Show Us Your Bryce Renders! Part 2

14445464850

Comments

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    It was in this thread somewhere, when I asked about the Angora.

    I've been playing around with the fluff ball but have given-up trying to figure out what you meant by "20 high". I was determined to figure it out but stand defeated. I just assumed you'd stacked loads of spheres in order to achieve the fibers length or something like that, but no, it's actually a very nice, usable implementation, no additional geometry required - so what the hell are you on about?

    Also, I'm curious why you used a HDRI, was that because you couldn't get TA to illuminate the Volumetric material, because guess what, I can't get TA to illuminate the fur ball at all, not even in "Legacy Mode", it just renders black all the time!

    Other notes to add:

    I just noticed mixing Volume colour and Diffuse colour works like a colour mixer (the colour you get for the Volume is the result of both of those colours mixed together), although it does change through the thickness which is very cool, never noticed that before! Also, after being totally amazed at volumes not rendering under TA, I set the material to "Full Shading" mode and that seems to be broken as well, Bryce just locks up as soon as the scan-line hits the material.

    I'm having loads of fun with the fluff, but I'm really pissed off it's not rendering under TA, dammit!

  • SylverdaliSylverdali Posts: 198
    edited December 2012

    warped reflective spheres, the mats are solid but give the appearance of having holes which captures and other reflective surface inside the sphere, not a great description sorry

    warped_reflective_spheres._.jpg
    868 x 579 - 309K
    Post edited by Sylverdali on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 9,610
    edited December 1969

    warped reflective spheres

    Christmas balls! :)

  • HoroHoro Posts: 6,594
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    I am not sure about this one. I post worked it a bit.

    Winter Goddess. The 3rd face of the Goddess.

    I agree with Jamahoney - beautiful render but not Chohole-like - though from the composition and the subject matter it's from you nevertheless.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,604
    edited December 1969

    Horo said:
    chohole said:
    I am not sure about this one. I post worked it a bit.

    Winter Goddess. The 3rd face of the Goddess.

    I agree with Jamahoney - beautiful render but not Chohole-like - though from the composition and the subject matter it's from you nevertheless.

    Well who was it telling me I should try getting out of my safety zone. :coolsmirk:

    I am hoping to do the other 2 faces of the Goddess also, Maiden and Mother, some time or the other. (Spring and Summer) Am also going to experiment with getting the FX effects going in Bryce, instead of postworking them.

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    Wow, I was using google to try to find something and was surprised to discover Bryce has a wikipedia page. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_(software)

    The link doesnt work when you click on it. It only works when you copy the text and paste it into the URL box.

    Well there isn't much significant there any way it's just the fact it's there on wikipedia at all that surprised me. :)

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    @David
    What did you mean by 20 high?

    When did I say it? I look back and can't find it. And I can't remember. Sorry. Can you remember what the context was?

    Good it's not just me then, I couldn't remember where you said anything like that either and having looked back a couple of pages couldn't find it either. :)

  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,125
    edited December 2012

    pumeco said:
    It was in this thread somewhere, when I asked about the Angora.

    I've been playing around with the fluff ball but have given-up trying to figure out what you meant by "20 high". I was determined to figure it out but stand defeated. I just assumed you'd stacked loads of spheres in order to achieve the fibers length or something like that, but no, it's actually a very nice, usable implementation, no additional geometry required - so what the hell are you on about?

    Also, I'm curious why you used a HDRI, was that because you couldn't get TA to illuminate the Volumetric material, because guess what, I can't get TA to illuminate the fur ball at all, not even in "Legacy Mode", it just renders black all the time!

    Other notes to add:

    I just noticed mixing Volume colour and Diffuse colour works like a colour mixer (the colour you get for the Volume is the result of both of those colours mixed together), although it does change through the thickness which is very cool, never noticed that before! Also, after being totally amazed at volumes not rendering under TA, I set the material to "Full Shading" mode and that seems to be broken as well, Bryce just locks up as soon as the scan-line hits the material.

    I'm having loads of fun with the fluff, but I'm really pissed off it's not rendering under TA, dammit!

    We seem to be going around in circles here, yes TA and volumetrics are not good companions. They are better, but they are still not entirely compatible. At least now the two are less crash prone when put together. The required fixes have been requested on BT. On a side note, I'm still none the wiser about what I meant about "20 high" and if you read my thread on looking for badgersnipples - http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/12858/ then you will see that I've demonstrated that it is nearly impossible to mine this forum for information trapped in buried threads. For me the forum is very slow, I don't know why, so going backwards isn't really an option - at least not a practical one - and since searching doesn't work, the forum works more like a bulletin board for me. I usually read the posts as they turn up in emails and only really trouble myself to look once the emails stop turning up - which seems to be a random feature of this site. I guess there's nothing we can do but put up with it, but it is tiresome that after so many months, some many basic functions remain illusive.

    Edit. OK if you can't see the thread, which Pam indicates is hidden without permissions, then long story short. If you want to attempt anything beyond the most rudimentary searches - I was advised to try and use google instead to search the DAZ 3D site. More "mysteriousness"?

    Right, OT. Five more images form example scenes for DVD2. Relating to this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwvxE7Yojbg

    Silverdali, will probably not be surprised to learn these all employ warped reflective surfaces in one way or another.

    Pam, probably a little fill light to take the edge of the dark shadow regions down the side of her face and under her arm would help? I like the post work effects.

    Rateth, I think I recognise that background.

    Abstract_360_HDRI_v4.jpg
    1244 x 700 - 1M
    Abstract_360_HDRI_v3.jpg
    1244 x 700 - 879K
    Abstract_360_HDRI_v2.jpg
    1244 x 700 - 722K
    Abstract_360_HDRI_v1.jpg
    700 x 700 - 313K
    Abstract_360_HDRI_v0.jpg
    1244 x 700 - 757K
    Post edited by David Brinnen on
  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    It was in this thread somewhere, when I asked about the Angora.

    I've been playing around with the fluff ball but have given-up trying to figure out what you meant by "20 high". I was determined to figure it out but stand defeated. I just assumed you'd stacked loads of spheres in order to achieve the fibers length or something like that, but no, it's actually a very nice, usable implementation, no additional geometry required - so what the hell are you on about?

    Also, I'm curious why you used a HDRI, was that because you couldn't get TA to illuminate the Volumetric material, because guess what, I can't get TA to illuminate the fur ball at all, not even in "Legacy Mode", it just renders black all the time!

    Other notes to add:

    I just noticed mixing Volume colour and Diffuse colour works like a colour mixer (the colour you get for the Volume is the result of both of those colours mixed together), although it does change through the thickness which is very cool, never noticed that before! Also, after being totally amazed at volumes not rendering under TA, I set the material to "Full Shading" mode and that seems to be broken as well, Bryce just locks up as soon as the scan-line hits the material.

    I'm having loads of fun with the fluff, but I'm really pissed off it's not rendering under TA, dammit!

    Oh, you're like my wife, we'll be talking about something when suddenly out of the blue she'll refer to a conversation we had three days before as if we were still having that conversation, even if it's totally unrelated and in no way similar to the conversation we were having. :)

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,604
    edited December 2012

    David that thread is in a closed forum, so no one without the relevant permissions can access it.

    Oh and BTW, if you stop visitng a thread then the ebots will stop after a certain period of time. Not at all sure what the time length is, or why it does it, just one of the mysteries of Magento I guess :coolsmirk:

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 2012

    @Dave: Here is the temple without the mountains, on a default plane and background. As you can see I've taken a stone and placed it in the center of the dome, changing the default material of the stone to the red you see.

    The way this image renders is how I would like to see it when placed with the mountains and chosen plane. With a radial light it takes about 10 minutes to render. With a sphere dome light a little over an hour. I don't know if this makes a difference in the render times, but either light is placed inside the red stone, which has a transparent setting. My idea was to have the light source inside the stone so the emitted light would appear to be coming from the stone. Thus the splay of light on the ground and washing the surrounding mountains.

    The next image is one rendered with the sphere dome light in place of the radial light. Shadow setting were adjusted until there was red light evident. To high of a setting and the red light disappeared. Now here's the kicker, this render with the sphere dome light took 9:16:39 to complete.. Way too long I thought, so I played around with just the stone to see the times involved with the different lights. With the radial light it was around 3 minutes. With the sphere dome light a little over 44 minutes. My inexperience doesn't know what to make of this or if it's correctable to reduce times.

    @chohole: That's a lovely image, though I do agree with Dave a bit more light around the eyes, or his suggestion, would make it really stand out.

    @sliver: Nice "Christmas balls." Those look great, though I'd love to meet your tailor.

    @David: Those turned out to be rather interesting images. There's so much to see in each one. Nice job.


    Hopefully this time the images will display in the order I want, though I have my doubts. Yep, my doubts have been substantiated.

    Column_12.png
    1514 x 885 - 2M
    Canyon_8.png
    1514 x 885 - 2M
    Post edited by GussNemo on
  • GeroblueJimGeroblueJim Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Got the sand in beach level. Shallows around the island could be used as fishing grounds.

    island29.png
    979 x 437 - 665K
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @David
    Sorry, my mistake, I misunderstood you. I just looked back through the thread and although the "20 High" thing was to do with the Angora, you were referring to it when applied to clothes, not the ball. Sorry.

    As for the other stuff, what I'm saying is that I can't get it to render under TA at all, so I'm even more puzzled that you say they work together better now, because for me, it won't work at all. I went through all the new settings I can see and it will not render the fur ball with TA illumination.

    @Pam
    Why aren't I allowed to view the link David posted?
    I get a message telling me I'm not allowed to view it!

    @Guss
    I forgot to thank you for the link, cheers!

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969


    Rareth, I think I recognise that background.

    you should I followed one of your tutorials to get it. :)


    I should probably post a link to my Blog or generate a sig with it.. seems a peasant girl has wandered over to it..

    http://rarethdigitalmusings.blogspot.com/

  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @Geroblue: It might look better if you decreased the amount of sand visible. And if you'll move the camera in so that the rock on the right is just visible, and the far island is in the left hand corner, the entire scene will look better.

    @pumeco: You are most welcome.

  • cjreynoldscjreynolds Posts: 155
    edited December 1969

    GussNemo said:
    @Geroblue: It might look better if you decreased the amount of sand visible. And if you'll move the camera in so that the rock on the right is just visible, and the far island is in the left hand corner, the entire scene will look better.

    @pumeco: You are most welcome.

    I agree with Guss on this - the sand looks almost in an elliptical shape, which doesn't look natural. Usually on a mountainous island (one that is basically an underwater mountain with the top protruding above surface), the "continental shelf" will extend just a little ways out, then drop off into deep water, often causing the shoreline to be roughly the same shape as the bottom of the mountain (where it meets the sand).

    Hope that helps :)

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,368
    edited December 1969

    Another from Peter the Polar Bear

    BearLightsClose.jpg
    438 x 620 - 180K
  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @Dave: That's really cute. Nice job.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 6,594
    edited December 1969

    Another from Peter the Polar Bear

    Nice chap. Great light.

  • GeroblueJimGeroblueJim Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    The sand was a rectangle earlier. Re-rendering now. Done and posted.

    island32.png
    877 x 458 - 537K
    Post edited by GeroblueJim on
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,604
    edited December 1969

    Another from Peter the Polar Bear



    Oh he's cute, looks almost cuddly. niiiice teddy bear.
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @Pam
    As you're supposed to be moderating, how about you answer questions about the forum when asked specifically?
    I can't view Davids post, why not?

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,604
    edited December 1969
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Yeah I saw it, and if it answered the question I wouldn't be asking.

    It's on the new forum, and as far as I'm aware I'm still on the beta team. Either David is part of another forum group I'm certainly not aware of or my access hasn't been granted for use on this new forum. If it has nothing to do with the Beta then why on earth isn't it visible any more?

    Have DAZ started closing-off threads after they reach a certain age?

  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @Geroblue: The near island looks better, but relocating the camera would really improve the scene. Move the camera much closer to the first island until the first island almost fills the camera view. Move left or right until you can just see the large rock to the right of the first island. Again move the camera left or right, or pull back a bit, until the left island can be seen. By doing this you will then have a more balanced scene, and give more perspective to the first island because the left island will look smaller.

    Also check something else. Change to top view and select the camera. Once it's selected a set of icons will appear to the right of the camera. Click on 'A', which is the camera attributes, and look to the bottom right of the small window that opens. Look for FOV and see what number is in the box next to FOV. This is the Field Of View, which is how large of a view the camera can see. It's usually set to 60, but can be set to whatever number you want; 60 usually gives a nice view of things--but it depends on what you're after. The larger the number the wider the view the camera sees. If you've changed 60 to something else, change it back to 60 and then reposition your camera. If you can't get everything in the view you have, select the camera again, and try 90. Each time you change the FOV your objects seem to change position, but it's only the camera view. Between moving the camera, and adjusting the FOV you should be able to get the rock and right island closer with the left island off in the distance.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 6,594
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    It's on the new forum, and as far as I'm aware I'm still on the beta team.

    No, you aren't. Neither me nor any others. The Beta team was disbanded at the end of the last dev cycle. The Beta Scout forum thread was either deleted or hidden long ago. Your status at the bug tracker has changed as well. The only thing still accessible for reading is the basecamp from the SC times, though it is locked and archived. We know who's done all that against Bryce.
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Ah, so Beta Scout is what you mean by Basecamp then, I did wonder once before.

    Still doesn't explain how others have access to that forum (whatever it is) and I don't, but yup, we all know who did what at DAZ and I don't like it either. There's a lot of stuff I don't like at DAZ lately.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 6,594
    edited December 1969

    No, sorry, we have a misunderstanding.

    The Bryce Beta Scout was a forum here we as testers had access to. That one was either deleted or hidden from us. It was in the old forum.

    Basecamp was only open to the few of us in the SC and to that one we still have full read access.

    And the bug tracker is still open for all, we just lost our dev status and can't see the bug comments we had entered that were restricted to view by a few.

    These are three different things. Disbanding the beta and SC teams was indeed a very bad move.

  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,125
    edited December 1969

    A set to go with this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d85WNPzFrew

    Pearlescent_paint_v4.jpg
    700 x 700 - 345K
    Pearlescent_paint_v3.jpg
    700 x 700 - 327K
    Pearlescent_paint_v2.jpg
    700 x 700 - 318K
    Pearlescent_paint_v1.jpg
    700 x 700 - 357K
    Pearlescent_paint_v0.jpg
    1244 x 700 - 446K
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,604
    edited December 1969

    A set to go with this tutorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d85WNPzFrew

    Ooh I really like the 4th one. Wonder if I could get that effect on a hippy outfit.

This discussion has been closed.