Some questions about GeoControl 2

[mauronen]

Hi Joannes.
My name is Mauro Nenci and, since now, i'm a quiet forum user but an happy irregular (since now) user of GeoControl (demo version). I'm a great fan of Tolkien's world, like Carl (monks) and Oshyan (JavaJones) that knows me, and since 1 year ago i'm starting to model a 3D representation of Tolkien's First Age world (actually only Beleriand but soon i would start modeling of Aman). Actually i've used Leveller, L3DT and VTP but 6 months ago i've discovered GeoControl. I've deeply tested it and my opinion is tight with Monks, JavaJones and many other forum users: this is a fantastic tool!!!.
Now i've decided to buy it. But i would wait version 2 that, seems, best fits my needs.
My questions are:

What is the price of GeoControl v2?
When it will be released?
Are you planning a beta testing session with users?
There a list of plugins/filters/presets, availables for version 2, that you can publish in this forum?
There will be a more comprehensive documentation (with examples and tutorials) with new product?


Sorry for this huge list of questions, but i'm very interested. If you open beta testing, consider me too. Actually i'm a beta tester of Leveller v2.6 and L3DT v2.4/v2.5

Best regards.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

What is the price of GeoControl v2?
When it will be released?
Are you planning a beta testing session with users?
There a list of plugins/filters/presets, availables for version 2, that you can publish in this forum?
There will be a more comprehensive documentation (with examples and tutorials) with new product?

Hello mauronen, so here are the answers:

to 1. The price will be around 89-99 €. In general here at GeoControl longer users of GeoControl are in advantage. That means, they get a discount to the update of about 10%. Long I will define as longer than two months. So, I will set a date, up from that, new purchasers of GeoControl 1 will get no discount. This is quit opposite to the sales of other companies, but I think it is much more fair, than to give discounts to newcomers, while long users get none.

to 2 It is really early to say a release date, but in the first half of 2007.

to 3 Testing is in phases: First, professional and semi professionals in film and game production and archviz. This will be to add features for this group.
Then more general alpha testing, for additional features, which are of common interest, for example "displace" filters.
At least a wider beta testing (no special offer then for the beta testers) for final stability. I will anounce the second and third phase here, for invinting. The first phase are handselected users.

to 4 Because of the special architecture of GeoControl there are no plugins. The presets will all be in a new format and not compatible with version 1. But you will be able to load old presets with version 2. Sorry for that, but verson 2 will be powered with so much more possibilities, that the old formats can not hold the informations needed.

to 5 I had spend really much time and work in the documentation, and so I think, it will be more in that style. The docu is a very time-intensive work, and making a really great one, would rise the price. I am still hoping, that this forum will be a place, where you get the informations you need. But at all and at time, it looks like GeoControl is easy enouhg to use, after a relative short learning time, that there is no much interest in tuts.

Johannes Rosenberg

[mauronen]

Thanks for quick reply Johannes.
To access beta testing program is necessary firt to buy first GeoControl v1?

Thanks again.

[cajomi]

To beta testing it is still a long way. So I am not sure.
The problem will be more, that a good beta testing needs some knowledge about version 1.
On the other hand, there will sure be some, not much, newbies, to see, what there impression is.

[mauronen]

As i said before, Johannes, i'm used some months ago GeoControl 1. I've deeply tested it but, because some my personal problems, i have had suspended testing process. But now i've decided to restart working about First Age world, and i want to include GeoControl in modeling workflow. If you want know more about, take a look at this tutorial (http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/38/33/).
Certainly i'm a forum user newbie, but maybe i think to know GeoControl enough to add it to my workflow. Actually, in version 1, i could only use it to add small scale details to my heightfield (i've just updated tutorial, but i didn't have published yet because i want use it with all v2 features that i've read in this forum). But when i could use version 2 i would insert it also as modeler/designer application to totally rebuild heightfield. If you follow my tutorial you can easily understand that what i said.

Some comments and tips concerning my tutorial are welcome.

[cajomi]

I think, this is not the time for you, joining the testing.
As you said: Version 1 has not the functions you need.
And the alpha has at time only added a selection tool, - okay, the most advanced selection I know - , is able to build 8192 terrains (with 2GB ram) and has a height setting.

And at this time, all alpha testers are owner of a licence. This will change in about 4 weeks, so have a bit patience please.

[mauronen]

Ok Johannes.
Thanks for your answers and for your patience.

See you soon.

[mauronen]

Hi Johannes.
Any news about GC2?

Thanks in advance.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

Well,

the brush has been replaced by a new isoline tool. With that lines you can sketch the terrain heights with some strokes, and so define the shape of the terrain.
The isolines are very robust and easy to use.
The memory usuage is now much smaller, so that even on normal systems a 8192 terrain should be possible, without any restrictions, like count of filter or layers.

I am just developing the 3D engine, no realtime, but fast. It will be much more comfortable. It will also be possible to create textures with GC and export them.

We are still in alpha state. And before the tiling routines are not done, beta testing will not start. So keep patient. It willl take some time (2-3 months).

[mauronen]

Hi Johannes.

A question: why you're developing a non realtime 3D engine? Maybe it's simpler rely on a commercial or open source realtime 3D engine (Ogre, Irrlicht,Jolt,Torque, etc.) through a plugin. Another solution could be rely on terrain visualization software like 3DEM (http://www.visualizationsoftware.com/3dem.html) that accepts most common DEM formats (like GeoTIFF). GC is a great heightfield modeler but, to better improve quality of work, is necessary to take it a look very frequently (flying around) with a 3D engine.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

Well,
I have tested Irrlicht, Dreammotion and Ogre.
And it was all the same: For terrains > 1024 not usuable.
Also lightning is not satisfying. If you add a directional light, the frame rate decreases dramatically. And if you then enable shadows, real shadows, it decreases again.
Also, the loading of a great terrain is so slow, that after every generation you have to wait the double of time, before the 3D view would work.
Another problem appears, because I am using PureBasic for coding. Most 3D engines are written in C++. So before I can use a engine, I need a wrapper. And this wrappers are the main problem. I even did not found one, that supports 16bit heightfields.
A 3D engine uses triangles for the terrain. This encreases the memory usuage dramatically.
And, the most important: Using a 3D engine would import the bugs from the 3D engine. A professional software is not allowed to crash. It has to be as stable as a rock.

So the GC 3D software engine is build to get the impression of the terrains, that you will have it in the entire rendering software. You do not need to permanently fly around, mostly you have a relative fix pov. And of course you can rotate the terrain, but not in realtime.

And, I have found, that the old 2D preview in TG for example, was really good for working. In opposite to the new 3D preview.

[alexcoppo]

For terrains > 1024 not usuable.

In the terrain generation business, a 1024x1024 terrain is smallish but, as a mesh, it is a 1 million quads object (or, worse, a 2 million triangle ones). In the 3D modelling world, 1m faces models are quite large and programs have troubles dealing with them. The end result is that usual 3D tools are utterly inadequate for the task and this is the reason for the existence of specialized tools.

If you add to the 2D view the capability of specifying sun azimut/elevation (like in Wilbur) I think that that would be enough for terrain shape assessment. Anything more requires something like Bryce/Terragen/Vue to handle.

Bye!!!
P.S.: GeoControl is really a great program (and blazing fast too!)

[monks]

There are some really promising techniques for a terrain viewer- such as (among others) geometry clipmaps- (this can also be applied to textures) working on the gpu (not cpu). I dloaded a demo a couple of weeks ago and was absolutely stunned by it.
http://research.microsoft.com/research/downloads/Details/6bb837ec-a2c4-4236-9e1a-de45144644e1/Details.aspx


OK, I've got a *very* powerful comp, but I was flying around a 16K x 16K terrain of Puget Sound like it was nothing -really fast. I compared it (and no disrespect to Leveller here), but it was performing faster than a 512 x 512 terrain in Lev!! Lev is a full *editor* so it has more overhead for sure than just a viewer, but I reckon that is still impressive.

I think terrain apps ought to move to the character modelling workflow in games. You simply don't need full res of all the terrain for editing all the time. There are very few occasions where you do.View dependent rendering; LOD (no doubt including tiling architecture). I think a base mesh with displacement maps or something to run rt procedurals is the way to go. So like progressive character meshes, you have your model at different resolutions/complexity for different purposes.

monks

[cajomi]

For an application is a tool, that needs a special graphic card, contraproductive. And please , do not throw in the solutions of a great developement team and expect, that I can do the same. Or are you willing to pay 250€ or more for GC?

A game engine is a faking engine. Ok, I could generate a normal map from the terrain, and then use it for rendering. You will not see the difference at the first glance, and the terrain has only to have 256*256 resolution. That is the way, game engines and other real time engines work.
The renderengine in GC will always show the real geometrie and no fakes. GC is not a game, but a serious application for professional use.

GC is for game developement, not for game playing.

[monks]

Sure, fair points. :)
I'm still convinced that view dependent rendering would greatly improve real time interaction within terrain editors and especially within terrain viewers.

monks

[cajomi]

There is no doubt, that it would be a great improvement for the workflow, if I can adjust a isoline and see in realtime the effect of this action in 3D.
But developing a software is not catching dreams, but realization of what is possible.

That is the same as with geological erosion: Forget it for the next ten years. This story with this super fast real geological erosion, by dóuble channeld gpu usuage: It is a fairy tail. It is absolute impossible, with the available hardware, to do that in a sensful amount of time. And everone who tells you the opposite, is a dreamer or a promoter for his solution.
A simple example: You need a real super computer to simulate one earthquake. A geological erosion would have to simulate about 20000 earthquakes, only for getting the right mountains shape. That is without any wind, water, chemical or thermal erosion. Only creating a natural height profil.
Because this is impossible, geological studys use fake simulations.
And that is the same as GC does. With the main difference, that the GC fakes are much faster. And that GC is orientated to the result.
Example: It is definitly impossible to simulate a wave by its particles, but it is relative simple, to simulate it by its general form. That is exact the approach of GC. At least every process leads to a general form. So I studied the general forms, not many different perlin noise types, and then build algorithm to produce such forms.

[monks]

There is no doubt, that it would be a great improvement for the workflow, if I can
adjust a isoline and see in realtime the effect of this action in 3D.
But developing a software is not catching dreams, but realization of what is possible.

That is the same as with geological erosion: Forget it for the next ten years. This
story with this super fast real geological erosion, by dóuble channeld gpu usuage: It is a
fairy tail. It is absolute impossible, with the available hardware, to do that in a sensful
amount of time. And everone who tells you the opposite, is a dreamer or a promoter for his solution.

What story? Of course it's impossible. If you read here you'll see my view and RedRobes'
view as well: http://terrain.cg-arts.org/forum/index.php?topic=85.0
In addition, note that much of the TS discussion has gone on in the Terrain *Philosophy*
and *Theory* forums. We're very aware of the 'theoretical', 'dreamy' nature of this
discussion- hence why we've had these discussions in those forums.
To quote from that thread:
If you succeed in simulating real world crevasses and other surface expressions, you are in high demand by the glacial modeling community since they have not really succeeded in real time modeling.
[that's from a real world geologist]

//grin// well- we're not (and can't possibly be!) aiming for that kind of fidelity/accuracy - all we can realistically do is hack it for what looks right and understanding the real world processes in terms of the what the model can/cannot do. If you can break the process down to a reasonable simplicity and understand the components in physics terms, then all you have to do is translate those into your model. That's my take anyway.

You'll also find RedRobes scoffing at the mere idea of imagining getting anywhere near
close to 'reality'. Even teams of world experts with supercomputers cannot do it.


And that is the same as GC does. With the main difference, that the GC fakes are much faster. And that GC is oriented to the result.

Yes, this is the point that everybody makes. All of the devs I've spoken to over the last
couple of years have said the EXACT same thing. Which is exactly the same thing that
pursuing an erosion algorithm on the gpu is- only faster and with the potential for better
visual results (and some more flexibility regarding water and other output maps). We've been at pains to emphasise that this has no commercial value:http://terrain.cg-arts.org/forum/index.php?topic=87.0
quote:
"Yes, we're fortunate of course to be in a position to not really give a fig about the
commercial considerations. It'd be mission complete if we can open all of this software to
the terrain community and the apps we're immediately involved with down the road."

-and that it will only really become available to the most users in 12-24 months.

So how is the dream of making a terrain physics library available to a community of devs at no charge self promotion?- or strongly motivated by self promotion? Cash or kudos- nah, we're just having fun.

I agree, end results, they're really the final judge of this when measured against resources and time.
Already 'we' (potentially the community) have glaciers -or at least another way of creating
them (in the future)- what's more we have heightmaps of water and ice- that will significantly cut down on the sheer labour of getting water from terrain into renderer as professed by SeerBlue.

We've given your solution a bit of publicity here too: //grin
http://www.me-dem.org/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,39/func,view/id,1997/catid,8/

We're very grateful for your tolerance, open mind and generosity -oh and for GeoControl being such a cool app :)

monks

[cajomi]

Well, I prefer in general to go my own way.

I will do it this way: If in two years this lib gets public, I will have a look to see, what they did better solve than I did. I will think about, how they had done it. And then transporte it with own algorithm to GC.
I never take libs from others (and there are a lot to make the live of a developer easyer). My whole code is written in the base programming language. I know some developers, who went the other way. With the result, that they lost there complete work, because further developement was not possible. To much depend on foreign libs, so that the next version would have been to much work. It comes the moment, when it is easyer to write it new again.

It might be not easy to understand, and it is not easy, but I do not like such "altruistic" projects.
First: Others spend time and hard work, and then those people are offering it for nothing. Such behavior says to me: Your work is no more worth a cent, because now we, the generous are coming, and give you all our hard work as present. If they have so good libs, why they do not build up a own terrain generator? They should do it, and then lets compare, who did it better. At the end of such developement, every day more people will no longer be willing to pay for something. All must be for free. This has happend here in germany in a very strength way. And the results are really bad.
Second: After using this libs, with every new graphic card I will be forced to update that libs. May be the day comes, it will no longer be for free. But then, be sure, the price will be really high.

So, I think, let them publish that. I will see, what I can learn from it. But I will not use it.
It is, as it is: If it is really free and good, it is bad, because it destroys the market. If it it not really free and you have to pay a way, you can not see at once, then it is also bad. If it is free and not so good, well that is okay, and I will not use it. If it is not free and not good, well, even better, then my product will win in some time.

[monks]

Sure, now I understand. I should keep my mouth shut more often :D

Well, fwiw knowing what I know about GeoControl 2.0, you'll be extremely well placed to deal with any competition. This is all speculation at the moment anyway- we'll see what manyana may bring.

monks

[mauronen]

Hi Johannes.
Any news about GeoControl2 release?
If it will be released too far i would glad to partecipate to beta testing program (clearly if that is included in your bete program rules)

Best regards.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

I hope beta testing will start in 3 weeks.
I think, it will be end of summer for release, and may be, that will be a pre-release with less documentation and some smaller features will be missing.

[mauronen]

Thanks for the info Johannes.

[alexcoppo]

I hope beta testing will start in 3 weeks.
I think, it will be end of summer for release, and may be, that will be a pre-release with less documentation and some smaller features will be missing.

I would be extremely interested in taking part to the beta testing phase. Any info about requirements for submission?

Thanks a lot!!!!

[cajomi]

In general there will be two groups of testers:

1.Landscape artists, mostly users of Terragen (TG2 !), Bryce, Carrara or Vue.
I want to choose some experienced testers and a few newbies.

2. Game developers, film teams and arch viz, professionals and amteurs

When the road tool is working the testing will start. It may be, that GeoControl 2 will have a pre-release (this gives me more time and money for developement), a final release and an update ,a GC 2.5, which will be free.

[Spetsnaz]

I was interested to hear about the texture-creation feature you noted above. Can you explain more about that? Thanks! Cant wait for this bad-boy.

[cajomi]

The texture creation is half the way. You can use all selection types (height, slope, orientation, relative position and roughness) for shading, unlimited layer list.

Missing is a fractal pattern and hand selection, also the possibility to create with the fractal pattern greater texture maps than the terrain.

Also missing a light/shadow map.

[Spetsnaz]

You have no idea how great this is. LD3T has a not-so-good version of procedural texture generation as I recal. I have wanted this feature for sooooo long.

Will these textures be taken from your preset textures? This will be fine for us because the texture work from your pictures is ALWAYS amazing. Or will developers place their own textures into a folder or something to be used at certain altitudes?

How is the texture output? How is it placed onto the map?

rivers + seamless + procedural textures = the best program ever

[cajomi]

The geocontrol 2 textures follow the same way as other rendersoftware:
Make a selection (distribution, alpha channel), apply one/ two colours or a colour gradient to that selection, additional apply a selection for the way the colours are mixed, set the white, grey and black point for the selections (for better control), add the next layer......
At least you can export the map GeoControl has created as an image. This map holds only color informations (or later all informations, light, shadows, colours). You can also export all selections, to use them in the alpha channel of the rendersoftware.

[Spetsnaz]

That sounds great. If such exports will work with Torque, Ogre, and other gaming applications as well as renderware, I foresee you getting many more customers :) Great news thank you!