Grand Space Opera 3D Entry: Michael Crawford

#101

That’s fantastic, to achieve this complexity more with texturing than modeling. And a big thank for showing out even the tries that you labeled “unsuccessful”. Very much interesting to see the inner workings.

Stefano

#102

Paul: There are a couple of excellent DarkTree examples in the gallery over at www.darksim.com – “Factory” is pretty jaw-dropping, and the asteroid textures are also excellent – but, quite frankly, I never knew you could do anything as complex or convincing as the “night cities” procedural until you posted those renders. On XSI Base there was a discussion of how to pull off that kind of thing about a year ago, but it involved multiple layers, NASA textures, and a lot of tweaking to get something that looked good. Like I said – and many folks have echoed on your thread – your approach was quite ingenious, and the kind of “case book” example that I would’ve loved to have seen in the DarkTree manual.

I’m also not surprised that you haven’t uncovered all the tricks and approaches inherent in the package; like the procedural shader networks in XSI, there are more possible combinations to try out than you could possibly explore in a lifetime. (If you think this is an exaggeration, just read the discussion of computational biologist Stuart Kauffman’s attempts to simulate a network of 100 genes in the book “Complexity.” If each node had just two possible settings – “on” and “off” – and you had a network comprised on 100 of these nodes, there are in fact 2 to the 100th power, or almost exactly one million trillion trillion possible combinations.)

As for the texture/modeling work I posted today, I’ll be sure to put up a screen shot of how I intend to use it when I get some more stuff uploaded tonight. First, though, I’m going to put up a visual breakdown of how this effect was achieved. On the cone-like structure I’d done previously, a lot of the detail was modeled since it would receive direct lighting. This new “filler” material will be in recessed panels along the side of Waterhole Alpha, giving the platform the kind of partially-exposed innerworkings feel you get with iMacs and some other industrial design work. Anyway, this will be clearer when I posted the “layout” update.

As you correctly surmised, there are indeed a pair of internal lights to help achieve the effect. The lights are also present in ALL of the failed attempts, which just goes to show how much difference a few tweaks in a transparency map can make!

Stefano: The inner workings will be posted very shortly. I think you’ll be surprised to see how simple the set-up is. :slight_smile:

#103

Sorry for the poor quality of this JPEG. To fit everything on it and still keep the image below 150K I had to adjust the quality settings lower than I’ve done with other postings. Fortunately, this is just an informational piece designed to answer a few questions.

#104

Michael,

Great detail-building technique. Thanks for sharing. Mind if I steal the idea? ha ha.

Have you tried any renders with shadows yet? I’d be interested to know how all of those blocky extrusions cast and receive shadows. To my eyes, intricate details always look best when you can see them casting shadows. It’s like it adds more natural texture or something.

Thanks again for sharing.

Vance

#105

Okay, the picture on the right is pretty rough, and completely lacking the little details (pipes, wires, plating … and the right lighting) that will help meld the more abstract and colorful “techno” with the fairly subdued cone-like structures. I anticipate that it’ll take another couple of days to get the melding ironed out … and there’s always the chance (um, strong possibility?) that the final composition I do for the contest will position the camera so differently as to completely obscure these particular details. Nonetheless, I can always use these for portfolio – and learning – purposes, so I don’t think the effort will wind up wasted.

#106

Keep modeling man! Your work is incredible! I love it! :eek:

#107

I’m picking up some great pointers watching you, your work is also helping me find better direction to pursue. Love your presentation.

#108

One of the things I’m most happy about this whole challenge is to have this thread bookmarked since the very beginning.

What to say? Thanks for all the info. Fab work.

:beer:

Stefano

#109

hi Michael…
your making really fantastic stuff… thanks for very clear and nice explanation… and i agree with WyattHarris… very nice presentation…
i’m pretty sure you’ll end up with an outstanding image…
untill later and cheers my fiend… :beer:

#110

Vance: You’re more than welcome to use – and refine – the technique. I haven’t actually tested the technique under conditions designed to generate shadows (eg, suspended above another object), since the technique was simply intended to provide a more flexible way of suggesting the kind of complexity you might see if you removed an exterior panel on a spaceship, or had a transparent hull (ala the General Products hulls in Larry Niven’s “Known Space” series). I’ll test it out tonight; right now I’m taking a break from trying to develop an efficient workflow for producting Fuller Domes. Using the icosahedron primitive and then working with the “inset polygon” command seems faster than attempts to extract edge loops as curves (just too many edges). Anyway, I’ll post some “shadow tests” tomorrow. Thanks for the suggestion! :slight_smile:

Borro: Thanks! Will keep at it, since there’s still a looooong way to go.

Wyatt: Glad to hear the presentation is helpful. I figure a lot of these techniques are so simple they should be applicable across a whole range of apps.

Stefano: Thanks again! I’ve seen the gallery with your Maya work, so I have no doubt you will shortly be doing some beautiful work in XSI. (BTW, that lake scene is lovely!)

Paul: Thanks! This is the first time I’ve worked on a hugely complex scene – it will clearly require multiple renders and extensive compositing, since mental ray has a two million triangle limit, and each one of the cones takes up about 200K – but it’s sort of a “dry run” for the centerpiece animation in my multimedia novel: a flyover of a Malthusean “Afterlife,” with several billion souls crammed into a space not much larger than Mexico City.

#111

Truelly impressive progresse there Michael. The procedural build-up you have there is looking excellent. Its a joy to follow! :thumbsup:

#112

A bit of a slowdown in getting stuff posted, but hope to get caught up in the next few days.

#113

hi Michael…
yeah this is the problem we always have to consider… but i may suggest you to make all test renders in the production resolution… it seems obvious but i myself often forget to follow this rule… it’s very important for such high resolution images have the scene prepared with nearly end layout so you can always render small areas to check for aliasing and Moire…
but i’m sure you’ll solve this prob… :slight_smile:
untill later and cheers…

#114

Hi, Paul,

That’s an excellent suggestion, and one I’ll definitely adopt now, while I still have plenty of nights for long render sessions. (You’d think I would’ve learned from the Alienware contest, where I ran into all sorts of problems with the full-size renders, but I really appreciate you rapping on my noggin and reminding me to “work smart.”)

I did manage to find a way of doing the dome that keeps the spacing tight but manages to get around the Moire problems, and will post those images in just a few minutes. The real test, though, is how the dome will look when it actually has the generator facility inside and internal lighting. (Cripes, that’s going to be no fun at all – trying to make sure it has the right look will probably mean avoiding “physically accurate” at all costs. I’ve already given up on using HiperGlass because the diffraction was just plain annoying.)

Oh: like you anticipated, I didn’t have a lot of luck with using fine displacement as a substitute for the non-functional DarkTree bump functions in XSI. Haven’t exhausted the possible workarounds, but will have to put off a more complete testing until I’ve completed more of the space station. Anyway, you did warn me. :slight_smile:

#115

:slight_smile: Very nice design:)
Keep it up! want to see more updates
…:thumbsup: …

#116

• Are u some kind of Rocket scientist? :buttrock:

#117

if in some case you’ll need bump maps from the DarkTree shaders you can post them to me… i’ll render them out and post you back bitmaps (i have ftp up to 100Mb)…

as for “physically accurate” renders your right… it’s better forget about them in this project…
i personally almost never use neither advanced lighting nor fancy renderers (if it’s needed i preffer FRender (for it colorfulness) to other renderers including mental ray… but sure mental ray is extremely powerful (and the best i think) renderer)… they are very time consuming and images look somehow soulless…

#118

Refinements to the dome, which will be located beneath the jump gate itself. In a sketch I previously posted to show the placement of the cone details, the generator dome appears as a squished spheroid, though I’m thinking now of going with a regular sphere and just lowering the dome’s placement relative to the main slab of Waterhole Alpha. (I can always add more mechanical detail to the underside of the space station to balance the look.) There are other possibilities which I will also explore, since I now have the method of generating Fuller domes down to a science and can turn even a highly-faceted one out in under thirty minutes.

#119

hehe… it looks like i’m gettig older… posting some stupid messages… hehe… very smart to offer you render out bitmaps… :smiley: damn… i think i’m really working too much :buttrock:… need some rest from any activities including challenge… :slight_smile:

don’t pay attention mate…
cheers… :slight_smile:

P.S. i’m dealling with the same Moire problem as you… i’m sure you saw it in my thread… but have to wait until i’ll prepare main layout to check it again… in high resolution meny artefacts will render fine…

#120

Your tests for the generator dome is really interesting ( I’m not surprised :-))
Are you going to use all geometry for the stuff inside or just bitmaps?
Very cool to use actual geometry for the lattice - I’m sure it will payoff in the final rendering.

I’m applauding every step in this :wink: