PDA

View Full Version : Transparent edges - planets atmosphere problem.



fazi69
02-10-2019, 10:02 AM
So, I`m trying to make it the old way. You now, two spheres, one smaller with planet texture, one bigger with transparent edges, to make fake atmosphere. In old days it was easy.
Now, in LW2018/lw2019 it is a mystery for me, how to make atmosphere imitation. Any ideas ?

MonroePoteet
02-10-2019, 06:10 PM
Yes, I really liked the simplicity of a couple of Edge Transparency shaders, one with Transparent mode and one with Opaque mode to make a nice, smooth, blurry atomsphere edge. All of the shaders have been removed for LW2019 (and LW2018) as being "incompatible with the new rendering engine".

For LW2019, you can use a Gradient to specify the Transparency based upon the angle of Incidence. The angle of Incidence ranges between 0.0 and 1.0, where 0.0 is pointing at right angles to the Camera and 1.0 is pointing directly at the Camera. The Incidence node can also be set up for 0.0 to 2.0 (180 degrees in the interface) to allow manipulation of the back side of the object.

A quick LW2019 sample scene attached.

144086 144087

144088 144089

MOV file: 144090

The setup is on the Transparency channel of the Atmosphere layer:

144092

Note that it is the Alpha channel value which determines the Transparency as the Incidence decreases from 0.7 to 0.0. Anything less than an Incidence of 0.7 keeps the Alpha value of the lowest key.

Here's a closeup of the Atmosphere with the Gradient on Incidence angle super-imposed where the Planet Surface has been disabled:

144093

and here's the full view, again with the Planet Surface disabled:

144094

As the Alpha channel goes to 0.0 (the checkered portions of the Gradient), the Surface becomes opaque, and as it goes to 1.0 the Surface becomes transparent. This allows basically any "shape" of the opacity of the atmosphere.

For your own application, you can load the sample object and copy-n-paste the Atmosphere Surface and then adjust as you want (color, banding, etc.)

Have fun!
mTp

Ma3rk
02-10-2019, 06:28 PM
Thanks a heap for all of this MonroePoteet. I've periodically tried whanging a basic starter planet with LW over the past couple of versions, but didn't realize it was sort of a moving target. Then I thought for what I wanted to do, I'd just use the VideoCopilot tool in After Affects, but unfortunately, my video hardware is "inadequate". It's always something. Will be remedying both the hardware thing & the 2019 update soonish though so looking forward to playing.

fazi69
02-11-2019, 03:17 AM
Thx, Monroe. This is very helpful.

RPSchmidt
02-11-2019, 06:55 AM
Have you considered using a volumetric primitive for the atmosphere?

Interested to see how that would turn out, or if it's usable.

MonroePoteet
02-11-2019, 03:40 PM
Have you considered using a volumetric primitive for the atmosphere?

Interested to see how that would turn out, or if it's usable.

As far as I can tell, neither the Incidence node nor the Gradient=>Incidence input work in the node editor for Volumetric primitives.

mTp

RPSchmidt
02-12-2019, 07:56 AM
As far as I can tell, neither the Incidence node nor the Gradient=>Incidence input work in the node editor for Volumetric primitives.

mTp

That is a real shame. That seems like a very limiting omission.

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 08:31 AM
No reason it would work that way. Volumes arent a solid thing like an object, you can think of them as a collection/,ist of tiny particles, thus youd be talking the incidence of each particle, which ofc isnt the same. The incidence trick on a sphere object is meant to simulate the thickening and scattering through the atmosphere as the angle of view through it changes. A volume, done right, would have this effect "naturally" occur.

MonroePoteet
02-12-2019, 08:45 AM
I think the Incidence angle is the cosine of the angle between the Camera and the Surface normal (i.e. dot product). Since in a Volumetric primitive there isn't any geometry which provides a Surface at all the Surface normal isn't readily available, so I can kind of understand the omission.

Having said that, IMO the options for user-defined manipulation the Volumetric primitives are very limited (I would even say crippled) by the general omission of ANY sort of "volume" information in the Volumetric Primitive node editor. The Gradient node's X, Y and Z Coordinate inputs have some access to the volume in a Cartesian coordinate system, and the 3D textures also have that same sort of access, but I can't find any node that provides a general (X,Y,Z) volumetric coordinate for use in the node network's calculation / manipulation.

The X Coordinate, Y Coordinate and Z Coordinate access in the Gradient might provide some minimal, Cartesian manipulation of the volume, but my testing and attempts to use them makes me think the Alpha channel manipulation of the volumetric texture is completely non-intuitive and IMO, broken. After infinite experimentation, I was able to produce an OK shape for a cumulonimbus cloud in this post:

https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?157226-clouds&p=1548050&viewfull=1#post1548050

but the values used in the Alpha channel are completely non-intuitive for shaping the Volumetric Primitive, e.g. Alpha of -1000 to make it *bigger* and 1000 to make it *smaller*?!!? As well, changing one value seems to have completely incomprehensible affects (IMO) on other dimensions / nodes, not in keeping (again, IMO) with the Hermite or Bezier spline curve supposedly enforced in the Gradient.

IMO, the node editor for Volumetric Primitives desperately needs a "Spot Info" node similar to the LW2015 node, but reflecting the "current spot" in the volume. Ideally, there would be two "Volumetric Spot Info" nodes, one which provides Cartesian coordinates of the volume and another which provides Polar coordinates (basically heading angle, pitch angle, and radial distance to the voumetric point). Since the 3D textures clearly have internal access to that information for producing volumetric manipulation of the Density, etc., I would hope it's just a matter of providing Nodal access to that information.

But, of course, I could be completely wrong about ALL of this! :)

mTp

MonroePoteet
02-12-2019, 09:04 AM
Just saw RebelHill's post. The basic (very long winded) point of my prior post is that the atmospheric effect would be easy if there was a Volumetric Spot Info node. The Volumetric Density could then be set according to the Distance from the center, providing a thick Density at the "planet surface" and diminishing density outward as the atmosphere fades off. Assuming the Volumetric Primitive is implemented correctly, as RebelHill indicates, the desired effect should be automatic.

mTp

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 09:27 AM
You can do it with a distance to object gradient using the ol layer node.

RPSchmidt
02-12-2019, 10:50 AM
No reason it would work that way. Volumes arent a solid thing like an object, you can think of them as a collection/,ist of tiny particles, thus youd be talking the incidence of each particle, which ofc isnt the same. The incidence trick on a sphere object is meant to simulate the thickening and scattering through the atmosphere as the angle of view through it changes. A volume, done right, would have this effect "naturally" occur.

Absolutely, volumes aren't solid; neither is our atmosphere. It is made up of a combination of gasses and a very large amount of water, either vapor or ice crystals.

Literally, you are taking the incidence angle of each particle when you look at an area of earth from space that is lit by the sun; but large swathes of the area you are looking at can share the same (or so close as to be miniscule) incidence angle depending on your light source and your optical viewpoint.

I'm not sure about the implementation of incidence here, but the actual angle of incidence has a mathematical solution used to determine the total amount of solar radiation striking a portion of the earth.


Just saw RebelHill's post. The basic (very long winded) point of my prior post is that the atmospheric effect would be easy if there was a Volumetric Spot Info node. The Volumetric Density could then be set according to the Distance from the center, providing a thick Density at the "planet surface" and diminishing density outward as the atmosphere fades off. Assuming the Volumetric Primitive is implemented correctly, as RebelHill indicates, the desired effect should be automatic.

mTp

Certainly thickness is important, but so is the angle of light and the optical viewpoint to the surface.

Create a null and call it volume; make it a volumetric primitive and set the step size to 10mm, emission scale to 5 and color to white, and the absorption scale to 4. Make it non-pyroclastic.

Then create a null and call it sphere and make it a spherical shape primitive; change the surface color to blue.

When you look at it in VPR, you should see a small blue sphere inside the volume. You can see that the apparent density of the volume increases as it gets nearer the center of the volume, obscuring the sphere.

Now change the size of the sphere to .88. Add another camera and change its angle of view to look at your sphere from a glancing / grazing angle.

If you look at the sphere through your straight camera and your glancing angle camera, there is no change to the appearance of the atmosphere. It remains uniform.

We just aren't getting atmospheric reflection here based on the position of our "sun" and the amount of light striking it; all we are getting is uniform density. So the amount of perceived density doesn't change the further you are from the angled position camera, or when you are looking at it from two very different viewpoints.

Or I could be completely wrong. :D It still seems like an oversight in volumetrics.

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 11:45 AM
Black sphere with white scattering volume atmosphere. With the light behind the camera, we get incidence type effect as a natural consequence of the volume. With the light behind the "planet" we get the shine through with creeping atmospheric illumination beyond the night side... all as expected.

RPSchmidt
02-12-2019, 12:12 PM
Black sphere with white scattering volume atmosphere. With the light behind the camera, we get incidence type effect as a natural consequence of the volume. With the light behind the "planet" we get the shine through with creeping atmospheric illumination beyond the night side... all as expected.

Oh, certaintly... I guess I was looking for something more like what we see in this image; the atmospheric density appears to be less nearer the optical view and increases with distance to the horizon.

144108

In my test, at least, you aren't getting that... the atmosphere is uniformly dense.

Even when I pulled the camera in so that it was easily partially inside the edge of my "atmosphere" the density didn't seem to change.

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 12:21 PM
The effect is one based on the angle of view, not the distance. That pic you post could have the camera located in low earth orbit, or it could be in another galaxy (with a super-mega-alien zoom lens)... it would appear no different.

RPSchmidt
02-12-2019, 12:35 PM
The effect is one based on the angle of view, not the distance. That pic you post could have the camera located in low earth orbit, or it could be in another galaxy (with a super-mega-alien zoom lens)... it would appear no different.

That was my point; in my test, the angle of view was almost exactly like the image I posted.

I did not get that effect.

The only reason I mentioned moving the camera nearer was, like in dense fog, the areas nearer you are more transparent. It should have been an advantage to the camera to be partially inside the atmosphere, but it wasn't.

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 01:19 PM
When I say angle of view... I mean angle of incidence to the viewer, not the camera angle/zoom level.

How you see it in the basic test I showed is how it works in reality.

RPSchmidt
02-12-2019, 02:16 PM
When I say angle of view... I mean angle of incidence to the viewer, not the camera angle/zoom level.

How you see it in the basic test I showed is how it works in reality.

In your test, the camera is the viewer. Wherever you put the camera in space, it is the viewer. The measure of the angle of incidence is to the camera, because the camera is the viewer in this 3d space.

It's all good. I am probably not explaining myself clearly

MonroePoteet
02-12-2019, 05:36 PM
Thanks to RebelHill for the guiding advice! Works very well:

144111

Sample scene attached. I planned to post an animation (smaller resolution - 640x480), but the volumetric rendering takes a while. I'll post it when it's done.

The bright atmospheric blue rim is a result of a closeup of the solar terminator, where the planet surface is mostly in shadow but the atmospheric particles / gases are still scattering the sunlight. In the photograph posted earlier by RPSchmidt, you can see the terminator to the lower left. This image is a closeup of this little portion of the overall planet:

144112

A real challenge for this type of volumetric density and scattering falloff was how miniscule the atmosphere is compared to the radius of the Earth. It seems that the atmosphere that scatters the light to blue is merely 10km deep, while the Earth is something like 6300km, so less that 2%. All of the variations in the volumetric density and scattering need to fall between 0.98 and 1.0 on the Gradient.

To get any sort of fine-tuning on that small an edge, I ended up using the Scalar gradient as RebelHill suggested, but only to provide a value between 0.0 and 1.0 based upon the scaled diameter of the Volumetric null (2.4 meters) to correspond with the planet radius. This is then fed into a Gradient node (see below as to why). By adding another key at the bottom set to 0.0, I can shrink the "depth" of the volumetric as specified in the Gradient node.

The Gradient node allows the lower-limit on the Gradient to be specified, while the Scalar gradient does not. So, on the Gradient node, I set the lower limit to 0.9, and that allows me to create a complex gradient between 0.9 and 1.0, with 7-8 keys in that range. Without the ability to specify the lower limit, the key value has to be entered since they're all crammed together at the bottom of the gradient.

144113

This is a small planet and volumetric null (about 5m in diameter), so perhaps a much larger to-scale planet would give better results. However, even then the ratio of the atmosphere to the planetary radius will be very small.

In the image above, the volumetric rendering starts to "break apart" in the lower right corner as the volumetric fades into the shadow. Not sure how to fix that without incurring very large render timers.

Anyway, I'm just a beginner at Volumetric primitives, and thanks again for the guidance, RebelHill!

mTp

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 05:49 PM
Yep... looks pretty good for a beginner go (and certainly better than my 3 min demo). Also don't forget, not everything in the appearance is the result of the atmospheric scattering... you have the cloud and water, which are themselves diffuse/spec surfaces, and which thus have fresnel effects in their appearance which ties into that whole bright edge at the meeting of globe and atmosphere. Pay attention also, when playing with the volume scattering, to the asymmetry parameter, which attenuates the effect toward forward or back scattering (the atmosphere tends to lean more toward forward scattering).

MonroePoteet
02-12-2019, 06:30 PM
Thanks! I'll play around with the asymmetry parameter, sounds interesting.

Here's an animation of the overall effect, with first a Camera movement, and then the Light going behind the planet:

144116 144117 144118

MOV File: 144115

The previous image was a still closeup, as described.

One downside (for me) is I had to set the Density and Scattering values (via the Gradient) to a large number (2000%) to get the brightness I wanted. If I tried just increasing the Light intensity it washed out the planet badly. Maybe there's a good balance, or the asymmetry parameter will help.

mTp

RebelHill
02-12-2019, 07:24 PM
I think youll find that the high vals for scattering weight have to do with the fact that you're "clipping" most of the volume away with the planet mesh, leaving only the thin edge behind, so its just what this particular use case demands. Id not worry about it.

The planet surface/cam move looks very TNG atm, but the atmosphere works well. Looks very nice with the sun behind, very natural.

fazi69
02-13-2019, 03:40 AM
While reading your answers i got a bad feeling, that we need to be more and more coders, engineers and scientists than artists. In my opinion it is wrong direction. Fact that render engine is physics based is no reason to expect from artists to be physicists. More and more simple functions that was represented by simple sliders are complicated node mazes. It is no more a one man orchestra like it used to be. I`m not happy about new render engine also. But it is another story.

prometheus
02-13-2019, 03:55 AM
No reason it would work that way. Volumes arent a solid thing like an object, you can think of them as a collection/,ist of tiny particles, thus youd be talking the incidence of each particle, which ofc isnt the same. The incidence trick on a sphere object is meant to simulate the thickening and scattering through the atmosphere as the angle of view through it changes. A volume, done right, would have this effect "naturally" occur.

Yep.

Didnīt Janti showcase that with a minitute?

RebelHill
02-13-2019, 07:48 AM
We need to be more and more coders, engineers and scientists than artists. It is no more a one man orchestra like it used to be.

Quite the opposite as it happens. In LW past all of the things that go on in realistic light transport which need to be accounted for to produce a realistic looking render needed to be specifically created by the user. Fresnel effects, scattering media, the different properties of metals and plastics, relative light power, colour space, etc, etc... you needed a solid understanding of how this stuff worked in the real world to be able to simulate it given the tools and shading methods available, and account for it in your work.

So much of that now is removed... Certainly, you need a basic understanding about the existence of these things if you're going to understand the outcome of a given render, and why it looks a certain way... but there's no way to remove that, it would be tantamount to saying a painter doesnt need to understand light and shade, or that a novelist needn't understand the rules of grammar.

The fact is that almost all of this "knowledge" is built into the renderer itself, completely behind the curtain and done for you. It is simply FAR easier to create realistic looking results now with only a superficial knowledge of the inner workings than has ever been the case in LW previously.


Didnīt Antti showcase that with a minitute?

Mayb's... rings a bell.

fazi69
02-13-2019, 08:05 AM
it would be tantamount to saying a painter doesnt need to understand light and shade, or that a novelist needn't understand the rules of grammar..

But You are not a painter anymore. Just a photographer. That is essence of the problem. It is no longer how you intended, but how physics made it looks.

RebelHill
02-13-2019, 08:25 AM
This was ever the case... you just needed to know more and do more work previously. Unless you're after producing work that it really unrealistic in appearance. If that's the case, fine... but it's contrary to what the VAST majority of 3D artists want, and honestly 3D isn't the best place to achieve those kinds of results.

If you want the "freedom" of paint... paint.

MonroePoteet
02-13-2019, 09:00 AM
I think youll find that the high vals for scattering weight have to do with the fact that you're "clipping" most of the volume away with the planet mesh, leaving only the thin edge behind, so its just what this particular use case demands. Id not worry about it.

The planet surface/cam move looks very TNG atm, but the atmosphere works well. Looks very nice with the sun behind, very natural.

Even without the planet surface object, the scattering of a layer that thin (2% of radius) is very dim unless I crank up the SunAreaLight way up or bump up the scattering and texture density as described.

Yes, the planetary surface and camera / light motions weren't an attempt to be photoreal or real-life movement - just a simple test bed for the Volumetric Primitive atmosphere effect. Thanks again!

mTp

RPSchmidt
02-13-2019, 09:48 AM
Even without the planet surface object, the scattering of a layer that thin (2% of radius) is very dim unless I crank up the SunAreaLight way up or bump up the scattering and texture density as described.

Yes, the planetary surface and camera / light motions weren't an attempt to be photoreal or real-life movement - just a simple test bed for the Volumetric Primitive atmosphere effect. Thanks again!

mTp

That brings me back to the volume not having incidence.

The point of having the incidence angle is to handle the mathematical calculations to automatically distribute light energy to make it easier to replicate those effects. It naturally lends itself to planetary atmosphere simulations because it handles those calculations specifically for a sphere, and takes into account diffraction, refraction, etc. and even accounts for calculating grazing angles.

So I still think it's a bit of an oversight not to have it available for a volumetric primitive, especially in this instance, where it would handle the light energy calculations.

BUT I'm glad between the two of you that you arrived at a solution you are happy with and I am also glad that it is possible to use a volumetric sphere to attain something near the effect.

RebelHill
02-13-2019, 09:53 AM
Except it DOES have incidence in the way it renders, as my initial image clearly shows. Its a consequence of the way volume rendering works. The way that you're thinking of it, like incidence to a surface would have no meaning, because there is no surface.

RPSchmidt
02-13-2019, 01:33 PM
Except it DOES have incidence in the way it renders, as my initial image clearly shows. Its a consequence of the way volume rendering works. The way that you're thinking of it, like incidence to a surface would have no meaning, because there is no surface.

So just to be clear, when you say there is no surface, you are referring to the volume in Lightwave?

If so, I understand what you are saying.

I'm just thinking of it in the context of calculating the incidence of solar radiation striking the top of the atmosphere and the reflection or refraction of that radiation.

To get that, I would need the Lightwave volume to have surface qualities similar to our atmosphere; at least to the extent that it allows for incidence, reflection, and refraction.

RebelHill
02-13-2019, 02:02 PM
No... I mean it's a mist, there is no definitive surface boundary such as the surface of a sphere. Or rather, the volume is composed of millions of tiny little surfaces (blobs/motes/particles/whatever). If you could apply a incidence based shade (and zoom in real close) you'd have this image, not the one you imagine you should get. Not to mention the fact that the atmosphere has no meaningfully visible levels of reflection or refraction (certainly not in the optical wavelengths), its almost ALL scattering and absorption.

You're still stuck in the mindset of the ways that we used to need to fake such effects by using definite surfaces and trying to make them appear voluminous. There is no longer any need to do that, volume primitives behave now as real volumes do, which DOES include, incidence shading/scattering effects... again, look at the first "black planet" image I posted, dark in the middle, gets gradually lighter towards the edges.

RebelHill
02-13-2019, 04:53 PM
Also, you previously mentioned the uniformity of the volume, and that's certainly true when you have it alone... but a good study of why thats so would be to look at pics of the ol gas giants, which are basically just big fat volumetric spheres with no actual "surface". They're pretty uniform. You'll notice that you can just take a volume sphere by itself, pop on a procedural, and bingo, pretty convincing neptune.

prometheus
02-14-2019, 03:56 AM
Also, you previously mentioned the uniformity of the volume, and that's certainly true when you have it alone... but a good study of why thats so would be to look at pics of the ol gas giants, which are basically just big fat volumetric spheres with no actual "surface". They're pretty uniform. You'll notice that you can just take a volume sphere by itself, pop on a procedural, and bingo, pretty convincing neptune.

Yep,
Can you describe gasplanets as "having atmosphere" or consisting of "atmosphere only" ?

Ogo taiki did nice planet atmosphere realisticly, though it is a dead end for lw versions above 2015, and for those version it could work on...maybe to slow to render, otherwise it was nice.

RebelHill
02-14-2019, 05:48 AM
Well, most are expected to have kind of solid core arent they, even if its tiny in comparison to the overall dimensions.

Anyhow... with a bit of play Im finding its possible to get some really nice subtle effects... soft edges, gentle terminators, lovely shine through at the limb. Very quick and easy. Only thing not shown is the texture, which is nothing more than a procedural plugged into the scattering colour, thats it.

RPSchmidt
02-14-2019, 08:09 AM
No... I mean it's a mist, there is no definitive surface boundary such as the surface of a sphere. Or rather, the volume is composed of millions of tiny little surfaces (blobs/motes/particles/whatever). If you could apply a incidence based shade (and zoom in real close) you'd have this image, not the one you imagine you should get. Not to mention the fact that the atmosphere has no meaningfully visible levels of reflection or refraction (certainly not in the optical wavelengths), its almost ALL scattering and absorption.

I'm pretty sure I'm not communicating efficiently.

Incidence and the angle of incidence is a real thing; i.e., we use it to calculate the amount of em radiation (both visible and non-visible wavelengths) that strike the earth and the earth's atmosphere.

Our atmosphere does have a large amount of scattering and absorption; but it also has reflection and refraction. We actually have manuals to address atmospheric reflection and refraction distortion in aerial and satellite imagery. It most certainly is in the visible range, although you may not actually be fully aware of it without being shown exactly where it is. When you see it, you definitely recognize it; and once you recognize it, you can't "un-see" it. Unfortunately, I work with a lot of people who can't un-see it.

Also, we actually do measurements of incidence from the top of our atmosphere.

Our atmosphere, like the volume in Lightwave we are discussing, is composed of an enormous number of particles. At the macro level where we observe our atmosphere, it acts like a surface for the purposes of measuring incidence.



You're still stuck in the mindset of the ways that we used to need to fake such effects by using definite surfaces and trying to make them appear voluminous. There is no longer any need to do that, volume primitives behave now as real volumes do, which DOES include, incidence shading/scattering effects... again, look at the first "black planet" image I posted, dark in the middle, gets gradually lighter towards the edges.

No no. I want to create a realistic simulation. I spend a considerable amount of my days creating imagery simulations; and the fact that the volumetric primitive lacks reflection / refraction or the ability to calculate incidence makes it a little less than ideal.

From space, at a 90 degree angle of incidence, the areas of the atmosphere receiving the most solar radiation appear to be more translucent; as you move to the edges of the earth and the amount of solar radiation falls off, the atmosphere appears to become more dense. This effect can be greater or lesser depending on the concentration of the atmosphere in a given area, but it's there.

I mentioned uniformity because in full illumination, if the volume were accurate, a portion of our volumetric sphere over our "earth" that receives the greatest direct illumination would be appear to be more translucent; it would become more dense as you moved to the edges.

We can approximate that effect in other ways; but the calculation of the incidence of a sphere actually provides this all by its lonesome.

Gas giants are fully dense, i.e., the density of their atmospheric volume is such that incidence doesn't have the same clear visible effect. In some ways that makes them tend to appear flat, although in some of the newer imagery of neptune from the European Southern Observatory's VLT, (from your example), incidence becomes clearer.

Anyhoo, it's all good. It's something to consider and work on for me.

RebelHill
02-14-2019, 08:34 AM
I didnt say that there was no reflection nor refraction, simply that it was minimally visible. Sure, when you're taking (precision) images of the ground from orbit, these effects become meaningful, but when you're just doing "pretty photos" of the earth as if from space, the effect is gonna be negligible at anything other than high magnification or massive resolution.

As for the incidence based effects... let me point you AGAIN to the first black planet image I posted... darker (thinner atmosphere) on the front face area, progressing to lighter (denser appearance) towards the limb. It's right there... If you're not getting it, work on your volumetric settings, because it DOES work.

If you're determined to add this reflection/refraction stuff into the bargain... then I'd suggest augmenting the setup by using both a volume object and a "shell" surface, let the volumetric handle the absorption and scattering, haze and "rim light", and the mesh the reflect/refract. Alternatively, you can try out the Sigma 2 material, which is a full volumetric material providing for the full gamut of surfacing effects... reflection, refraction (internal and surface), absorption, scattering... the lot.

prometheus
02-14-2019, 11:01 AM
Crying..crying....
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~pq1a-ogs/taiki_e.html

Ogo had refraction, it had too many settings, you could create almost any kind of atmosphere, but hard to know what you were doing, slow to render and difficult to control quality settings all over the place.
But if used right..I think it could produce the best results out there...only matched by Terragen, ozone could not create planetary views like this.

prometheus
02-14-2019, 11:38 AM
From an older thread, when I initially started to try the new volumetrics...
check thread here,,,
https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?155488-Hypervoxels-VS-New-Volumetrics/page5&highlight=hypervoxels+vs

https://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139199&d=1515175546