Oz Map -- Another v13 Displacement Fun Thread

[KenH]

It looks pretty good from here....

[Zaryin]

I made a normal map for the terrain, but it really didn't make a difference at all.

Really? The tests I did had high thumbs up for the use of normal maps. This is the normal map I came up with. Put this in the same decal as your displacement. Set your dispalcement to 0 and change the values on the normal map until they look like your mountains would. If their backwards, which sometimes happens, just use negative values for the normal map.

 

 

It looks pretty good from here....

 

Ummmm.... My Normal Map didn't turn out near as good as that, haha. Your's is so clear and good. Can you post the setting you used to make that in Photoshop? Then I can make the large version into a Normal Map using those settings. I guess I don't have any skills with the Normal Map plug-in. *sigh*

 

Thanks .

 

EDIT: I forgot to add. I would love to be able to "bake" these as well. I can't render this map from close up. My pc locks up trying to do it. It would be nice is this could be added to the terrain plug-in.

[MattWBradbury]

I'm assuming that you already have the normal map plug-in in your photoshop plug-ins folder.

 

Okay, open your height map. White is the top most part of your hieght map, and black is your bottom most. If it's backwards invert the colors (ctrl-i). Set the mode of the image to RGB: Image-> Mode-> RGP Color. Flatten the image if it isn't flattened already. Layer-> Flatten Image. Go to Filter->NVIDIA-> Normal Map Filter. nothing should be check in Height Generation. Select 4 samples for the filter type. Set the MinZ to 0 and the scale to 8. Select Average RGB in Height Source. Set the Alpha Field to Height and press OK. It should look something like this.

[attachmentid=13582]

Use the genereated normal map along with your displacement map to add correct shading to dispacement maps. If the normal map appears to be backwards, use negative values and tell me that they are backwards. Those are the hieght map conversions I've come up with.

 

Remember that Normal maps appear inverted when rendered with quick rendering.

[Zaryin]

Thanks for the info, Matt.

[MattWBradbury]

I made a change to my last post. Do not invert the X or Y, and you can use either Red Conversion or Average RGB.

 

This techniquie is especially useful for rendering specular. These two images show the difference between using normal maps and not use normal maps with displacement maps.

With Normal Maps:

[attachmentid=13583]

Without Normal Maps:

[attachmentid=13584]

 

These are for example purposes. I don't suggest making your topography super shiny. Though some specular adds to the shot.

Some Shinny (100% Size 100% Intensity):

[attachmentid=13585]

Not Shinny:

[attachmentid=13586]

[Paul Forwood]

Zaryin, how many patches are you using for your terrain? I have a theory regarding high render times while viewing displacement at close range. I haven't tested this theory yet so maybe someone who knows could chime in here.

 

My theory rests on the assumption that the resolution of the displaced surface is calculated on a per patch basis. If therefore you use a single patch to generate a large terrain and move the camera close to the surface A:M has to calculate a high resolution displacement for a huge area, most of which is out of shot. If on the other hand you use many patches A:M can cull all the patches that are not within the view and render times should improve. I have yet to test this theory but perhaps someone who knows could clarify the details? Is there any mileage in this theory?

 

I was rendering a camera movement, from far-away to close-up, to a displaced surface and the render times started at about 20 seconds per frame but quickly stepped up for each successive frame until it locked up at over 50 hours for the projected time for completion.

[Zaryin]

Thanks again, Matt. I was planning on using a spec and reflectivity map with the finished map. I can definately see the difference.

 

Paul: I tried it with 1 and 200 patches both versions took way too long to render, but Ill try the culling method and see how that works. THanks for the info, also.

 

I will have to add snow, change the color of some of the mountains add roads (mainly the Yellow One ), and see if i can add villages and citys with displacement well. With the normal mapping it might be easier.

 

EDIT: Who can I get to move this thread to the WIP section? I think that's what this has turned into, haha.

[zandoriastudios]

This was the 1st alpha with the feature, so the issues with how close the camera is should go away once Martin makes some tweaks.

Be sure that you report any issues in AM:Reports so that it can be looked at.

[Zaryin]

This was the 1st alpha with the feature, so the issues with how close the camera is should go away once Martin makes some tweaks.

Be sure that you report any issues in AM:Reports so that it can be looked at.

 

I'm not very good with spotting bugs for the simple reason is I never know if it is a bug or just a memory thing. How would I report it if I did?

 

Ok, rendered two versions now. The first is with 100% Normal Map, the second is with 200%. Let me know which one looks better. I also raised the Spec Size and Intensity to 100% for the entire model. It brightens it up . I do like the way the normal map brings out the shadow details.

[KenH]

I like contrast, so it's the second for me. Is that haze I see above the far side of the model?

[DanCBradbury]

After converting your height map to a normal, using 20 as the maxium height in the nvidia plug-in, you should only need 100% scaled normal maps. Overall your height map isnt very detailed at all, and normal maps will help a little, but not as much as say a real topo height map. Still, you have a pretty cool thing going here. Not realy sure what you're going to do with it tough.

 

image: Death Valley California, USA

<displacement, normal, displacement+normal>

[DanCBradbury]

Oh and you had asked about the artifacts i saw with ambient occlusion. When i render a displacement texture, using abient occlusion, with progressive render mode the results are perfect; however, when i render it for real, black horizontal and vertical lines and splotches destroy the image. I've adjusted the occlusion quality settings from lowest to highest and they still dont go away.

 

The first picture is of a full progressive render; the second is that same progressive render with a tinny square fully rendered. You can see why i'm not to happy with the results.

[heyvern]

Anyone have any clue for us poor Mac users as far as normal map conversion using Photoshop?

 

I have a normal map plugin but it doesn't have any "settings"... it is a one trick pony. I did figure out how to "switch" the red and green channels using it but it has no control on the "height" of the resulting map image.

 

I also have a PC but I don't have photoshop on it... would there be any optional free PCimage editors that use photoshop type plugins?

 

Oh... I just bought a new nvidia card for my PC as well... are there any standalone converters to aid in this process that might work with the card? I am clueless about this.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Vernon "!" Zehr

[robcat2075]

Great looking map, Zaryin!

 

It would be neat to have a map in TWO that rolls up like paper but when it's unrolled, it has 3D topography on it.

[DanCBradbury]

Anyone have any clue for us poor Mac users as far as normal map conversion using Photoshop?

 

I have a normal map plugin but it doesn't have any "settings"... it is a one trick pony. I did figure out how to "switch" the red and green channels using it but it has no control on the "height" of the resulting map image.

 

I also have a PC but I don't have photoshop on it... would there be any optional free PCimage editors that use photoshop type plugins?

 

Oh... I just bought a new nvidia card for my PC as well... are there any standalone converters to aid in this process that might work with the card? I am clueless about this.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Vernon "!" Zehr

i believe there's a trial version of cs that you can download for pc.

 

Anywho, Matt and I used the above abient occlusion render to create an abience map for the topography. The renders are very quick and you can adjust the otherwise occlusion color with the models ambience color. IT'S REAL NIFTY!! and did i mention fast?

[DanCBradbury]

I finaly got a hold of some satallite photos... but aparently nasa didnt want to have it oriented the way i wanted!! darn you nasa!! lol i had to spend 15 minutes or so scewing, rotating, and resizing the photo to fit.

[Zaryin]

Thanks Robert.

 

Vern: Sorry, wish I had some anwsers for you.

 

Dan: Yeah, I painted this color map of Oz to see if it could be used as a prop for the movie (map wall hanging, map on a table, etc...), but nobody commented on it so I stopped working on it.

 

So it sat on my pc for months and then the new displacement came out for v13. I said what the hell and made a height map from the color map and here we are. I know it's not as detailed as a real hieght map, but I still like the look . So now I am thinking of finishing it in the hopes that it might be used on the inevitable TWO webpage with links to pictures and concept art and stuff of the area on the map that you click. Or something like that, haha.

 

Now three questions for you.

 

What colors are set for the ambeint map you just made? It look great.

 

Where can I find real height maps?

 

Are the artifacts in the pic from the modeling window or in the choreography?

[DanCBradbury]

Now three questions for you.

 

What colors are set for the ambeint map you just made? It look great.

 

Where can I find real height maps?

 

Are the artifacts in the pic from the modeling window or in the choreography?

1) The ambient map is gray scale, because A:M does not support a colored ambience map , or specular color map type, for that matter, which they should probably think about doing, maybe. Now if you're talking about the model's ambient color, that's 141, 171, and 241. The only problem with doing it this way is that the ambient color overrides the surface diffuse color and makes it what ever color the ambient color is in shadow areas. Another problem is that pigment color addition and subtraction don't work, because of this color override. For instance, if you have a red ambient color, and the ground is either blue or green, it will still be evenly lit red; however, if you want to spend a few more seconds on the ambience map you can use the diffuse color map of your terrain to generate a selection of only your skylight color areas, transfer that selection to your ambience map, inverse the selection, and lower the brightness all the way to darken the non skylight color areas' . Unless you're really picky, you shouldn't even have to worry about this. Regardless, using an abience map is much faster than the actual occlusion.

 

2) Real height maps are hard to come by; in fact, this was the only one i could find that was a true height map. Most of the ones that claim to be a height map are only photographs that someone has converted to grey scale. Thought you could be sly with me, aye!! Most of the images of topos that you will find are line elevation maps, which aren't very useful when trying to make mountains in A.M.

 

3) The artifacts in the picture are from the top-down view in the choreography window. When I view it with a camera, the artifacts show up as thousands of black dots that seem to blend, but it's incredibly noisy and dark, even at 100% quality on all occlusion settings.

 

Just to show you what i was talking about with the dimming of non skylight color areas. I used the color selection tool in adobe photoshop on the deathvalley diffuse map, at a Fuzziness value of 200, to select all colors in range of my skylight color, made the selection, draged the selection over to my ambience map, inverted the selection, and then lowered the brightness all the way. I would keep an original of the first ambience map just in case you ever decide to change your sky color.

[MattWBradbury]

I couldn't find any greyscale topography maps; however, I did find many colored topography maps. In fact here's the site which has the entire earth as a colored topography map. Just click on the second of earth you want to see the topography of and click it again to get a really big image of it. I'm currently thinking of a way to use photoshop to convert these colors into greys so that they can become height maps. But like most colored topography maps, they felt that it was nessisary to add diffuse shading to the mixture. You can see what I'm talking about on the Atlantic Sea Wall in this image. This image is a smaller version.

[MMZ_TimeLord]

Two things... someone mentioned culling of the patches you don't see... how about simply hiding them when you move your camera in.

 

In other words, find a spot you want to zoom into a lot and hide all but that and see how close you can get the camera... don't forget to scale the camera down too...

 

Second, on the colored satalite image, could that simply be converted to a grayscale image? Looks like th blue is the darkest contrast wise... hmm... I think I'll break out photoshop and play with it....

 

EDIT: Okay, I split the image into RGB channels, applied a negative filter to the blue channel and recombined them. Here is the resulting map after simple grayscaling.

 

I'll do a render on a patch and post that next to see if it comes out right.

 

[attachmentid=13618]

[MMZ_TimeLord]

Yep, seemed to work okay, I used the colored map for the color and my converted map for the displacement. I think maybe the red channel needs to be tweaked somehow so it's higher up than the green channel... some of the red areas seem to drop a little.

 

I probably need to either soften it some or bring down the scale some too... tell me what you think.

 

Now I gotta go fix my earth model... bump map changed to displacment... oooo... can't wait.

 

[attachmentid=13619]

[DanCBradbury]

Hm... quite a bit of work you've done, but i already have this map, and so much more, though it doesnt have the underwater topography data. The full picture is 8192x4096 pixels. This is just a sample of central america.

[MMZ_TimeLord]

Dan,

 

I don't have the close-up images, but I have the 8000+x8000+ images of earth (bump, color and specularity + cloud layers, and city lights)

 

I'll have to post an image in the showcase when I get it re-rendered with the new displacement maps.

[Zaryin]

You asked for it, now you got it. I hid all patches that I knew wouldn't be in the picture. This render is of the two mountains on the bottom right of the map. At this size, using only 4 passes, it took 15 and a half minutes to render.

 

I am wondering if scale of model might be an issue with the time. I'll try and resize it larger tomorrow to see if it will make a difference. It still looks pretty damn cool to me though. If they can get the renderspeeds up, we'll be able to make some serious landscapes. I posted the pic like this so everyone know that it was made and rendered in A:M. I looked at it at first and thought I was looking at a pic out of a Terrain Program that I will not mention. Lovin' it!

 

I will be posting all other Ozmap WIP stuff in the TWO Props area since it is a WIP and not just showcasing . If you like the map follow me there and give me advice.

 

Thanks.

[MMZ_TimeLord]

That's SOOO awsome... heheeh... I KNEW that hiding some patches would help... now we need that 'bake'.

[ypoissant]

Now if you're talking about the model's ambient color, that's 141, 171, and 241. The only problem with doing it this way is that the ambient color overrides the surface diffuse color and makes it what ever color the ambient color is in shadow areas.

If you don't set an explicit surface ambiance color on the object or on groups, then the renderer will use the diffuse color as the ambiance color. So if you used a color map, and don't set an explicit surface ambiance color, the ambiance color details will be the same as the color map.

Another problem is that pigment color addition and subtraction don't work, because of this color override. For instance, if you have a red ambient color, and the ground is either blue or green, it will still be evenly lit red;

That is true if you set an explicit surface ambiance color on the object or on a group but not true if you set the ambiance color in the Choreography "Global Ambiance" color. This global ambiance color acts like a light and thus will add its color to whatever diffuse color is there. Not override it.

[DanCBradbury]

That is true if you set an explicit surface ambiance color on the object or on a group but not true if you set the ambiance color in the Choreography "Global Ambiance" color. This global ambiance color acts like a light and thus will add its color to whatever diffuse color is there. Not override it.

where's this setting? If you're talking about the abmient occlusion settings i kinda don't want to use it, because an ambience map is much faster to render. Was there another global ambiance color that you're talking about?

[ypoissant]

On each object and/or each group of each object, you have "Ambiance Color" and "Ambiance Intensity" properties. If you do not set an explicit "Ambiance Color" but set the "Ambiance Intensity", then the ambiance color will be taken from the diffuse color.

[DanCBradbury]

So there's no way, currantly, that allows the ambience color of an object to function with pigment subtraction without AO? Anyways, i cant seem to get a good noiseless render with AO+displacement, so i'll just stay with the abience map with only the skycolor chanels illuminated. It works pretty good.

 

Render Times (VGA):

with ambient occlusion 2:42

with ambience map, no AO 1:32

[ypoissant]

So there's no way, currantly, that allows the ambience color of an object to function with pigment subtraction without AO?

Dan,

 

I don't understand what you mean by "ambience color of an object to function with pigment subtraction". What are you trying to do?

[DanCBradbury]

I guess i was just thinking out loud, Yves. Sorry for taking over your thread Zaryin.

[Zaryin]

No problem. I am finding useful info. Plus I moved the map thread over to the TWO Props area. Keep going if you want, I'm enjoying it.