Luxus discussion II

1356723

Comments

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 686
    edited December 1969

    If with shader you mean the displacement map, yes, I will include it and the settings to make the ripples you see in the images, maybe more variants.
    I understand the issue with the post, the problem with doing a hole in the plane is that the water plane would be useless for anything besides the post, which is used only to show the reflection and refraction.
    Collision detection works for this in some cases.
    But you gave me an idea, I’ll try to do some kind of additional prop people can place and adjust around objects in the water. Not sure how it will work.
    I’ll let you know. :)

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    Hellboy said:
    If with shader you mean the displacement map, yes, I will include it and the settings to make the ripples you see in the images, maybe more variants.
    I understand the issue with the post, the problem with doing a hole in the plane is that the water plane would be useless for anything besides the post, which is used only to show the reflection and refraction.
    Collision detection works for this in some cases.
    But you gave me an idea, I’ll try to do some kind of additional prop people can place and adjust around objects in the water. Not sure how it will work.
    I’ll let you know. :)

    I don't think you need to do that, although it would be nice for people. Maybe make the "hole" larger or smaller via a morph. I think the user would need to create a water plane for themselves based on what it interacts with. Personally, I can't wait until you release this. I have renders galore already formulating in my head.

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 686
    edited May 2013

    Ideally you model your water prop specifically for the scene, but honestly very few will do that and will use a plane. So if I can at least help with that, I'll be happy.
    I don't want a hole in there because I don't know what people will put in the water or where. If there is a character with his legs in the water, you'd need 2 holes then.
    I did a very quick experiment with an aditional prop. Not final, just testing the idea.

    border.jpg
    336 x 414 - 114K
    Post edited by Hellboy on
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    Hellboy said:
    Ideally you model your water prop specifically for the scene, but honestly very few will do that and will use a plane. So if I can at least help with that, I'll be happy.
    I don't want a hole in there because I don't know what people will put in the water or where. If there is a character with his legs in the water, you'd need 2 holes then.
    I did a very quick experiment with an aditional prop. Not final, just testing the idea.

    I'm not sure what you did, but it already looks much better. If you want a tester, you know how to find me.

  • Michael_GMichael_G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Nice job hellboy, Get in touch with Spheric, this should be included in the Luxus content pack.

  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited May 2013

    The only time one would have a 'hole' in water is when there was something just stuck in the water (like an oar, or maybe someone walking through the water.) If an item was in the water for some time, there would actually be a slight rise up the item at the point of contact between the water and the item (forget the name of the effect but related to surface tension.) This second effect, the slight rise would be so small it would only be visible on very extreme closeups of the contact between the water and item, ie... not an issue for anything but the rarest case.

    Post edited by Gedd on
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    The only time one would have a 'hole' in water is when there was something just stuck in the water (like an oar, or maybe someone walking through the water.) If an item was in the water for some time, there would actually be a slight rise up the item at the point of contact between the water and the item (forget the name of the effect but related to surface tension.) This second effect, the slight rise would be so small it would only be visible on very extreme closeups of the contact between the water and item, ie... not an issue for anything but the rarest case.

    I was trying to remember the name of that effect as well, and Google provided no help. You can really see it if you look at a glass of water at eye level. As for the hole, what you describe is exactly what we were discussing. The only reason I mentioned it to Hellboy is because it was difficult to see the waterline against the post in the water, but his changes seemed to address that very well. IMO

  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited May 2013

    Well if you are referring to post #63, that level of distortion around the post would only be visible if one just stuck the post in the water. It sounds like that's what you are saying that I was missing, and if so.. yes I missed that. If the post had been there for any amount of time, it would look like post #59.

    Post edited by Gedd on
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Well if you are referring to post #63, that level of distortion around the post would only be visible if one just stuck the post in the water. It sounds like that's what you are saying that I was missing, and if so.. yes I missed that. If the post had been there for any amount of time, it would look like post #59.

    I see what you are saying. By "just" you mean recently/immediately, not "merely". However, I think that any water source as large as a lake or the ocean is going to have enough motion to keep it from being still long enough to not have that interaction visible. I think only standing water in a small container would be so still as to not create a dynamic tension that would be visible. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it just looks more "right" when that is visible. At the very least, there would be a slight color shift since the water would not be completely clear, instead reflecting light from the sky and refracting the color of the container it was in (or lake bed, etc).

    I feel silly even carrying on the debate. Hellboy has done a great job, and I don't really know what I'm talking about. It's just opinion from here.

  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited May 2013

    Well the main reason I mention it is there is no reason to do a lot of work for something if it isn't correct. As to what one would see under various circumstances I have photographed this many times under different circumstances (not directly but as it happened to be a natural part of water pictures.) I wasn't able to find examples quickly since I have (and delete) a lot of pictures. It is easy enough to test though, just put something in water and look at it. Do the same on a windy day. As to large body and action, that is a separate effect, wave motion on the object. If one googles ocean pictures I would imagine one could find pictures of that. Wave motion against a standing object is a totally different phenomenon with different characteristics.

    There may be some other effects you notice in refraction that aren't accurately represented in digital refraction. Or, there may be another effect you happen to notice. Different people do happen to notice small details that others don't. I was just clarifying this particular effect, not that you don't see something. The tough thing is identifying exactly what it is one notices (and at what scales) so that it is represented accurately.

    On the dynamic tension being visible, what I was saying is that it is such a small effect that it would only be visible if one was doing a closeup of say a bird's leg. Something like a pole in the water would be to large scale of an object relative to the effect to notice. What one does see is wet along the pole where water has washed up higher due to wave motion and tide. If it's a standing object like a pier post, there would be algae growth at the top edge of that often, and sometimes a whitish powder due to salt sediment.

    To me, post #59 looks very nice.

    Post edited by Gedd on
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    Post #59 does look very nice, I agree. Can you tell where the water is touching the post and is it where the dark gray is, or lower? I can't tell without looking very closely, and even then I am not sure. As for being "very close up", these do look like, if they were photos, very close pictures. I can't tell if we are miscommunicating or if you just want to prove me wrong.

    I'm not saying he should somehow fix the shader because it's not right. The shader is beautiful and I wouldn't change it. I was just making an observation. I think the more recent post looks better. You don't. That's cool.

    free_8069374[1].jpg
    280 x 350 - 27K
  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited December 1969

    Well it's hard to tell with that picture as it's not enough of a closeup to see the details. If one looks at the small protuberance to the far left one notices circular wave motion radiating from it indicating a breeze from the left. I suspect that is part of what we are noticing in this particular picture... that is, the water is deforming around the objects due to wave motion by a breeze across the surface.

  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    ...I can't tell if we are miscommunicating or if you just want to prove me wrong....

    Yes, I'm not communicating my best today so I apologize for that. I wasn't trying to prove anything actually as to me it's not a competition. I was trying to convey my observations, and not doing a very good job evidently. I'll be quiet now ;p

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 686
    edited December 1969

    OMG! Its just an optional prop to add to the water plane. When I consider it decent enough to use myself, I'll release it for free to the rest.
    Reality always had a simple plane primitive for water and it does the job. Quoting myself "I did a very quick experiment with an aditional prop. Not final, just testing the idea."
    Just want to see if a water prop over the water plane were going to look weird. I'll concentrate later on the actual model. The suggestions will be very useful for that.

  • GeddGedd Posts: 2,444
    edited May 2013

    [Edit] cross post....

    Post edited by Gedd on
  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 2,897
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    Gedd said:
    The only time one would have a 'hole' in water is when there was something just stuck in the water (like an oar, or maybe someone walking through the water.) If an item was in the water for some time, there would actually be a slight rise up the item at the point of contact between the water and the item (forget the name of the effect but related to surface tension.) This second effect, the slight rise would be so small it would only be visible on very extreme closeups of the contact between the water and item, ie... not an issue for anything but the rarest case.

    I was trying to remember the name of that effect as well, and Google provided no help. You can really see it if you look at a glass of water at eye level. As for the hole, what you describe is exactly what we were discussing. The only reason I mentioned it to Hellboy is because it was difficult to see the waterline against the post in the water, but his changes seemed to address that very well. IMO

    I believe the term you are looking for is meniscus, formed by the surface tension.

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 1,598
    edited December 1969

    No worries :coolsmile:

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 8,762
    edited December 1969

    I may have missed this from the last thread but can some kind soul help me with getting some ambient glow on surfaces please. I have been banging my head for the last few hours and can't for the life of me figure this one out for myself. :(

  • SphericLabsSphericLabs Posts: 575
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    I may have missed this from the last thread but can some kind soul help me with getting some ambient glow on surfaces please. I have been banging my head for the last few hours and can't for the life of me figure this one out for myself. :(

    How about actually making it glow(just a little so it looks like ambient) by using the "Luxus - LuxRender Material" settings, enable the light option and then enable the light in the Surfaces Pane and set the power very low.

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 8,762
    edited December 1969

    Thanks yep I managed to get that with thinking logically...doh!

    Now I have another problem with using Reinhard non linear as I cannot adjust all the lights separately. Yes I have the update but no matter what I set it to I cannot change one light intensity without the other lights changing too. I even gave all the lights a diiferent group name.

    I have one Area disc acting as a sun light as I have a space dome, then I have a space ship with engines that I applied light to and a space station that has two mat zones emitting light.

    I didn't have this trouble with the last version of Luxus.

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 8,762
    edited December 1969

    Again it is me being brain dead. Linear works as it should.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 2,897
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    Again it is me being brain dead. Linear works as it should.

    You sorted it out before I could suggest that :)

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 8,762
    edited December 1969

    Just goes to show if you don't use it you loose it...and I have lost it. :)

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 686
    edited December 1969

    WIP test of something I'll include in the water set. A morphing splash prop.
    Just checking how things are looking so far. Of course, its still mising dozens of small droplets jumping everywhere.

    splash_test.jpg
    356 x 620 - 115K
  • Michael_GMichael_G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Im so looking forward to this set Hellboy.

  • sithkittensithkitten Posts: 140
    edited December 1969

    Now that is really cool. Can't wait to see the final set!

  • Michael_GMichael_G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @spheric does LUXUS support depth of field? LUXUS dont seam to be sending the setting to Luxrender even though it`s enabled on the camera.

  • jax_512b7aea09jax_512b7aea09 Posts: 57
    edited May 2013

    Michael_G said:
    @spheric does LUXUS support depth of field? LUXUS dont seam to be sending the setting to Luxrender even though it`s enabled on the camera.

    It does, though it didn't when it was first released.

    Assuming you're using the current release, you may be setting the f-stop too high to see any effect. Daz Studio and LuxRender interpret the f-stop value differently. For a narrow depth of field, try setting it around 2; for wide depth of field try 22 or so.

    Post edited by jax_512b7aea09 on
  • Michael_GMichael_G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Mordur said:
    Michael_G said:
    @spheric does LUXUS support depth of field? LUXUS dont seam to be sending the setting to Luxrender even though it`s enabled on the camera.

    It does, though it didn't when it was first released.

    Assuming you're using the current release, you may be setting the f-stop too high to see any effect. Daz Studio and LuxRender interpret the f-stop value differently. For a narrow depth of field, try setting it around 2; for wide depth of field try 22 or so.

    Thats got it, many thanks :D

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 686
    edited December 1969

    My apple in the water has DOF. :)
    But yes, you have to use very low values.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel