Eco Groth CLOSER to objects, then further away?

[LuciaK]

Mark, do you mean around an object like a tree or rock? If that's what you're asking, you can play around with the decay near foreign objects sliders.

[mdunakin]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm refering to.
See, they show you how you can do that so that the growth is farther away from a
forien object, but I want to do the reverse of that and have it so that everywhere
else there is no growth, EXCEPT when the growth gets near an object,
THEN it grows the closer it gets to that object.
Cuz that feature is really cool, but I wasn't able to figure out how to do the opposite.
Since, the things I'm thinking of in real life do the opposite and grow and cluster all around
boulders and fence posts and grasss in little piles of rocks and other such things like that.

The only way I was able to think of doing this, was to use image maps, but if
you or anyone else knows of how this can be done with just the settings, let me know?
And yes, I'll go back and try and play with those settings some more, as I know more
how things work now then I did when I first tried to do all of this a while back.
But, I looked pretty good back then, so I'm not sure if I'll find anything new,
but it's always worth another try :)

Thanx!
...............md :)


.

[videodv]

Do you mean like this, I created a white circle (for variable desity) what the tree is sitting on then unticked the decay near foreign object.

[videodv]

Heres another one using the function editor for the variable density tab, this one uses the other/dots function then I just messed around with the scaleing ect.

[mdunakin]

The first image is what I'm looking for.
And like I say, I'm hoping to do this without using any maps, as I don't want to have
to create all that detail for the tons of little areas that would need such a thing as this.

If you have a sample scene of that or something similar, post it for me to examine?

thanx...............md :)

.

[DigReal]

Near as I can tell, that decay thing is a one way street, MD. There might be a way to reverse that street in one of the functions (math, perhaps?), but that seems like too much work to figure out. I'd go with density mapping.... much easier.

[videodv]

Here is an example scene that produces the rocks in place like the first pic, if you click on the dots icon in the function editor by changeing the scale - x - y - z values you can place the rocks in little clups around the plane.


http://www.videodvdownloads.co.uk/downloads/rocktest.zip

As you can see from the example I have left the decay near foriegn objects ticked and put a invert function in the editor to change the distrbution around.

Edited to change file type to a zip.

[videodv]

Seems it is trying to download as an mp3!!! file, mmmm any ideas why?

In the mean time here is a pic to show how I have setup the function editor.

[DigReal]

Now, how did I know there'd be a math function involved? I mean, considering I've never been able to make the least bit of sense outta that thing. :eek:

Good one, videodv! :applause: Using the invert thing makes sense, but how'd you ever figure on dots? And why does the invert thing ONLY seem to work with dots? Guess I'm still as confused by those function things as ever. :hmm: I also played around with the filter and managed to get some variation to the distribution.... tough to control, tho.

I think I'd still go with maps for something like this. Anyone know if there's a book out yet that explains the functions so they make sense? I'll be first in line!

[videodv]

Now, how did I know there'd be a math function involved? I mean, considering I've never been able to make the least bit of sense outta that thing. :eek:

Good one, videodv! :applause: Using the invert thing makes sense, but how'd you ever figure on dots? And why does the invert thing ONLY seem to work with dots? Guess I'm still as confused by those function things as ever. :hmm: I also played around with the filter and managed to get some variation to the distribution.... tough to control, tho.

I think I'd still go with maps for something like this. Anyone know if there's a book out yet that explains the functions so they make sense? I'll be first in line!

I think on balance I would go with the maps as well it might take a bit longer but you will get a better result.

Dots is the only one I could find that would give any sort result, but as you say its very tought to get a result. :sad:

[mdunakin]

Just so you know, I tried all these things yesterday, with not the results I wanted.
And for Dig, I do have my reasons for wanting to do this sort of thing, without using maps.
Though most likely I will end up going that route in the end.

I spent half the day yesterday trying every combination of Invert and other such math filters/functions/nodes I could try and even read up on how to use them and kept thinking
to myself, well, this SHOULD?? make sense AND work, but it isn't, so I kept on trying
other things out, including his dots which didn't work for me.

So, I eventually came to the conclusion, that it's not so much WHAT you use, it's HOW
they are CONNECTED that makes all the difference in the world. Cuz I would try one
method and get no results, well actually everything had a result, just some didn't
show anything at all. And others came close to what I wanted and others
looked just like if I hadn't used ANY functions at all!

So, I'm going to see if I can download this file and examine it, since I can't see what it
says on that screen shot and then see where I was going wrong or missing something?
I guess the good thing is, that I was thinking of the exact same things as someone else
was, which may or may not have been good, but at least it was something I guess LOL

Cuz I tried the Invert, which to me made the first and MOST sense, since that's exactly
what I was wanting to do, was to INVERT the way the deal was working, but I still
don't see why I need to have ANY sort of thing like Dots in there at all?
This sets up a certain limited pattern that I may or may not want for the scene.
I should, in theory, be able to just reverse the way the decay works.
It should be as simple as that.
I guess it isn't, but there should be a way somewhere in there to just do that simple thing?

I'll keep searching either way, and like I say, thanx for this example and I'll take a look at it.
Who knows, maybe it'll trigger something in my brain? LOL

So, let me get this right with Dig?
I assume, that the ONLY way to make a map that would wortk for placed objects,
would be to take a screen shot from the top view of the Top Vierw Window at full
size for best rez and then use that to make the placement map from, correct?
I can't think of any other way to do that sort of placement mapping with
imported objects or even objects from Vue, like boulders and trees and such?

It would sure save a lot of time though, if I can get this to work how I want,
"without" forcing me to maticulously create maps for lots of little objects in the scene.
THIS, is what my reason is for wanting to do this without using maps, because
I want the computer to do the work for me and NOT the other way around.
That's what they invented the eco-system for, was to save people
from having to manually add in all the zillions of growth.

Anyway, it's a fun adventure to see where this all will lead to, either way :)

Thanx..............md :)


.

[videodv]

By using the dots node with the scaleing ect you can have one spot (like the example pic) or many (spots) on your plane/terrain ect spread out to place tree's ect where you want, at least thats the way it looks.

And yes I thought by placeing the invert node in there it would turn the eco placement around but it did not work like that?

[mdunakin]

videodv, right after I just posted that reply, I got to thinking about this whole deal,,, again.
It seems to me that your Dot deal isn't really what I'm looking for, from a glance that is?
Cuz isn't this just going to create a Dot pattern where the dots want to be,
and NOT where "I" want things to be placed?

Cuz that's the whole thing I am trying to achieve here, is to do the tutorial they show
on the e-on web site of placing a boulder and then doing this eco growth in that
mannor they show where there is less growth around the "placed" boulder.

It's like maps are the only way to make this work in a reverse mannor,
which I was trying to avoid all that map creating.... uhg.

...........md :)


.

[Mike RB]

I have no clue how to use the function editor thing in VUE yet. However, I have an idea that might help with making a overhead map. Temporarily make all your objects white and the ground black before doing your screen grab (can VUE do ortho renders, if so, render it). Then blur that map to get a falloff of grey around each object, then you could then use the original black and white as an inverted selection to punch out the centers of the grey areas to keep objects from actually getting underneath the original white objects...

That help?

Mike

[mdunakin]

Thanx Mike, yes that helps!
I knewwww it had to be something like tha to ge a map made from the screen for this
sort of thing, but wasn't for sure what the best way would be to do this,
and this one sounds a lot like it might be the best way.
I know I would still have to do some amount of editing no matter which method I use,
as if the objects are things like a sign that's on towo posts, you'd have to erase the
part where the sign is so that only the posts are showing on the map, but I don't
think there's any real way around this, when you're having to go the map route?
Which of course, is why I wanted to avoid the map route at all cost, if possible?

If you could do an Ortho Rendering, then that would be even better,
as then you could render out a really large rez image to work with
and not just whatever screen size rez you may currently be using.
And yes, i realise you could temporarily set your desktop rez as high as it
can go and then do the screen shot of it, but that's a slight bit of a hassle too.
At least with icons on the screen sometimes not going back to where they were before.

thanx!..................md :)
.

[DigReal]

This is getting to be a really interesting discussion.

I totally agree with your thinking, MD. I'd expect to use 'invert' and have the falloff inverted. Sure sounds like a simple thing, don't it? Maybe a math function isn't the answer? Maybe something obscure? Sometimes I wonder what kind of factory e-on is located next door to. :surprised

Otoh, I can't imagine wanting an eco to distribute that way for every object in my scene. That's the main reason I would think of using maps, first. I mean, I might want a certain ground cover to condense around the base of trees, but not around everything else. So, for the mapping, yeah, I'd do exactly what you described. Do a copy of the terrain. Then an overhead, or ortho, render and screen cap that (why doesn't Vue let you save an ortho render?). Overlay the 2, and make a distribution or density map from that. Actually, I just got a little project to start Monday, where I may need to attempt just that. I'll have to post how it goes.

I still want to know if there's a book out there, yet. :)

[mdunakin]

Well, be sure to let us all know how things turn out if
and when you do get to try something like this out?
And you're right, this HAS turned into a great topic.
In fact, there's been several great topics of late and I'm enjoying
every minute of it, even though I can't possibly keep up with it all LOL

One thing you can say about maps, they sure do give you
extream control over things, there's no dought about that.

And as for what you said about how you wouldn't want some things to have
that eco bit happen to them, well, that's what they invented layers for LOL
I mean, just make some layers with ecos that work one way for some
things and other ecos that work another way for the rest of things.
I think??? LOL
I'm just talking off the top of my head and realy don't have a clue :)
Especially since, well, shoot, we can't even figure out how to do the
simple reverse eco bit, so pretty much everything else is, for now, a moot point.

............md :)

.

[videodv]

Sorry chaps but for some reason Infinite suddenly died on me last night so I gave up for the evening and I have just reinstalled and am now working again.

About the dot thing I agree it was just a test to see if it would help but at the same time you can move the dots around a bit by using the various options there but of course you might not get the amount of control you need.

Now that I am back up and running I shall be trying out one or two ideas I have and the ideas expressed here to see if we can get an easier way to workout placement maps for our scenes as you say md there has to be an easier way!

btw I just remembered that I recently updated my version of cinema to the studio bundle so I can now use body paint to paint on terrains ect with a lot more accuracy duh!!.

[videodv]

My first thought on this and my next experiment I shall be seeing if there is a way to place one map on the ditridution channel and then using an instance! of this with a placement node to place each map where you would like it?

No idea if this is going to work but will give it a try, now where's that manual. lol

[videodv]

Starting to get somewhere now I have managed to be able to get a single map duplicated so it will put the rocks on different places on the plane, all I have got to workout now is the control needed to place the different pics where I wish.

Back soon.

[videodv]

OK I finally got it see pic and I have included the file if you would like to check it out.

The picture I am using for the distribution has the white dot in the top right hand corner it might be better to put this in the middle or not but it will at least show you how I have done it.

To move the pictures around click on the "K" node next to the picture.

http://www.videodvdownloads.co.uk/downloads/placementtest.zip

Edited to add the following instructions.

Put the included dot pic map in the default bitmap folder.

[DigReal]

I checked it out. Haven't thought of any good experiments for this yet, but it is fun to play around with. Even added in the inverse thing, which seemed to work.

Thanks for posting the files, vid! Easier than dealing with screen caps.

[videodv]

No problem on the download sometims its easier that way so we can all play around and see what we come up with.

Trying to figure a way to use this tecnique to put a different object on each map? would be great if we could, be much more able to control our scenes, not found a way yet, but you never know.

[DigReal]

I'm thinking there is a way, and should find out next week. I'll be working on a landscaped plaza, where trees will be arranged by species. I have some freedom with this project, so want to have different groundcovers associated with different trees. My plan is to distribute the trees with actual distribution mapping (instead of my usual approach of density mapping). Then I want to somehow tie in what you're doing with that.

If it works out, I'll do a tut that maybe MD will like to put in flash. It it doesn't work, I'll die of embarrassment, and maybe you'll never hear from me again. :eek:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.