Fractal Tree Maker for SketchUp - Free add-on

[ScottPara]

Al,

As earthmover stated we (vray users) will still need to generate a alpha/clipmap for these to work. I am not sure how much trouble it would be for the program to export out the associated clipmap at export but it would be a huge time saver.

Thanks again,
Scott

[kwistenbiebel]

Hi Al,
Just wanted to get back on the 2D/3D subject.
As I understand, the treegenerator is actually 3D based by default right?
So what about the option to have the full 3D tree as output?
Would be great for us render headz.

cheers,
Kwistenbiebel

[ScottPara]

I second (or third) the 3D request.

Scott

[thomthom]

Third! (fourth?)

[Al Hart]

@unknownuser said:

Al,

As earthmover stated we (vray users) will still need to generate a alpha/clipmap for these to work. I am not sure how much trouble it would be for the program to export out the associated clipmap at export but it would be a huge time saver.

Thanks again,
Scott

Send me, or upload, a .SKP file or .PNG of a RpTreeMaker tree and a alpha/clipmap of the same tree so I will know what it is you need. Is the clipmap stored in SketchUp anywhere, or separately?

We store all the old .PNG files in the RPS_TreeMaker_Images sub-folder of your temporary folder. If we can easily make a clipmap we could store it there as well.

[Al Hart]

@unknownuser said:

Got it working. It's a pretty neat tool. Can you change color? If so, how? This would be very important.

Thanks,

Huck

To change color, you can take the raster images for the leaves or bark, change the color, and save them with a new name.

These are stored in:

C:\Program Files\Render Plus Systems\RpTreeMaker\Support\Plants

in a Bark and a Leaves sub-folder.

Here I took the standard leaf, made it yellow, saved it as a new leaf, and used it to render the tree.

You can create your won bark and leaf images by altering the color of existing images.

You will need a paint program which respects the Alpha Channel.

(I don't have one, but there is a tool in RpTools which will convert the background color of an image to an alpha channel which I used.)

[Alan Fraser]

There are methods of obtaining a clipmap from a png using any decent image editor. What you effectively end up with is an alpha-channel image. That is a separate image of the tree, exactly the same size as the png, in which every transparent pixel is represented as black and every opaque one as white.
I'm assuming Rick has already worked this out in his image profile ruby in order to generate the path of the vector outlines....but that'll be the encrypted or server-side bit.

[Al Hart]

@unknownuser said:

I second (or third) the 3D request.

Scott

I will try this out (creating full 3D plants) and see if it works and or is practical.

However, this may effect the "Free" aspect of RpTreeMaker. I will have to discuss this with the developer, since he includes this product as a tool in his own rendering package (nXt) - which is not free.

[Al Hart]

@alan fraser said:

There are methods of obtaining a clipmap from a png using any decent image editor. What you effectively end up with is an alpha-channel image. That is a separate image of the tree, exactly the same size as the png, in which every transparent pixel is represented as black and every opaque one as white.
I'm assuming Rick has already worked this out in his image profile ruby in order to generate the path of the vector outlines....but that'll be the encrypted or server-side bit.

That will be easy to do - to create a second PNG image.

The RpTreeMaker images are not all-on / all-off transparent. the edge pixels are partially transparent.

See how the horizon is partially visible through the pixels at the edge of the leaf. This helps make the tree blend in better at the edges.

I presume a clipmap uses gray pixels to represent partial transparency?

Also, is there a naming convention which would make these easier for V-ray users to use?

[Alan Fraser]

I'd imagine that there would need to be a degree of feathering around the outline, Al. A pixelated all-or-nothing outline would be just plain nasty.

[Al Hart]

@alan fraser said:

I'd imagine that there would need to be a degree of feathering around the outline, Al. A pixelated all-or-nothing outline would be just plain nasty.

The sample clipmap Scott sent me does indeed have feathering around the edges:

[Daniel]

Al, thanks for the fantastic plug-in; you've solved the problem of cloned tree/shrub components.

While playing around with it, I noticed it makes the insertion point at the center of the component. This means if you have a lopsided or leaning tree, it's not at the trunk; when orbiting the model, the trunk's location will change. Any chance the program can be modified so that the insertion point is always on the base of the trunk?

[mirjman]

I might be missing something here, but is there a slider to adjust the taper for the actual trunk object? I am thinking of the giant redwoods or ponderosas out in California- they are hundreds of feet tall and don't have the cute "flare" at the base of the trunk that I can't seem to get rid of.

---

---

[Al Hart]

@daniel said:

Al, thanks for the fantastic plug-in; you've solved the problem of cloned tree/shrub components.

While playing around with it, I noticed it makes the insertion point at the center of the component. This means if you have a lopsided or leaning tree, it's not at the trunk; when orbiting the model, the trunk's location will change. Any chance the program can be modified so that the insertion point is always on the base of the trunk?

We're going to do two things.

1. Clip the roots at the ground - right now we make an image which includes roots below the ground. That is useful sometimes, but much too confusing.

2. Create the image (and component) so that the center of the bottom of the trunk is at the center of the image (and component)

[Stu]

@mirjman said:

I might be missing something here, but is there a slider to adjust the taper for the actual trunk object? I am thinking of the giant redwoods or ponderosas out in California- they are hundreds of feet tall and don't have the cute "flare" at the base of the trunk that I can't seem to get rid of.

Go to 'Trunk'...and use the 'spread' slider

A 3D version sounds attractive but if you look at the way this app can produce leaves [or in 3D, polygons] I would guess that you could come up with 50 and 60 Mb trees [if you could get that far without SU crashing ]

[david_h]

Okay. . .So I am playing with this, and Have created a Dang Ugly tree if I say so myself. When I did Render 1, I didn't see it at all, but then exploded it and it showed up--But as you can see--rectangular shadows.

Any quick tuts on a remedy? I have read thru most of this stuff, and I am a bit confused. (Nothing new there, hehe, but still . . .)

[Stu]

Dave...youve got me confused now.....how did you explode the tree without seeing it?
But anyway, there is no point in exploding the tree unless you are using it in a renderer like Podium [in which case the square shadow turns into a realistic shadow after rendering]
At the moment, the trees dont cast shadows in SU....unless exploded....and by doing that you also loose the 'face me' capability.

Oh, and Id loose the roots....looks a bit like one of those plastic Xmas trees

[mirjman]

the spread control still results in a trunk that smoothly tapers from the base, which is fairly unrealistic for trees like pines which begin to taper farther up from the ground.

I am also experiencing some double grouping with the created components where they have a group inside the component- not sure if this is desirable behavior

Also thought I should mention here, this plugin works hand in hand with "component spray" ruby to create fast environments: rendered in podium

---

[Stu]

Mirjman, that sprayed image looks great!

I dont know a lot about DCs but given that its really easy to produce leaf variations on one tree....would it be possible to make a DC that could display the whole range of seasons?

---

[Alan Fraser]

Yes Stu, You can also have different growth stages too. You can do this by having any number of variants occupying the same space and use the DC attributes to specify which one is visible. The file itself would be quite large, but the performance would only be the same as if the visible form was the sole element. I haven't tested how multi-part DCs export to Kerky etc. but when exported to another format, only the visible element gets exported.