Ok, I needed to post this so that the Director can see where I'm at on developing my take on a version of trees and other vegetation for TWO. I'm using A:M ver 13 Alpha 3.

Problems:

1. There is no shadows being cast by the pine branches onto eachother. Consequently there is no
depth shadowing going on with the volume of leaves/pine branches. (working on a solution for that...it makes a big difference)

2. Pine branches/leaves are not casting believeable shadow on the ground or on tree trunk. (The branches/leaves are patches with 'cookie cut' images on them. They should still cast the appropriate shadows since this is how I've done hair in A:M ver 10.5 and it renders nicely.)

I'm working on solutions for these things, but I needed to post this WIP so you guys can see where I am as well as give me some insight on how to create or fake solutions for these effects. I'll continue to post here on this subject until I've arrived at renders which the Director feels are good enough for TWO. (Right now though, I have to work on my animation assignments first so here's what I have on trees...the technique so far. This is not the disired outcome so I'm still working on it.)















I used the Treez Plugin in A:M to create the tree trunk. Then I created the leaves/pine branches and rigged them. This model also has normal maps which don't seem to be doing much at the moment.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Super trees Frank, Hope you figure out the shadow problems your having, Ive been having a few problems with shadows on transparency map decals where the outline on the patch (and transparent area) shows a slight shadow-ish effect on nearby geometry.

Michael

Thanks for posting, Frank.

It is helpful to see someone producing hair foliage in version 13. So far all my attempts to display my hairy trees in A:M13 have failed. They were all created in 11.1 and refuse to show their hair/leaves in A:M13.

I guess I will have to do more experimenting to see whether I will need to remake all the materials, or worse. Has anyone else had any luck getting A:M13 to display hair, particularly earlier versions of hair? I have just tried making new geometry and materials in A:M 13 but particle hair is still not working for me. Is there a new property somewhere that I may be missing?!

Keep up the good work, Frank!

Nice tree! I'd suggest hiding the ends of all your foliage in the decal as some of them appear to be floating in air. It depends how close we get to them though.

Paul, Frank is using cookie cutouts for the leaves, he's not using hair. Hair doesn't work for me either. I've sent in a report to Hash.

Ahhhh!!! Cookie-cut patches!

Good to know it's not just me.

Thanks for making me focus, Mark!

Frank, regarding the shadows, have you tried using ray traced shadows from a klieg light? (Just guessing 'cause I haven't tried it yet in A:M13.)

Michael,
thanks. I'm sure I will have solutions for the problems mentioned shortly. I'm not having the same problem with the outline area casting shadows on nearby geometry. My problem is that the cookie cut out
texture should cast shadows on any geometry behind it including other cookie cut outs. This is not happening. I think I have a way to fake that though...working on it.

Paul,
I'm not using hair particles for the leaves. I'm using patches with cookie
cut textures on them, as Mark said. Each leaf patch has a bone which has an aim at constraint to a null. I constrain this null to the camera so that from the camera view the leaves/branches always display correctly. Since there are a lot of leaves/branches the effect is subtle. And yes I've tried using raytraced shadows from a klieg light. That's not working for me as expected in A:M ver 13. I need to send it into A:M reports.

Ken,
I agree. This is easily fixed by moving the decaled patches around. Also,
the tree trunk itself is rigged so that you can bend and pose the tree in different ways and the leaves will stay with the tree. That way you can make many different looks for (in this case) a pine tree.

Thanks for all of the comments and suggestions. I appreciate it.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Paul,
you were right! My klieg did not have cast shadows on. Now it does and the leaves cast shadows on eachother as expected which makes a big difference. It took me a while to find that setting. I guess it was off by default. I tried all kinds of things to to fake the look that did not work. I'm such a bone head. Anyway, I'm happy with this outcome as far as lighting goes, except I'm not getting the shadow on the ground quite the way I like it. But this is headed in the right direction now. Here are screenshots with the shadows on the leaves working.





I'll tidy up the leaf placement a bit (per Ken). Then I'll render a turn table movie so you guys can see
it in action and oh, here is a shot of the rig setup.


This tree is only 665 patches.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com
[/quote]

It looks pretty good, Frank, but if you are going to use this technique of having cookie-cut cards, constrained to face the camera, how about making a middle card, or two, to carry the image of branches.

Since the production needs of TWO are supposed to drive the features and bug priorities on V13--why do you have to do all of this work-around to do what you SHOULD be able to do with HAIR????

Hair is fixed in the next version of A:M12/13. In the meantime I am using 11.1.

I would assume hair would only be used for the close up trees. This is a nice solution for almost closeup to background.

Paul,
you're absolutely right. I'll throw some branch chards in there!

William,
this method is not a work-around, per say. This tree model is only 665
patches. That should render faster than a tree with particle leaves. Also,
it is easier to art direct this type of tree to get it to look more like the trees in the concept drawings and paintings. Also, the tree is totally animateable and the leaves can blow in the wind (rustle). On top of that you could have a lot of these trees in one scene. I'm putting together a test scene that I'll post shortly. There are advantages and disadvantages, but I think the prior far out wieghs the later.

Ken,
this works in close ups, too. For the far far background trees we can use a cookie cut image of a render of a tree on a patch and rig it like the leaves on the tree. I'm putting together a test. If it works I'll post all the files and project as well as instructions on how to work it. That way other people can play with it and take over from there, so that I can get back to animating.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

If the patches are constrained to face the camera, it will look weird if the camera moves.

Here's an experiment of mine, using cookie-cut patches that are simply scattered around (I duplicated them by hand).

[attachmentid=13134]

I also rendered a flyaround, where you can see that it needs to be a little denser in some spots.

It renders almost twice as fast as hairy trees, though.

"If the patches are constrained to face the camera, it will look weird if the camera moves. " --Brainmuffin

That is only the case if you use large patches for the decals. They will rotate to face the camera and the rotation will be very visible. If you use a larger number of smaller patches for the leaves then the rotation will be very subtle. Here's a test render using my tree;



CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD 1.8mb avi file

Now this is just a WIP and I made it go fast enough so that you can actually see the rotation of the leaves. Even at this speed its extremely subtle. Now the method you show above that has the leaf cards not rotating to face the camera at all is the old school video game method of intersecting cards. The problem with that is at certain angles (top down) you don't see anything and at other angles you can see the 'X' made by the two intersecting cards. The method I'm showing here is the new video game method that is supported by both Microsoft for the Xbox 360 and Sony for the Playstation 3. It's also used in feature film work for special effects. All I've done is apply the technique in Animation Master. As you can see here it works fine. even at extreme close ups. Now the camera move I made in this test animation is an illegal camera move. I've 'crossed the line/broken the 180 degree rule' by doing a 360 degree rotation around the tree with the camera. So even though it does hold up under this camera move it is not even a realistic camera move to have. But if a little care is taken this type of tree will hold up from all angles with all camera moves. Once again this is just WIP to see if it would work in Animation Master. I need to take more care of my leaf placement, use a procedural texture on the trunk, paint in some more lighting effects directly into the leaf texture, and add a few cards that have branches on them.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

I have to say I like Franks Tree better. The moving foliage actually give the tree a feeling of life rather than just looking like a static object - like a breeze through the leaves without even trying

Cheers

Thanks David,
On top of that this tree is totally customizable and animatable. Just create a new pose or action and you can have this one tree look like many different pine trees. You can bend the trunk and the leaves will follow to match the new form and they will still behave correctly for the camera. So we can have the trees swaying in the wind and have the leaves rustling too! ...with the characters walking through the woods with a hundred of these trees...all animated. And the Director could say I want these trees over here bent like this, and I want this tree's leaves to do that when the character walks by it...and we could do that for him.



...and this one was just a test. With this method the plants and trees can be more easily art directed to look exactly like the concept artwork.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

This topic is one of those forums that needs to be captured permanently!

While it's true that the example I previously posted was not dense enough, so that from certain angles you could see individual 'cards', there isn't any angle where you would see no leaves, even straight down from the top. I'm attaching a flyaround/flyover of a denser example. As with your tree, the trunk was made using the treeez plug-in.

Also, I didn't base this method on anything I found in a video game. I based it on the method used in a popular landscaping program that was recently integrated into several of the more expensive 3d apps. ( I can't say wether they based it on a video game solution, though.)

very nice Frank
BT

Frank, Since SPRITES behave in the same way--cards that always face the camera-- do you think there would be an easy way to emit a canopy of leaves, freeze the speed and hold the life for the shot to create this same effect?

Bob,
thanks! We can use this method to create trees who's look and animation are easily directed.

Brainmuffin,
the method that you are showing has been used in video games since the PlayStation One. So it's a valid, but older video game method. It does not hold up well on film, except maybe in still shots. The 'X' that the intersecting cards make can be seen from different angles. If you look straight down the 'X' (top down) then no textures on those two intersecting cards can be seen unless there is another texture at either end of the 'X' which simulates viewing from that angle. Hopefully by comparing the .avi I posted with the .avi you posted you can see the pros and cons of both methods.

William,
If that is possible how would you then animate the tree blowing in the wind and have the leaves also rustling after having 'frozen' the speed of the spriticles and held them for the life of the shot? Also, would the sprites behave the same way (always face the camera) if being 'held' for the duration of the shot? Add to which sprites are part of a particle system. Particles are invariably more expensive than simple geometry. I don't see any advantages of your theory over the method which I've demonstrated here.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

OK, I was just thinking it might be quick--but that is true about not being able to blow in the wind, but it could be a guick way to throw vegetation onto a distant landscape (though I like the hair system for that).

Hey Frank, I'm just reading up on this stuff today.
I love the look of the trees, but I'm interested in seeing a forest of these that have leaves that always point at the camera.
I think it might be visible effect..... however, I don't know if it would be negative or positive....
have you run a test?

Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com

I missed the argument here? Hair is affected by wind, and Hair can be made to always face the camera. What's the advantage of this method?

I was thinking this as well....

It's an interesting technique, Frank, and I think that you should persue it. I would at least like to see some examples in motion. The only thing I am struggling with is the relatively high patch count for a background tree. I know the patch count is not astronomical but when you add a few dozen it is probably much heavier than we need.

Have a look at the Oak tree wip that I just posted HERE. (Post 55). It is 332 patches and I'm sure that I could pare that down to about TWO hundred patches without anyone even noticing.

Anyway, Frank, keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing your progress.

Martin,
hey there. :-)
Some clear advantages of this method over using particle sprites for leaves is that is uses less geometry (including each particle as a piece of geometry that has to be rendered in that statement). Also, isn't using a particle system more expensive (render wise) than not using a particle system? Carrying on from there, less geometry per tree correlates to having more trees in a scene. Also the geometry is light wieght enough such that you can get real time playback which includes the leaves. (Great for the Director) Furthermore, since this method uses a texture that simulates clumps of leaves instead single leaves it is easier to create a texture set which looks more like the concept artwork using these cards than would be to get the same look with the sprite particles. I'm sure there are more advantages, but a picture is worth a thousand words so I'll post a .avi with a full scene filled with my trees and if someone else could post a .avi with a full scene filled with trees created using particle leaves then we can compare the two, and the render times. (Right now I'm at work so that won't happen til later tonight.)

Hi 3DArtz,
ditto. And in the meantime if you want to see some movies and stills using this technique in realtime enviroments click on the link here and
check it out http://www.speedtree.com/ if you go to downloads check out the Zera and Gothic III screenshots and movies.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Paul,
I don't think your 332 patch count includes all of the particle leaves. I'm not trying to fight with anyone. I love the work you've been doing with trees in your thread. We should probably use both techniques together where it would serve us well and seperately when the shot called for it depending on the strengths or weaknesses of each technique. I do apologize if I offended you by my robust espousal of this technique. If I offended you that was not intentional. I posted a motion sample on page one of this thread;

http://www.franksilas.com/twotree/frankstree.avi

When I get the chance I'll post a forrest animation.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Frank, keep up the good ideas. I'm simply hashing them around.

Per your example of "clumps" of leaves vs. individual "Hair" leaves - the bitmap for each "Hair" leaf could be a picture of a "clump" of leaves instead.

I think there is a "control" advantage to your method, if someone can just articulate it.

Not offended in the least, Frank!
I am really happy to have your company in this quest for the perfect solution, especially from someone with your experience. Of course there is no perfect solution yet. That will come when we all have super computers that can handle a forest of fully detailed tree models in realtime. Until then we can do what everyone else does and take it one shot at a time. Add the detail where its needed and thin it down elsewhere.

The technique that you are exploring is just as valid as any other. I was only concerned about the patch count.

Onwards and upwards :-)

Paul,
thanks for your support. This commicating through writting alone is tough. I can't read anyone's face or body language to know if I'm communicating badly. You are doing some phenominal work over in your thread on trees and vegetation using the particle leaves. Truly great stuff.

3DArtz,
here is a quicktime of a Forrest of 50 of these trees. Please excuse the jerk in the camera toward the middle, and the lighting is my crappy three lights thrown in there for this test. Otherwise I think you can see that this holds up in a forrest of trees far away and extremely close up. This rendered in 12 hours on one 3Ghz Pentium 4 with 1Gig of RAM. I have 10 computers in my renderfarm so if setup I could render this scene in about 2 to 3 hours. Also, I want to test swaping out this version for a lower res version when the trees are not within a certain distance the camera's visible area so I can have a forrest with 2 to 3 times this many trees in a .cho and still have a workable realtime playback. I ramble on...here's the quicktime.

CLICK HERE TO SEE OR DOWNLOAD 5mb QT OF FORREST

Oh, I think you only see 30+ trees in this shot, but there are actually 50 in the entire scene. I'll move them all into camera view and fix the pop, then rerender. I'll post it next week. I really have to get my TWO shot animations in to the director first.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

That looks good, but the camera is always pointed in the same direction. So, the leaves won't switch direction. I'd be interested in seeing the camera rotate round the forest.

Sorry, Frank, I can't view this format. QT goes looking for a component and reports back saying that it can't find it.

Hi Paul,
It uses the H.264 Quicktime 7 format.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Hey Frank, this method look very promising. I would also like to see a fly-around of the trees when you have the time.

I've rendered more scenes using the tree. I'll post those shortly. I also started testing a new way to construct the tree, which has lead to a different looking tree. Here's the WIP for that.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

That's looking good! And it doesn't even have shadows yet!

Nice tree frank !

Can you make some natural pose ? to use with it.

Also some with less branches , like pine...other with more higher trunk like Sequoia or this kind of tree they got on the west coast...

great model
Al

Hi
I've just updated tree proxie into the props/tree svn dir.
Some of mine and Bod's

Franks, it would be really cool to see some of your technique over Bob's proxie tree.
kind of tall pine... the pine trees have less branches so it would be easier to deal with
...just a suggest

And what about a kind of "canope" with a trunk assembly going up ?...like the one used in the loonville proxie... it's a good idea and need to be explored further

Also I've notice some nice nature model into the prop\ misc dir...flowers and bush etc
it would help...for your nature setup (Jody and Fabrice )

I'm still waiting for Paul's landscape files...those available in the SVN are not reliable.
We need someone to get it from Paul and update the SVN with it.

Paul need a place to upload his files...any ftp available somewhere ?
(Paul doesn't have an access to SVN at this time )
Is there someone who can help us with that ? Noel ? Jody ?

Paul have quite nice pieces of landscape that we must look at.


thanks
Alain

Hi Al,
these trees are pose-able. So anyone can tweak them in the .cho for every shortcut if they wanted to. These are just my tests to see if it worked. Seeing that it does work I'll make some final versions of the different types. That won't happen for at least a week though. I'm also animating and I need to get my shots in this week.

Frank Silas
Animation Director TWO

yes good

thanks Frank

Al

I'm working on getting a new scene rendered. In the meantime here is a ver 13 alpha 11 render.

Frank Silas
http://www.franksilas.com

Frank,
Very nice work!
David

Nice work Frank.

I hope John Henderson gets his Jack and the beanstalk short done soon because he's got some great trees and landscape in that from what I've seen.

Hi
Great trees Frank! really!

I wondering the trees have a leafy profile/shape but got thorny leaf ?
the trunk is straight like on thorny trees but the overall tree shape isn't the usual triangle profile.
so I'm a bit confuse about the species of those trees.

Note that the modeler can re-shape your models to get the species they want...

BTW If someone would give a try in that direction...so we can pick a couple of species into SVN .
it would be very helpfull ...
( distorted trunk pine tree , straight grand sequoia, spruce, straight trunk white pine etc etc)

ok bye
Al

All,


I have been asked to post my work for the WIP garden giant plants on this thread. The design I am working off of are at:

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=21286&st=0

Here is a first attempt. I will continue with the theme of variegated and well manicured plants in pots for the garden unless objections are raised.

Thanks,

Steve

Good stuff! You're pretty advanced for a "newbie".

Nice Steve!
Please go ahead , we need more plant to fullfill the garden.

what about some vegetable ? pumpkin(your look great !) would be nice on the ground with their leaf
tomato plants ? raisin ? all this should be cool

thanks

Al

TWO Crew,

Here are some more previews of plants for a/the garden. I will continue to work on plants for gardens unless directed elsewhere. If I should attach the models and maps to these posts, in a zip file, please let me know. Also, thanks for the encouragement.

Steve