Oops wait. Site had a hickup and I could post, turns out that adjusting the RGB offset below 0 creates black zones in the material. (areas that are black in the preview are actually, um, less than black and create black patches around the clouds in the material)
I tried what I suggested earlier, a mix map in the opcaity slot, with the normal cloud map in one and the level adjusted (photoshop or similar) texture in the other slot.
All you have to do here is adjust the Mix level from 0 to 100% in as many increments as you have spheres. This seems to work ok so far.
I was able to reproduce IRMLs technique quite easy in Cinema4D. But it doesn't look right at the moment, because the used texture isn't that good. It was asked quite often in this thread, but no one answered: does any one have a good link for cloud textures?
If there are any Cinema4D-users interested:
There is no way to modify the levels of the texture with the present shaders, as far as i know, but we can achieve almost the same effect by using the multiply-mode of the layer-shader. Create a layer-shader inside of the alpha-channel and load the cloud texture into it. As second entry you could now use a radial gradient with multiply mode, but it would be hard to modify it, because it would cover the whole radius, so everything important would have to happen in less than 1% of the gradient (relataion between radius of the planet and radius of the atmosphere). Instead you can use a colorizer inside the layer-shader and set its layer-mode to "Multiply". Set the gradient of the colorizer to black-white-black and load the proximal-shader into it. Let the proximal react to a null in the center of the planet. Set the start distance to the radius of the lower cloud shell (ignore the fact that there is a "%" behind it, this value is defined in units) and the end distance to the radius of the outer cloud shell. So this whole Colorize/Proximal-setup simply returns a black-white-black-gradient between the two shells. The layer simply multiplies it with the cloudmap and returns it as alpha map. For more controll you could wrap that layer-shader into another colorizer.
For the creation of the several cloud layers there would be several plugins, I used AlignAssistant (which isn't available anymore), but it could be achieved easily using XPRESSO or c.o.f.f.e.e too. I guess MoGraph would also have a generator for that kind of stuff. Or anything from the jenna-package.
Hmm, seems like I have to wait with the RGB offset
here is an updated with a copied material instead, that decreases the opacity gradually instead
-- Script:stratospherify.ms
-- Use script to stratospherify your clouds for those really
-- close up renders.
-- Version: 0.3
-- Author: Stefan "Aszazeroth" Ivarsson, www.dragondesign.se
-- Usage: Name your cloudsphere "clouds" then run this script.
-- Version-Limitations: Alot, but I will fix that later.
-- IF you increase the number, make sure to alter the
-- scalerConstant, later version will do this automagically
-- Version 0.2: added opacity control by numberOfCloudsSpheres
-- for easier implementation of GUI later.
-- Version 0.3: added copy of material and more detailed material control.
numberOfcloudspheres = 20.0
select $
$.material.opacitymap.output.output_amount = 1.0
scalerConstant = 1.0+(0.003/numberOfcloudspheres)
for i = 1 to (numberOfcloudspheres) do
(
objCopy = copy $
objCopy.material = copy $.material
objCopy.material.opacitymap.output.output_amount = 1.0-0.05*i
scaleObject = scalerConstant*[1,1,1]
scale objCopy scaleObject
select objCopy
)
What i was thinking is something along the lines of this:
So you can do a check if the object slected is a sphere, and i think you can use this same method to check if the material is assigned to a sphere...
Hmm, "[code]" block is omitted in replies...
OK, I like coding by exceptions, so I will make a few checks in the next version. I have noticed that for instance
$.material.foobar
returns undefined if undefined and checkboxes returns true/false. I am a bit more used to more strongly typed languages so I tend not to mix types, but in maxscript you seem to autocast on the fly.
Gonna start on the GUI. @Davide_sd, glad you like the script... your planet looks really nice.
I am a bit more used to more strongly typed languages...
Just remember, this is a family site Stefan...
This is looking terrific. 20 spheres is way over the top for my current setup. I'm sure it's completely down to the textures you use and the look you're after...It's a very subjective thing. But for me, 20 is far too many. Makes the clouds look almost solid. I'm experimenting with deleting spheres 01 - 10 and leaving 11 - 2-. The results with that are a lot better for my setup.
I manually created 20 materials, all looking as close to a level adjusted one as possible without saving 20 different images (20x the memory load would kill my PC :P), and modified your script to assign exisitng materials 1-20 to the spheres it creates.
Render times skyrocketed, also using various settings I still wasn't able to make it look quite as plastic as IRML's. I Tried reducing the bitmap blur amount, which made the blurry clouds look also pixelated. :-/
I second the request for a larger cloudmap, I've only been able to find 8K ones, or 32K in many little pieces (for Celestia).
^17k is a funny size isn't it? I thought they were normally done in the usual 4/8/16/32 etc for a specific reason related to how much memory they use up, if I'm remembering correctly 17k might take up the same memory as 32k in some apps
as for the max version, I don't think it's working out quite like the lightwave version yet, I've attached an animation I rendered to test how the 3D clouds behave with moving light, and you can see they can be shaded and cast shadows on the surface and even self shadows at shallow angles, at the moment the max version appears very soft/blurry and a bit unclear, I'm also finding my render times are a bit slower than with the old method but they aren't as slow as you're describing - and that's with 20 layers and even GI, not to mention max traditionally being a faster renderer than lightwave - so perhaps some settings need to be fiddled with
IRML - youre gonna make me switch to lightwave! awesome work man!!!
Edit - WOW! IRML - are you sure you don't have a spaceship and you didn't filmed this video from orbit????
funny, how in blender there is no significant increase in render time either... Although there are other problems. I should try Maya out too But I think I can find a way to lower render times significantly without too much penalty on the looks. Gonna try, post an updated script later if it works
the 42k image is supposed to be 1 kilometer per pixel, which was at one point the largest cloud map available, but I'm looking at the website now and I can see stuff written about 500m per pixel
ohh...2 halves. And I was wondering how I would use a square cloud map :rolleyes:
Asz.:
I think I have finally found a way to properly adjust the level in max!
Adjusting the graph I showed earlier, in mono mode, gradually moving the left point to -2 looks like a proper black point adjustment. Now if you also enable the "clamp" option, it prevents the blacks from becoming less than black and fixes the dark area problem I talked about.
I'm not a max script guy, but the script listener shows no action when I adjust the graph, does that necessarily mean you cant manipulate it with scripts?
right I've been browsing the blue marble site and it's been updated since I last checked, it looks like the maps now go up to 86400 pixels wide, which would explain the 500m per pixel over the old 42k images which was 1km per pixel, they now also have colour maps for every month, so you can essentially get the earth all snowy in winter or clear in summer
Posts
I tried what I suggested earlier, a mix map in the opcaity slot, with the normal cloud map in one and the level adjusted (photoshop or similar) texture in the other slot.
All you have to do here is adjust the Mix level from 0 to 100% in as many increments as you have spheres. This seems to work ok so far.
I was able to reproduce IRMLs technique quite easy in Cinema4D. But it doesn't look right at the moment, because the used texture isn't that good. It was asked quite often in this thread, but no one answered: does any one have a good link for cloud textures?
If there are any Cinema4D-users interested:
There is no way to modify the levels of the texture with the present shaders, as far as i know, but we can achieve almost the same effect by using the multiply-mode of the layer-shader. Create a layer-shader inside of the alpha-channel and load the cloud texture into it. As second entry you could now use a radial gradient with multiply mode, but it would be hard to modify it, because it would cover the whole radius, so everything important would have to happen in less than 1% of the gradient (relataion between radius of the planet and radius of the atmosphere). Instead you can use a colorizer inside the layer-shader and set its layer-mode to "Multiply". Set the gradient of the colorizer to black-white-black and load the proximal-shader into it. Let the proximal react to a null in the center of the planet. Set the start distance to the radius of the lower cloud shell (ignore the fact that there is a "%" behind it, this value is defined in units) and the end distance to the radius of the outer cloud shell. So this whole Colorize/Proximal-setup simply returns a black-white-black-gradient between the two shells. The layer simply multiplies it with the cloudmap and returns it as alpha map. For more controll you could wrap that layer-shader into another colorizer.
For the creation of the several cloud layers there would be several plugins, I used AlignAssistant (which isn't available anymore), but it could be achieved easily using XPRESSO or c.o.f.f.e.e too. I guess MoGraph would also have a generator for that kind of stuff. Or anything from the jenna-package.
Now if i had a decent map...
Cheers,
Chris
here is an updated with a copied material instead, that decreases the opacity gradually instead
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/general-discussion/26518-maxscript-blinker-v0-5-page-two.html
What i was thinking is something along the lines of this: So you can do a check if the object slected is a sphere, and i think you can use this same method to check if the material is assigned to a sphere...
Here a picture of my planet with this script version!
is there an option to sharpen or define the edges alittle more. with less motion blurr?
Hmm, "[code]" block is omitted in replies...
OK, I like coding by exceptions, so I will make a few checks in the next version. I have noticed that for instance
$.material.foobar
returns undefined if undefined and checkboxes returns true/false. I am a bit more used to more strongly typed languages so I tend not to mix types, but in maxscript you seem to autocast on the fly.
Gonna start on the GUI.
@Davide_sd, glad you like the script... your planet looks really nice.
Here's the pink one, with the new script.
//Dr.Asz
Just remember, this is a family site Stefan...
This is looking terrific. 20 spheres is way over the top for my current setup. I'm sure it's completely down to the textures you use and the look you're after...It's a very subjective thing. But for me, 20 is far too many. Makes the clouds look almost solid. I'm experimenting with deleting spheres 01 - 10 and leaving 11 - 2-. The results with that are a lot better for my setup.
Fantastic work man!
Render times skyrocketed, also using various settings I still wasn't able to make it look quite as plastic as IRML's. I Tried reducing the bitmap blur amount, which made the blurry clouds look also pixelated. :-/
I second the request for a larger cloudmap, I've only been able to find 8K ones, or 32K in many little pieces (for Celestia).
it would be great if you can release it.
as for the max version, I don't think it's working out quite like the lightwave version yet, I've attached an animation I rendered to test how the 3D clouds behave with moving light, and you can see they can be shaded and cast shadows on the surface and even self shadows at shallow angles, at the moment the max version appears very soft/blurry and a bit unclear, I'm also finding my render times are a bit slower than with the old method but they aren't as slow as you're describing - and that's with 20 layers and even GI, not to mention max traditionally being a faster renderer than lightwave - so perhaps some settings need to be fiddled with
:thumb:
If you want to down it to 16k go for it...
Index of /nutsy/earth
BTW I did find rendering in scanline was quicker than vray.
But Vray is far too slow to even consider animations... But with scanline theres no real way to get lighting on the backside of the clouds.
*added* Ohhh Fluff me that animation is pretty
Edit - WOW! IRML - are you sure you don't have a spaceship and you didn't filmed this video from orbit????
Actually I found a 2 Nasa cloud maps that are larger, but they are 21600x21600 ?!
Index of /nasa/Blue_Marble_2002
There two halves... so these are actually 42k cloud map when put together
Well Max you do LW might get away with32bit
Asz.:
I think I have finally found a way to properly adjust the level in max!
Adjusting the graph I showed earlier, in mono mode, gradually moving the left point to -2 looks like a proper black point adjustment. Now if you also enable the "clamp" option, it prevents the blacks from becoming less than black and fixes the dark area problem I talked about.
I'm not a max script guy, but the script listener shows no action when I adjust the graph, does that necessarily mean you cant manipulate it with scripts?
Woof! Are there thumbnails of these files anywhere?
I bet if you use 10 or 20 layers, and dont use a linear increment for the blackpoint it can look even better.
Also, I think the image already is an 8bit greyscale map?