Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Terragen Support / Re: Large Tiff Heightfield Issues
« Last post by D.A. Bentley on November 16, 2017, 06:03:27 PM »
Thanks Matt!  I'm not sure I will be using 8-bit heightfields anymore now that I know better, but it's nice to know this has been fixed.  I tested a 16-bit 40k x 40k Grayscale Tiff as a heightfield, and it worked flawlessly.  :)

Thanks again everyone,

Derek
92
Terragen Support / Re: Render sequence won't output OpenExr at 32bit
« Last post by D.A. Bentley on November 16, 2017, 05:45:42 PM »
What version of Photoshop are you using?  I'm still on CS5, and my EXR bit-depths are correctly displaying.
93
Terragen Discussion / Terragen AVX2 / AVX-512 Support
« Last post by D.A. Bentley on November 16, 2017, 05:37:08 PM »
Does anyone know if the Terragen 4 rendering engine uses any of the AVX / AVX-512 CPU extensions found in Xeon CPUs, and some Core i9 CPUs?  I know the Ryzen Threadripper CPUs has a scaled back set of AVX extensions, and am curious if it would have any impact on TG4 rendering speed.

I know Vue Infinite takes advantage of AVX, and since I use both applications, although mostly Terragen, I am just planning for my next workstation, so any insight would be helpful.

The new Intel Core i9-7980XE (18-core) CPU is what I am looking at.  Although the Intel CPU is twice the cost of the amazing Threadripper 1950X, when considering the difference between a $6k machine to a $7k machine it doesn't seem all that significant.
94
Terragen Discussion / Re: Current TG version number
« Last post by digitalguru on November 16, 2017, 04:55:49 PM »
latest is 4.1.17 - without it in front of me, this may be a "frontier" version
95
Terragen Discussion / Re: Current TG version number
« Last post by pokoy on November 16, 2017, 04:54:44 PM »
4.1.17 is the latest as far as I'm aware of.
96
Terragen Discussion / Current TG version number
« Last post by bobbystahr on November 16, 2017, 04:39:27 PM »
As I run Terragen offline it tends to not get updated regularly. My current version # is 4.1.14 on the splash page. is this current?
97
Terragen Discussion / Re: Classic Erosion installation file and Norton Antivirus
« Last post by bobbystahr on November 16, 2017, 04:31:02 PM »
2 thumbs up mate.
98
Image Sharing / Re: Erosion in use
« Last post by Dune on November 16, 2017, 03:54:07 PM »
I agree, it has the best of both worlds, but I still made another version  ;) Now with a newly bred Ichtyostega, and some added prehistoric XFrog plants, some other clouds too.
99
Terragen Discussion / Painted shader + Classic Erosion fun
« Last post by blinkfrog on November 16, 2017, 03:42:25 PM »
Here is interesting setup allowing to paint mountains:

77190-1
(created using free version of Classic Erosion)
The only thing that somewhat limits the use of this setup is the profile of paint brush: try to paint line, convert it to displacement and you'll see that the profile is sort of inverted U. It would be great if there were options orparametric  shape control allowing to get inverted V, inverted Y and gaussian.

Daniil

P. S. Here I used also simple "orographic precipitation" model described in other post. You can disable it by turning mask off in erosion shader, and result is interesting too, but I still prefer it with this model on.
100
Image Sharing / Re: Ocean floor visualization
« Last post by sboerner on November 16, 2017, 03:31:50 PM »
Getting closer. Here is a new rendering of the same ETOPO1 data but with a more accurate water mask. The mask matches the coastlines much better and nearly eliminates the black fringes. Much better result that would be acceptable for online and print. The most usable scales would be continental or larger, as the resolution of the terrain image suffers the closer you get.

77184-0

The water mask is from here: http://www.shadedrelief.com/natural3/pages/extra.html. This is the best-resolution composite I can find of the MODIS water mask, which is available in 1x1 degree tiles: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/dataset_discovery/modis/modis_products_table/mod44w. I'd really like to find a higher-resolution composite.

Also did a comparison of the ETOPO1 elevation map with the higher-resolution maps from Visible Earth. Here they are side-by-side. The elevation data for both is original resolution so nothing is downsampled. The 8-bit VE data produces a lot of banding, especially in shallow ocean areas, and doesn't appear to have any more detail than the lower-resolution 16-bit file, at least from this perspective. So for now the ETOPO1 data seems to be the best way to go, at least until something better turns up.

77186-1


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
anything