is tricking me because 3D info was so rare on tv and there was no youtube of course.

https://youtu.be/sOzsj98EB0A

Back then they were still showing some nice internal processes while today you mostly just see a compositing breakdown (if it happened to be shown on tv).

H16 however is really nicely improved in the UI and usability.

Edit (still offtopic):

Found the info about the making of (I think Prisms was also from SideEffects):
"Our artists are equipped with Silicon Graphics hardware running a variety of
2D and 3D animation software including Prisms, Houdini, Alias Power Animator,
Flint, Renderman, Amazon Paint, and stuff we write ourselves."

Are you sure the path tracer was even ment to work with clouds? I mean if they included it as an alternative rendering model for house interior, or such shots, and if they have proclaimed such thing that it isnīt intended for use with clouds?
houdini indie, well..I fiddled with houdini aprentice somethime ago and itīs cloudFX, and that was promising, but I got some issues after updating to newer apprentice versions so it didnīt installed properly, I will wait till I get my new computer up and running then dive back to houdini and try that out some more, but for rocks etc..I do noot see so much more advantages over displacement in lightwave, or getting fast previews as you can in lightwave.
Particles is a different thing though...but I will have to wait and see...currently my focus is to learn much more in blender, foremost modeling and sculpting.

off topic..nah, itīs a living community which evolves..so does threads evolve from one thing to another, and every once and awhile we should stop and recall where it all started with :)

Lexx..that was not a movie as I am aware of..but a tv-series, and yes..nice series, sexistic with a glint in the eyes, full with lusty ladies, ..apart from that kind of fun it was a really whacked out scifi parody series, I thought lightwave was used to either build the lexx ship or used for the particle wave..but then I read this..but it was used a bit I think.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?14814-Lexx-the-series

Marander
06-14-2017, 12:42 PM
Are you sure the path tracer was even ment to work with clouds?

Lexx...



Yes I think they wanted it for architectural stuff but I would have preferred to see improvements in the atmospheric / landscape area. They mentioned that clouds should be possible in future, would be nice because it has GPU rendering.

Lexx haha good description and there was even information in this forum.

Looking forward for your new experiments and renders on your new machine!

Cheers