Billboard 3D trees, results.
-
Can you expand on your item #6. IE which program is linking to the MXM file. Is SU linking to and MXM file?
-
@unknownuser said:
Can you expand on your item #6. IE which program is linking to the MXM file. Is SU linking to and MXM file?
Yes phil, I just used the clip map B/W as the map in SU and then linked the SU material to the MXM. The MXM is pretty simple just colour, clip and displacement maps!
-
Hi Richard
Im very impressed with your work. Is too bad that we have to find ways to bypass skecthup inability to work with more than a few thousand polygons. Even on the most powerful computers.
Can you share your mxm file and component, so other can test it as well and perhaps build a collection in the future.
Have you tried rendering these trees in top view? Do they look real
?
In any case they are an excellent work
congratulations -
Thanks mate! Unfortunately I cant share the models or images in the MXM's due to Onyx licensing!
-
Richard
Good tree but no shadows on trunk.
I have the same deal using ATL 3d trees for flats.
Question is the detail in trunk and branches more important than shadows.
In ATL one can do it either way.
Opinion please.ATL tree attached.
dtr
-
dtrarch, that's what I was going to say too: although I don't like particularly the atl trees. Using onyx the result is much better IMO.
Nice job Gaieus!
This metod also works for 2D props in photoshop
-
@dtrarch said:
Richard
Good tree but no shadows on trunk.
Mate I used some low transparency on the leaves (pre V2 to get some softer leaves) shadows went unfortunately. I was testing a few things at the same time!
With maxwell use of 3d trees comes at little cost, once any 3d highpoly asset is used you are forced into the studio app anyway given SU's polylimits!
Onyx trees are the bomb! And completely customizable!
-
I thought so...
When I get a little time im going to make some from freeware trees, Perhaps we can compare them with onyx but is going to take more time to them.
Hope to see you improve
what will if you if you render the tree in perspective like an isometry. It gets me curious. -
Richard, "low transparency to soften", nice tip for a beginner like me to explore. Is that why some of the bunches of leaves in the center of a cluster look diffuse? Maybe that's the way it looks when the edge between the leaves and sky is well integrated. This got me to thinking that for the sake of the perspective, perhaps the reverse is better. Diffuse at the more distant edges, and sharper on the surfaces closest to the observer. Have you tried it that way?
I could cutup the tree into sections that can be blurred, or made a little transparent to achieve the desired effect. Best perhaps for mid-range 2d veggies? BTW, do I misunderstand this post? What is a 3d billboard tree, as vs a 2d tree?
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Richard, "low transparency to soften", nice tip for a beginner like me to explore. Is that why some of the bunches of leaves in the center of a cluster look diffuse? Maybe that's the way it looks when the edge between the leaves and sky is well integrated. This got me to thinking that for the sake of the perspective, perhaps the reverse is better. Diffuse at the more distant edges, and sharper on the surfaces closest to the observer. Have you tried it that way?
I could cutup the tree into sections that can be blurred, or made a little transparent to achieve the desired effect. Best perhaps for mid-range 2d veggies? BTW, do I misunderstand this post? What is a 3d billboard tree, as vs a 2d tree?
Sorry mate, I thought I had replied earlier!
I didn't play any further than this test given the results of billboards (yes same as 2d, just a commonly used term for same!) in rendering just has trouble compeating with 3d so I dropped the tests, though I did some later tests just using the map on a sandbox tooled single mesh and bought forward and back the obvious parts of the plant, I do this with a few plants I use to get better sun shadow response and it worked ok on the tree too. Cant find the tests now!
Advertisement