View Full Version : Image Map vs Procedural

01 January 2006, 05:28 AM
Well, my very early preliminary test so far show that it took 15 seconds to render
a basic mountain with an image map and 28 seconds using a procedural,
both using Ultra and rendered from the Main Camera Window.

The procedural so far looks better, but I think it's because I don't quite
know the right settings to get the image map just right?
More test will be needed.

I'm doing this test, because I need to find faster ways to render, but even
more, better methods for controlling larger scenes and memory consumption.

I'll update this when I :)
And I'll post some test renderings along with their respective render times.


01 January 2006, 08:56 AM
First test with only image maps.
One Color and one Bump.
Some Fog and Haze.
Quality: Ultra.
24 seconds.
Image bellow is 800x450.

With the Procedural it was more then double that.

And Top View to make the image map took 10.5 minutes.
Same Top View with the Image map, took 4.4 minutes.
Both set at 1000x1000 rez.

Later, I'll post up actual side by side render times.

Now maybe I can start making larger scenes without killing my system, I hope?

Time to burnt out and :)

01 January 2006, 02:39 PM
Procedural terrains are best if they are smaller and close to the camera. The nice part about them is how much more detailed they are. You can zoom the camera as much as you need and still keep the details. Of course, this means more poly counts and longer render times. Vue needs to calculate more at render time for a procedural terrain then a standard terrain. The closer the camera gets, you can se the poly count increase. I am working on a tutorial I found in 3D World magazine. Just one procedural mountain is over a million polys! For background mountains, I use regular terrains.


01 January 2006, 08:36 PM
In otherwords, yes, I understand about the bennifits of procedurals for things
like moving in closer and such, but I also need to have the same look of the
procedural but without the memory issues, since for what I am trying to
make is only to be used as premade mountains for use in backdrops.
This was the whole reason behind my experimenting with some "other" method
to get mountains for my backdrops in my larger scenes, as all I did was add
one procedural mountain to my trestle scene (which was only one terrain)
and Bamm!, Vue crashed out with tha famous out of memory bit.
This crash didn't happen of course by just adding the extra terrain,
it was when I went to render a test render to see how things looked.
I hadn't seen that one in ages.

I had to be able to have the same look of the procedurals that I was
using on my mountains and keep that look but with out killing my system.
Doing this seems to be a work around for memory issues and I feel has it's place.
It all looks promising so far, at least for the purpose that I need them for.

See, in the Anza Borrego Desert, ALLL of the mountains out there, at least in the
area that I am trying to recreate, are all made up of "nothing but" boulders and rocks.
Even from far off, you can see that there are boulders all covering them.
So, the typical standard mountain materials are not an option for me.
See, these are some standard mountain in my desert:
And of course, the very, VERY far away mountains,
I could probably get away with just a spherical map or whatever?

And BTW, yes, the fotos are more of a grey type of rock, but other mountains in that
same area, but more at the higher altitudes generally, are more on the redish tan color.
But all of these things I can simply make different color maps and such :)

Oh yeah, and as you can see, creating actual boulders and rocks
with Eco's for these sort of close mountains is just not an option either. :)


CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 08:36 PM
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.