Oblivion - Alternate Ending - WIP - LW 2020

Planeguy

Member
I'm doing an alternate ending to the ending of Oblivion...

So, I quickly threw this scene together to see if I could get the look of the icelandic landscape in the movie. I used the environment light, with GI enabled, and graded it in post. Won't be using this scene, however, as this was a test and it's not close enough to the movie's post-apocaliptic landscpae.

Need to get the color grading right, and need to find a place to get photorealistic fog (fog coming out of rocks, ground etc). Any ideas where I could find high quality animated fog sequences?
 

Attachments

  • oblv.jpg
    oblv.jpg
    109.8 KB · Views: 148

Planeguy

Member
very nice, how did you do the rocks, are those scanned assets or something similar ?
I got those from the texture site of unreal engine. Gigapixel or megapixel maps something, can't remember. They've got some amazing stuff though. Rocks come with normal, specular, height bump, transmission and other maps which you can select from a menu when downloading. I used a principled BSDF material node with them. Tried the unreal node material but I don't quite understand it yet.

I'll have to create the materials for the ground, but I think they have something for this as well.

PS: I remember. "Quixel" Go to products, and "browse megascans". You'll love it :)
 
Last edited:

Planeguy

Member
Adding more details now. I'm gonna go with this view. Which of the two color gradings you think it's more in line with the grading of the movie? Both are the same renders minus the ground is different in one render (greyish black as it is is Iceland). One render is a bit over exposed on purpose and has a different color pallete.

This scene doesn't yet have fog or other effects. Only a OpenVDB cloud type of fog.
 

Attachments

  • Oblivion1.jpg
    Oblivion1.jpg
    101.1 KB · Views: 105
  • Oblivion2.jpg
    Oblivion2.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 107

Planeguy

Member
regarding Gigapixel,
been thinking the same, up-scaling should work nicely.

advice, to keep size down, convert to 256 color PNG.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFccG3v5ei8
Thanks for the tip! Gonna try it because these textures are eating all my memory already.

Btw, do you have any tips on VDBs? The fog above is a free VDB file, it looks great, but moves way too fast. Is there a way to retime, or slow down the effect? Thanks mate
 

Planeguy

Member
Been learning openVDB in LW the past few weeks. Got to simulate a raising fog/snow on top of the boulder. Haven't learned how to do collisions yet, but I might not need it for this scene. This was "rendered" in the viewport, so the vdb looks pixelated.

 

prometheus

REBORN
Thanks for the tip! Gonna try it because these textures are eating all my memory already.

Btw, do you have any tips on VDBs? The fog above is a free VDB file, it looks great, but moves way too fast. Is there a way to retime, or slow down the effect? Thanks mate

vdb files are loaded per frame, so you can´t re-time it.

You would need to create your own vdb fog with Lightwave or some other tools of your choice that and simulate the speed accordingly to what you need.
 

prometheus

REBORN
Been learning openVDB in LW the past few weeks. Got to simulate a raising fog/snow on top of the boulder. Haven't learned how to do collisions yet, but I might not need it for this scene. This was "rendered" in the viewport, so the vdb looks pixelated.


Try another software that "renders in realtime" the openGL without any pixelation :)
Then again, render with final render in Lightwave of course might just do it as well, it´s just that for previews in openGL and vdb, Lightwave is horrible with the tick display only and not having a slice of the volume instead.

Unfortunately, setting up collisions is a bit trickier than some other software where you just tell the object to be a collision object, especially since it takes more work within a nodal system and setting that up right, lightwaves new features lost out from the old perspective or philosophy of "lightwave being easy to setup"

Please let us know when you get to the end and
blowing up the TET. :)
 
Last edited:

Planeguy

Member
vdb files are loaded per frame, so you can´t re-time it.

You would need to create your own vdb fog with Lightwave or some other tools of your choice that and simulate the speed accordingly to what you need.
Thanks mate, yeah I found out the hard way but the good thing is that I got to learn the vdb system in LW.
 

Planeguy

Member
Try another software that "renders in realtime" the openGL without any pixelation :)
Then again, render with final render in Lightwave of course might just do it as well, it´s just that for previews in openGL and vdb, Lightwave is horrible with the tick display only and not having a slice of the volume instead.

Unfortunately, setting up collisions is a bit trickier than some other software where you just tell the object to be a collision object, especially since it takes more work within a nodal system and setting that up right, lightwaves new features lost out from the old perspective or philosophy of "lightwave being easy to setup"

Please let us know when you get to the end and
blowing up the TET. :)
I've been trying out embergen and storm by effectivetds. Both seem quite complex for a beginner, specially storm, but the latter has a more generous trial time than embergen does. I'll have to keep trying with LW nodal vdb setup and see if I learn collision. It's sad that there are so few advanced tutorials on this for LW. On the other hand, even though it's complicated to set up, I do like it that it's all "there". Once I get a faster GPU I'll give embergen a more in depth study and blow that tet in the process lol
 

prometheus

REBORN
I've been trying out embergen and storm by effectivetds. Both seem quite complex for a beginner, specially storm, but the latter has a more generous trial time than embergen does. I'll have to keep trying with LW nodal vdb setup and see if I learn collision. It's sad that there are so few advanced tutorials on this for LW. On the other hand, even though it's complicated to set up, I do like it that it's all "there". Once I get a faster GPU I'll give embergen a more in depth study and blow that tet in the process lol
Most things can be percieved as too complex when you are a beginner, it´s often just a slight threshold to pass initially before you realize it wasn´t that hard.

As for what I know of dealing with embergen demos, it´s not at all that complex, and neither blender 2.79, while Lightwave on the other hand ..Is.
You need to access the nodal interface and mess around, while you do not have to do that in blender.
You could simple select your rock or cliff object, hit spacebar(2.79) and search for quick smoke and apply it, play and the smoke sim is starting, paint a weigh map on cliff parts and change the fluid to use that weightmap, so much faster workflow than in Lightwave nodal system vdb.

OpenVDB is however much more fully implemented in Lightwave, where blender is trying to catch up, but it´s easier to work with and faster in openGL and rendering, as for simulation speed between blender and lightwave, that is harder to determine, none of them can match embergen, or TurbulenceFD in speed.

In blender It´s just that it´s so simple to just paint in weightmap with an airbrush on rock edges and assign the fluid emission in the scene within blender, and shut down heat diffusion to avoid actual fire and smoke effects, instead add a wind with a slight noise and there you go, either render it out in workbench mode, for realtime ..or cycles with GPU for fully raytrace volumetrics, though you may not need that for this kind of effect.

For lightwave it´s more difficult to paint a weightmap and use it for fluid emission, it can be done but tricky, first off..modeler is the only place you can properly display weightmap, so you have to process it there and not in scene context, or use metamorphic to paint it, but with a horrible display, or buy some layout weightmap plugins..but still not as nice in weight map display.

I think the developers made the system with vdb to simple, to rough which makes it too complex for newbies to learn, and thu´s ..not many have made good tutorials on it.
They should have put more effort in to making the system easier to setup and acess along with better manuals/tutorials on it..before even releasing it, but that is vasted milk now so to speak.

Currently though, there are some uses of the LightwaveVDB system which are very flexible, and something Blenders current VDB solution can´t provide.
Both system have their strength and weaknesses.

To note though, In blender I rarely touch the mantaflow for smoke in 2.9 and up(to quirky when updating and simulating speed slow) Instead I use the older smoke system in 2.79 and send over to later blender versions as pre-simmed for rendering, it requires renaming of the vdb cached files though for later versions to read each file properly though, which is odd since Lightwave can read them just fine.
So you can simulate smoke fluids in blender and send to lightwave if you want to render, but it often requires high res simulation to look good, most vdb´s does, the point is that you may get a faster feedback on the fluids by setting it up in blender, as well as easier to weight paint and controll winds forces and collisions, and see the result, before choosing to send it to lightwave or render in blender.
 
Last edited:

Planeguy

Member
Most things can be percieved as too complex when you are a beginner, it´s often just a slight threshold to pass initially before you realize it wasn´t that hard.

As for what I know of dealing with embergen demos, it´s not at all that complex, and neither blender 2.79, while Lightwave on the other hand ..Is.
You need to access the nodal interface and mess around, while you do not have to do that in blender.
You could simple select your rock or cliff object, hit spacebar(2.79) and search for quick smoke and apply it, play and the smoke sim is starting, paint a weigh map on cliff parts and change the fluid to use that weightmap, so much faster workflow than in Lightwave nodal system vdb.

OpenVDB is however much more fully implemented in Lightwave, where blender is trying to catch up, but it´s easier to work with and faster in openGL and rendering, as for simulation speed between blender and lightwave, that is harder to determine, none of them can match embergen, or TurbulenceFD in speed.

In blender It´s just that it´s so simple to just paint in weightmap with an airbrush on rock edges and assign the fluid emission in the scene within blender, and shut down heat diffusion to avoid actual fire and smoke effects, instead add a wind with a slight noise and there you go, either render it out in workbench mode, for realtime ..or cycles with GPU for fully raytrace volumetrics, though you may not need that for this kind of effect.

For lightwave it´s more difficult to paint a weightmap and use it for fluid emission, it can be done but tricky, first off..modeler is the only place you can properly display weightmap, so you have to process it there and not in scene context, or use metamorphic to paint it, but with a horrible display, or buy some layout weightmap plugins..but still not as nice in weight map display.

I think the developers made the system with vdb to simple, to rough which makes it too complex for newbies to learn, and thu´s ..not many have made good tutorials on it.
They should have put more effort in to making the system easier to setup and acess along with better manuals/tutorials on it..before even releasing it, but that is vasted milk now so to speak.

Currently though, there are some uses of the LightwaveVDB system which are very flexible, and something Blenders current VDB solution can´t provide.
Both system have their strength and weaknesses.

To note though, In blender I rarely touch the mantaflow for smoke in 2.9 and up(to quirky when updating and simulating speed slow) Instead I use the older smoke system in 2.79 and send over to later blender versions as pre-simmed for rendering, it requires renaming of the vdb cached files though for later versions to read each file properly though, which is odd since Lightwave can read them just fine.
So you can simulate smoke fluids in blender and send to lightwave if you want to render, but it often requires high res simulation to look good, most vdb´s does, the point is that you may get a faster feedback on the fluids by setting it up in blender, as well as easier to weight paint and controll winds forces and collisions, and see the result, before choosing to send it to lightwave or render in blender.

I tried to learn blender, but having began 3D in the old days of 3dsmax, and then switching to LW, I find the blender interface to be as confusing as the american tax code! At least me. I tried several times to learn it, and gave up in frustration lol. I see blender can do tremendous effects rivaling that of houdini and the particles are fantastic. I wish it was easier to work with.

I used to have turbulencefd years ago, I need to see if it's compatible with LW 2020.
 
Top Bottom