View Full Version : Sasquatch......

10-04-2007, 09:50 AM
Hi All,

Anyone know if Worley has plans to make Sasquatch fully compatible with LW9.x? I mean things like the new AA systems etc?

Has there been any comment I've missed?



10-04-2007, 10:53 AM
Making it volumetric means making it render slower.. But after that hairs will be visible in reflections, refractions, radiosity, occlusion and any kind of future ray-tracing shaders, nodes and materials, lights implemented naturally, renderable by Advanced Camera Tools and renderable in 3rd party renderer Kray, like TrueHair does all above now..

10-04-2007, 02:17 PM
But is that happening? Any info?

One feature that woule really help would be to be able to tie fur/hair render quailty with motion blur so that as the hairs become more blurred by motion, they are rendered at a lower quality.

In anycase, all dreams at the moment - anyone got any info on what is actually happening?

10-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Any good videos of True Hair in action? I haven't seen anything convincing yet. Its' like vapor ware so far.


10-04-2007, 02:41 PM
There are lots of people in the beta, so it's alive an kicking ;) I'm on there :)

10-04-2007, 10:52 PM
One feature that woule really help would be to be able to tie fur/hair render quailty with motion blur so that as the hairs become more blurred by motion, they are rendered at a lower quality.

I assume you meant lower-quality = faster rendering? Unfortunately it does not work this way, at least for straight hairs.. Slower rendering is result of much more pixel sampling for blurring and motion blur will add much more sampling that anything else.. Less segments per hair which you can adjust in each frame (also in node editor) does not necessary mean faster rendering - often higher segment value works faster..

This is not mine object..
Without motion blur:

With 3 motion blur passes:

With 5 motion blur passes:

In anycase, all dreams at the moment - anyone got any info on what is actually happening?

The later messages, newer plug-in versions..

10-05-2007, 12:41 AM
Sorry, but they look like wet stripes of metal

10-05-2007, 07:17 PM
Sorry, but they look like wet stripes of metal

There are chicks here in LA who pay lots of money for hair like that. :)

10-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Volumetric hairs open new possibilities not available for pixel-filter hairs, like f.e. occlusion pass for hairs:

Occlusion node can be used as shade source (TrueHair's node "Position Metric" is distance from the hair root to spot hit by ray, like when hair would be unfolded and completely straight). Blend mode set to Multiply:

Color Burn blending mode:

10-06-2007, 11:57 PM
Using Diffuse Shading is good for checking parameters.. After connecting it to regular Color and changing light to area it'll look like this (quite dark because it's double times shaded - 1st by occlusion node and 2nd time by regular light):

Specularity can add brightness- Specularity 100% Glossiness 30%:

Specularity 100% Glossiness 0% is highlighting the most:

10-07-2007, 08:35 AM
I agree, it just DOES NOT look like REAL hair. Strands are waaay to uniform in most places compared to Sasquatch to be convincing. Dispite how good a real hair dresser may be, there is always some non uniform [kinked, curled, or frizzed] stranding seen. Also the sheen of hair is not there yet!!

10-07-2007, 12:12 PM
The hair does look too uniform. Does something like 'Jitter' work on it? How quickly does it render with higher density? Right now it's about on par with MeshPaint (which I already have) as far as density.

Still waiting for FiberFactory to be ported to the Mac UB. Will probably put my money there, unless I see something more impressive, render-wise.

Wonder why we never hear from Worley in any of these threads? You'd think it would be in their best interests to participate in at least the odd discussion. Right now, even Saslite doesn't run on the Mac UB, so Sas in general is starting to look pretty useless from my viewpoint.

10-08-2007, 04:10 AM
So, any news on Sasquatch's future development? Is it being developed still?

10-08-2007, 10:19 AM
Man that hair is bad - SENSIE I relaise you siad it wasnt of your doing - but - this makes this plugin look real poor.

Anything that looks like hair (real or fake ) would go down better - this doesnt even resemble bad hair. Looks like last century 3d to me.

10-08-2007, 10:53 AM
Did some hair yesterday just for fun!


10-10-2007, 01:50 AM
Worely really does keep tight lipped doesn't he? I can completely understand that on completely new products but it would b nice for us folk who've purchased Sasquatch to at least know if it is still in development and therefore whether we will be able to use it with the new AA systems etc. I could be waiting a day or forever....with no indication which scenario is most likely.

I've emailed but got no reply. Does Steve or any of the other developers hang out on any forum?

10-11-2007, 12:58 AM
Sasquatch behaves differently for perspective and classic cameras. Classic camera is much more preferrable with Sasquatch.

10-12-2007, 12:56 AM
Some flying furballs done with Sasquatch in the middle of our reel:

01-15-2008, 01:07 PM
Okay, so I've been using Sas for some time now and getting pretty good results (although a little slower than I'd like...but what do I really expect? Hair, both native Maya hair and Shave hair, are slow in Maya, too!); however, since I'm using LW at the moment, I would love to use the new Motion Blur with this project. Now, I have no problem breaking out elements (i.e. character bald with photoreal MB, then the hair with classic or PLD MB, then comp'ing them togehter...actually, comp'ing elements is the method I prefer) but that creates a huge problem: matte lines, black edges, uncontrollable weeping from me. Does anyone know of a setting where I can use the new Photoreal MB with the geometry that will match up with the Classic MB settings? I've been banging my head into a brick wall with this.

As for a new Sas: when I emailed Worley Labs, they indicated they have no intention of releasing a new one...which means anything. Maybe a new hair system NOT called Sasquatch. Maybe they're just keeping the new release quiet, as is their M.O. I hope if it's a volumetric solution, it's quick. I've tried other "volumetric" hair solutions and they have some major kinks to work out. First, they may be volumetric, but at heart they're still a pixel filter. Second, they render orders-of-magnitude slower than Sas (this is not an exaggeration...and I'm using a dual quad-core). Third, don't count on the hair reflecting/refracting in any way that's useable in a final product.

As for realistic-looking hair, I'm posting a couple frames here (http://homepage.mac.com/thirdmonster/PhotoAlbum4.html) that I think look fairly realistic. There is a hi-res render, and a lower res (less fibers per clump, no frizz or kink so I keep fiber divisions low). For this project I've had to opt for the lower res as it decreases render times by a factor of around 4. That said, I still need to get the shadow mapping to look right (possibly jittering lights to smooth it out?...maybe?).

Anyway, have a look. If you have any ideas on motion blur (classic vs. photoreal...actually, classing working WITH photoreal) I would LOVE to hear it. I mean, if you figure it out, I'll buy you a pony! (not really, but still, you get the point.)



P.S. If you're planning on using long-hair guides for Sas, I highly recommend HairSpray. It too has some quirks and things I'd like to see implemented better, but it's really helpful and speeds things up considerably.