Show Us Your Bryce Renders! Part 6
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
@Horo,
Interesting caves you have there.
@David,
Sorry to hear of all the disasters you've had to cope with. I hope you thought to take some good photos of that wall, the one with a little yellow paint left on it. That looks like it could be a great texture.
@Mermaid,
Love the blobby ribbon, nice render, good choice of material.
@Forhammer32,
Interesting subject you've chosen there, it'll be interesting to see what it develops into. The yellow material on the stuff the arm is emerging from – that looks interesting, is that from the Bryce library?
@Dana
It'll be interesting to see how that water wall develops. Good start.
@Dave Savage,
Wow, that's a lovely model, excellent texturing too, looks fabulous. Funny how the simplest thing can look so good in the hands of an expert.
@Mermaid, by the way, I'm not so sure I agree with Horo about the materials on your sails needing some transparency – I saw a real ship on TV, just yesterday – pretty close too, with really heavy canvas sails – no trace of transparency at all – some billowing though – and I think perhaps your sails are a little too small for the size of your ship. If you want to see a really good ship model I recommend you take a look at JedSwindells' models – they are excellent: http://www.sharecg.com/v/44885/browse/5/3D-Model/The-Grand-Turk
Good luck.
@nreed,
Wow, your city was just starting out the last I saw, and now it's looking fabulous. That's great, well done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm afraid I'm still stuck with my little SnowPea, and I'm not happy with his head/body. I wanted puffy cheeks and fluffy hair, but can't think how to achieve that. I was going to try using 'Sculpt' in Wings, but I can't find any video tutorials in English, with sound, that actually explain how you use it.
Does anyone know?
Here's a Wings shot of him and a Bryce render so far...
@fran: That little guy is looking better and better each time you post. I haven't tried this, but fencepost told me if you turn on Tweak in Wings you can manipulate individual vertices's. Being able to do this you can then pull out the various vertices's until you get the puffy checks you want. Don't take this to the bank, but I seem to remember something in the bottom right hand corner of the screen which asked about enabling Tweak.
@Dave - when fooling around with such sharp things, you risk to cut yourself, as evidenced in the second render. Looking absolutely real.
@Forhammer32 - very nice plaque.
@nreed - this progresses nicely.
@franontheedge - Thank you. I'm not good enough in Wings3D to be any help, I'm afraid.
@GussNemo,
Thank you. He does now have real eyes, nose and mouth, instead of painted on features, plus I've added some bump, spec and so on to the textures.
Now on Tweak, I used to use that all the time, but really it was for minute adjustments to single verts - working in really close. Either I've become more dexterous since then, or they changed how Tweak worked... or both, but I can work okay on single verts without enabling Tweak - here I want to be able to pull a largish (comparatively) area in just a few movements... or so I'd hoped, so I knew Tweak wasn't what I wanted but I have hopes for Sculpt.
One can always go in closer and make minor adjustments if needed afterwards.
I'd be working on a copy anyway - just in case it all goes horribly wrong.
I've tried a couple of times, but the effect is just too huge, and I can't find any way to adjust the radius - I can adjust the strength, the shape (there are a few fixed shapes to choose from) but not the radius - which I think is what's meant by the 'brush size'. (Blue area) See Pic 1
As it is, any attempts just end up swallowing up his eye.
I'm stumped... unless there's an easy to learn program out there, that'll let me sculpt smaller areas of his head - AND IS FREE - then I'm kinda stuck...
It's already taken me days just modelling the eye - because I wanted it to conform to the contours of his face/body and an extract of that area didn't work because the dome shape didn't come to a peak in the way that a disc does... complex to explain, but I ended up using a flat disc and modelling one side of that to match the extracted dome shape, so that I can move the iris/pupil around to enable animation of the eye later... (If I ever get to learn rigging enough to be able to do that...) and you can still view him from any angle without his eye looking weird lying half off the body, with light passing underneath it. (see Pic 2) as it would if it was a flat disc...
Hi all you have probably already seen this but I love it.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQB7QRyF4p4 Trish
Hooray - got a tip about how to create fluffiness in Wings3D from Rendo.
So now I have this:
View from other side, without hat so that his head is the more visible, and I've finally UVMapped his scarf:
I think that'll be all for a while... I'll look into creating BeanPole next I think... Or maybe redoing BlooPea's blobs, I wasn't happy with the last lot.
I think I need to do some more on the background terrains but I wanted to see how well my planets would look in the scene.
David -that’s awful everything happening at the same time. You are doing a great job with the repairs.
Forhammer-both renders are nice.
Dave – lovely work as usual.
Nreed – Love it – it’s coming along nicely, except the last render is a bit dark, maybe the planets behind some mountains will look nice.
Franontheedge – Thanks for the feedback and the link. The Snow Pea is looking great.
My take on this tutorial
Hypertexture_driven_ambient_reflection_mapping - by David Brinnen
1st render I used the Platform Hdri for the Ibl and the Ambient for the object.
2nd render I used the Indoor Hdri – converted to Spherical map for the Ambient for the object.
Mermaid, nice to see you ploughing your way through the tutorials. Yeah, it's a bit elemental in here at the moment, but I've done what I have to do for the time being so I can get back to some experiments.
Fran, "disasters" is a bit strong. The water didn't dribble into my PC so I count this only as an irritation. Interesting progress you are making with this character.
Nreed, I've been following the progress of your city renders, very impressive.
Dave, as usual everything you do is excellent.
Right, so experiments? First render is without transparency. The next three all show the results of adding some transparency to varying degrees. That includes the terrain, but not the tree trunks.
@franontheedge - great to see your progress. You must be a very patient person - or stubborn.
@nreed - the city looks good. Abandoned at the moment without lights in the rooms.
@mermaid010 - both came out really great. I can't decide which one I like more.
@David - great experiments. Except for the first, it appears that only the sun angle was changed. If so, the leaf material is versatile.
Well this was more complicated than I thought it was going to be.
And it's still not right, but from this angle, I just about get away with it :)
@David - great experiments. Except for the first, it appears that only the sun angle was changed. If so, the leaf material is versatile.
Just to clarify the first was included just to show what transparency contributed. This render was done without transparency.
I prefer the lower sss - more like a 30% of the maximum value. I did a blend of the first and the second image posted in proportions 65:35 + added some glow from the sky and volumetric lighting in the post (maybe too much but it shows that it's important contribution). I hope you enjoy the result - if not I can remove the image.
I prefer the lower sss - more like a 30% of the maximum value. I did a blend of the first and the second image posted in proportions 65:35 + added some glow from the sky and volumetric lighting in the post (maybe too much but it shows that it's important contribution). I hope you enjoy the result - if not I can remove the image.
Thank you. Yes I like the result, I too like the lower level but there is a lot of varied and strongly held views on this topic and it seems difficult to find a compromise which does not cause offence.
I have been trying, as with the above to get the effect I want within the bounds of regular rendering. But I am not happy. For some reason, switching on soft shadows in regular eliminates the shadows on the leaves entirely. So to have soft shadows and the effect I want it will require premium effects. This render uses scattering for the vegetation effect, has soft shadows and blured reflection and transmission. Render time five minutes. Feedback welcome, indeed encouraged.
@Dave - oh yes, it looks quite nice this way.
Yes, I was aware of that. The question was about the other three. Has the material changed or only the sun's position?
That landscape looks great at first glance but there is something odd about it but I fail to point to what gives me this impression.
@dwsel_ - nice effect but the backlit leaves have lost the colour. Light rays are really a nice touch.
Yes, I was aware of that. The question was about the other three. Has the material changed or only the sun's position?
That landscape looks great at first glance but there is something odd about it but I fail to point to what gives me this impression.
Sorry, my dyslexia letting me down. I read it as that the examples were good except for the first (which was intentionally bad). OK yes, in the three other examples what has been modified is only the sky. Sun position mostly and also a few cosmetic changes to the cloud colour. The material seems to work to a degree, but I am not that happy with the regular rendering effect. I think premium has the edge because it allows soft shadows, which while subtle helps sell the effect. Here is another iteration.
@David - fine, great. Foliage works backlit (ist), lit from the side (2nd) and lit head-on (3rd). That it won't properly render in regular is a pity.
This terrain looks good. It might have been the vegetation in the foreground and at far right on the mountain.
Meanwhile, I've been working indoors, using rr02. I've emailed you the results.
Thanks, yes - well they will render in regular, but for the extra effort of using premium there is too many advantages to ignore. They will work essentially the same which is good. Here's another angle from the last. Render time 15 minutes, premium rpp 16, soft shadows, blurred reflection and transparency. The email just came in! Looks very promising!
I love the backlit leaves from the previous page. And these ones are looking good too (though some of that vegetation looks a bit odd (like it's got ambient glow).
I was wondering if using the set up from the last one, how much render time is added by adding a radial light.
I ask because if I was doing that scene, I'd be thinking about adding a highlight radial to the tree on the right to make it stand out more.
On the subject of 'Regular' rendering... Am I the only one who never considers 'regular' anymore?
Nowadays, I always use Premium even if I'm not using premium effects.
Here is a side by side. The slide on the left shows scattering in regular rendering achieved using bump and optics. The slide on the right uses no bump but instead blurred transmission to achieve the same effect in premium 16 rpp, ray depth 4, soft shadows, blurred reflection and transmission. Overall, I favor the effect for premium but... it is good I suppose to have the option of using either... Compare and contrast.
I love the backlit leaves from the previous page. And these ones are looking good too (though some of that vegetation looks a bit odd (like it's got ambient glow).
I was wondering if using the set up from the last one, how much render time is added by adding a radial light.
I ask because if I was doing that scene, I'd be thinking about adding a highlight radial to the tree on the right to make it stand out more.
On the subject of 'Regular' rendering... Am I the only one who never considers 'regular' anymore?
Nowadays, I always use Premium even if I'm not using premium effects.
Dave, you have the patience of a saint! Well, it is good practice to use premium I think, but not everyone would do so, so the thing is to cater to everyone as much as possible. Plus since the two render engines are different it is sometimes enlightening to compare them. Like for example the discovery that soft shadows in regular turns off shadow casting on the leafs!
Aye, previously, I maybe overdid the transparency and that with scattering give the effect of ambience somewhat.
The penalty for adding a radial to light the tree on the right from the last image is not too high it seems. I will run a proper test when this last batch is complete and let you know exactly (edit: add on a couple of minutes for an extra radial light).
Here's two regular renders, nothing is changed except in the second soft shadows is turned on. Quite a difference. This does not happen in premium. Bug or feature? (I didn't let the second render complete the AA pass it was going very slow indeed).
@David - the set of 6: backlit both look much the same, maybe, just maybe, the regular one is a tad better. The side lit and front lit ones, the premium ones are much better, no doubt here. Regular shadow/soft shadow comparison is quite dramatic.
@Dave - regular is not per se less good than premium but there are times premium is not only better but also faster. I decide case by case which render engine I use.
Yes it seems the Bryce is a bottomless pit of unexpected discoveries. Here's another back lighting/transparency experiment (in premium).
Edit and one in in regular using a procedural transparency trick.
Do the leaves got any ambient? or maybe the shadows aren't 100%? There's a bug related to soft shadows combined with clustered lights where there's a little bit of ambient or transparency of shadow it actually becomes a sum of the number of the lights (virtual lights creating the shadow).
Do the leaves got any ambient? or maybe the shadows aren't 100%? There's a bug related to soft shadows combined with clustered lights where there's a little bit of ambient or transparency of shadow it actually becomes a sum of the number of the lights (virtual lights creating the shadow).
All good questions. But so far as I know, this is down to the regular render engine deciding that it does not have to cast shadows onto 2D surfaces. Here is my settings. The only difference between the two renders, is that the one on the right has soft shadows set in the sun.
@David Brinnen:
It seems like a bug. I can reproduce it.
I thought I'll post something with the foliage. I used TA with only 4RP, that's why it's so noisy. Raw render + with some postpro.
@fran: Character is really looking better each time I see it.
@nreed: The planets in that scene have a ghost feel to me, like they aren't actually there. Perhaps giving them a more solid look might help? I've never done planets so I may be talking out of the back of my head here.
@mermaid: Love your results from that tutorial.
@David: Of the first set of images, I'm drawn towards the 2nd and 3rd ones. The last image has to high an illumination for my taste. Of the two ravines, I like the one where you added the tree, it give the scene a little something more. As to the different sun position of the next set, given the cloud cover it seems the sun would be more muted and the left side would not be as bright. The leaf experiments are interesting. Of the first series I prefer the second on the right and the third on the left. It's what I would expect in the RW. And your last two images I like the 1st one the best, again, something I might expect in the RW.
@Dave: Cadi does look really good.
@dwsel: Really like your take of David's first image.
As to render engines, I use both depending on what I'm after, if I even know, and if I'm in the mood to wait.
It's really interesting all the tests being done on leaves and lighting. But I have to remind myself, after 34 years out and about around trees and leaves, how a leaf looks will depend on many factors. Is the tree by itself? What type of leaves does it have? Is it a fully mature tree or one just getting started? Is it healthy or sick? Are there any structures or other trees preventing direct sun light from hitting that tree? And how cloudy is the sky? Of these few factors, it seemed to be the condition of the sky that really determined how much overall light there was which affected the side opposite the sun.
@GussNemo - right. A birch or beech leaf will let more light through than an oak leaf. I'm living at a dry place and we have downy oaks with hair on the underside. They don't let light pass through. Direct sunlight is usually necessary to make backlit leaves shine. The side towards the sun has often a lot of specular depending on the sun angle. It is indeed not easy to get it right.
@Horo: And if a person does get it right, it takes time to render. I downloaded sample plants and trees from Xfrog, and after correcting the transparency as you instructed, using them took longer because of all the transparency. Like my fountain scene, all the transparency of the water material caused both renders to take several hours to render. Had I left out the water it would have taken only a few minutes to render.