Fractal Tree Maker for SketchUp - Free add-on
-
@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.)
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
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.
-
@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
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
@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?
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
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.
-
@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:
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Create the image (and component) so that the center of the bottom of the trunk is at the center of the image (and component)
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
-
@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
] -
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 . . .)
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Yeah Stu, that would be pretty easy. You could create all 4 seasons and then combine them in a DC. Then you could have a pull down option as to what season to display. You could also creat a series of heights for each season, then make a menu that would let you choose what age to show during what season. All of this is also do-able by some tricky layer management too though if you don't want to dig into DC's
Chris
Alan beat me to it
-
(We were just talking about what to do about seasons about an hour ago)
Although we are all looking for a good use for Dynamic Components, the layer idea might be better.
You could have just 4 layers, the same in each component, and then change the season for all plants at the same time.
Also, we could make a generator which allows you to specify bark and leaf images for each season and make all 4 seasons at the same time, and create the component with all 4 seasons in one step.
And, of course, we could do the same with age - generating images for 2, 5, 1- and 15 years for each plant.
Al Hart
IRender nXt from Render Plus -
I think I agree that seasons through layer management might make more sense here because it would be a universal change. DC asettings are per DC. So each tree would need to be changed separately. Or they would need to ALL be in one container component that could then pass on the season information to each tree in the model. But I think the layers might work better. Although the layers could get bulky if you start specifying 4 tree ages and 4 seasons. That's 16 layers. But I guess its not that bad for the great functionality it would provide.
Chris
-
This is exciting! The idea of changing seasons is great. What if there were some magical way to tie a dynamic component into sketchup's shadow date control, then hypothetically you could animate the changing of the seasons!
Also, I'm still curious about flowering.......is it possible to add a feature for this?
-
@stu said:
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
Stu . . .I didn't see it in Podium, that 's what I meant. When I exploded for a Podium view, It didn't render shadows at all. I will keep playing with it. and that was my first tree with this program. you're abso. Right. the Roots are bad. Walmart Xmas tree was my first thought as well. But I was just seeing how to do it and what it offered.
Thx,
D
Advertisement