Gamedevelopement and workflow

[mauronen]

One market you may have considered already by the sounds of it, are the modders out there. With games such as Oblivion and FarCry, Stalker etc. Using large terrains.
Here i am! But i want to use CryEngine Sandbox when Crysis go to the market.
Something like GC could be a great asset to them, and at that price they've no excuse! :)
I'm very interested about continental terrain (my purpose is to recreate First Age Tolkien's world); but it seems to me that spread from standard GC2 version and advanced GC2 version is too much (300€ vs 159€; it's almost two GC2 licenses). I've no doubt that would be a very hard work to realize, but i suppose that an advanced version (for commercial purpose, for example) would have other professional features, like paraller rendering in a networking render farm, that could not interest and independent modder that buys a Crysis license for 60-100€ (unofficial leakage from www.incrysis.com), and that could justify doubling of price.
However, my opinion is that 159€ for one of the most powerful tool is reasonable; 300€ is, probably, a price good for and indie that want develop and resell a game (see Torque engine).

[cajomi]

This 300€ are meant for professionals. And the continental problem is much more then it seams at the first glance.
For example:
To realize real structures, the basic grid would no longer be squared, but 8 edged. There are so many, until today, unsolved problems and tasks, that it would justify also a much higher price. Take a look at some other generators, and the price.
The render engine is a totally different developement line.
If GC2 is successful enough, I might take one or two additional developers for renderengine and GUI. I would concentrate on a usable tree generator for example.
But of course that all is nothing to really discuss at this point. The near future is GC2. And that is still future.

[Jules Verne]

Here i am! But i want to use CryEngine Sandbox when Crysis go to the market.

I'm very interested about continental terrain (my purpose is to recreate First Age Tolkien's world); but it seems to me that spread from standard GC2 version and advanced GC2 version is too much (300€ vs 159€; it's almost two GC2 licenses). I've no doubt that would be a very hard work to realize, but i suppose that an advanced version (for commercial purpose, for example) would have other professional features, like paraller rendering in a networking render farm, that could not interest and independent modder that buys a Crysis license for 60-100€ (unofficial leakage from www.incrysis.com (http://www.incrysis.com)), and that could justify doubling of price.
However, my opinion is that 159€ for one of the most powerful tool is reasonable; 300€ is, probably, a price good for and indie that want develop and resell a game (see Torque engine).

I bet people laugh at you when you say you want to make something that big don't they? Yeah I had that a lot too so now I work alone and to hell with the naysayers hehe. The world is full of people who will say things can't be done and only a few who'll try it. The same people said man couldn't fly to the moon, or that Television was a fad and would never last a year heh.

Saying that thought. I think you may be wrong about the cost of a license for the Crysis engine, if thats what you meant, or were you just talking about the game and it being used in the usual way modding it? An actual license (source code, complete access etc.) Is very unlikely to be anything less than a few hundred thousand dollars. I think the Unreal Engine is around $500,000 or something insane like that. Engines like those are very big business.

Also, you need to be aware that as great as these engines look, and the claims they make. They don't always deliver things exactly how you're hoping. The Crysis engine for example. It looks very pretty and it is very advanced. But just seeing some of the work a member of this community has done on mapping middle earth. I don't think even the Crysis engine could have all that in a map, even said Unreal Engine couldn't, it claims it can, but forgets to mention the large load times between small area's, and the limitations with the lighting and object limits and so on and so forth.

This was exactly why I chose to work on something from scratch.

However if you find one of the off the shelf engines can't be modded in the way you hope. And the top of the line Engines are out of your price range. You could always try such engines like Ogre or Torque, which at first glance seem like they can't do all that much, but they're very powerful really. Torgue for example barely breaks into a sweat with large landscapes, even with thousands of grass objects displayed on screen at one time. So if you are serious about creating the first age of middle earth in realtime. You might want to look into those, or make your own engine. It is more work, but ultimately you'll have full control over how it works.

This 300€ are meant for professionals. And the continental problem is much more then it seams at the first glance.
For example:
To realize real structures, the basic grid would no longer be squared, but 8 edged. There are so many, until today, unsolved problems and tasks, that it would justify also a much higher price. Take a look at some other generators, and the price.
The render engine is a totally different developement line.
If GC2 is successful enough, I might take one or two additional developers for renderengine and GUI.

Yup, I gotta agree. To make things look really realistic, a simple heightmap of any resolution wont cut it. I suppose to create a very realistic and accurate terrain just by using a heightmap, would involve some kind of three dimensional displacement, to take into account things like overhangs and so on. Which in theory could be possible, just incredibly difficult to code heh. Perhaps something similar to how normal maps work. By using all channels in an image. It hurts my head just trying to figure out how that could work for multiangle displacement, though there has been research into it, where a single image very similar to a normal map was used to create a 3D model by displacing it fully. I suppose that would be the future of terrain design. But it's going to require huge amounts of processor power to generate maps like that, definitely a few years off yet I would think.

Saying that, I'm still going for a high level of realism hehe, only in my case I'm using lots of tricks to achieve it. For me, GC2's tiling/seamless feature will simply be solving the problem of how to create a great many tiles that all fit together without the need to edit every single point around the edges and hope the appearance in one tile fits well with another. Course even with the tiling feature, which will really help with some low level editing. I still intend to do lots of editing by hand, give it that personal touch, cleaning things up bit by bit, choosing where exactly I want area's to be a little more flat for certain locations, towns, cities, specific lakes or other uses and so on. It's just going to be a lot easier to do that when I've got the base tiles already setup and working nicely together, then I can worry about making things look more interesting at ground level.

I would concentrate on a usable tree generator for example.
But of course that all is nothing to really discuss at this point. The near future is GC2. And that is still future.

Ugh, tree's are a nightmare lol. Stick with landscapes, less headaches. ;)

[mauronen]

I bet people laugh at you when you say you want to make something that big don't they? Yeah I had that a lot too so now I work alone and to hell with the naysayers hehe. The world is full of people who will say things can't be done and only a few who'll try it. The same people said man couldn't fly to the moon, or that Television was a fad and would never last a year heh.
Saying that thought. I think you may be wrong about the cost of a license for the Crysis engine, if thats what you meant, or were you just talking about the game and it being used in the usual way modding it? An actual license (source code, complete access etc.) Is very unlikely to be anything less than a few hundred thousand dollars. I think the Unreal Engine is around $500,000 or something insane like that. Engines like those are very big business.

First to laugh (if you're one of them) take a look at this:http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/38/33/
Like you, i'm one man band. By this time, these articles are 2 years old; and since now i've waited for new tools that allows me to better model First Age Tolkien world. Actually i'm looking for Crysis game (that contains the engine and the Sandbox 2 editor); clearly i don't want to own only CryEngine that is around $500,000, but my purpose isn't to develop a game, but a free mod that allows Tolkien's fans to visully discover his world. Other ME-DEM guys actually are interested in Third Age Tolkien world.
The other tool, naturally, is GC2
However if you find one of the off the shelf engines can't be modded in the way you hope.

I've played in the past with Far Cry Sandbox, and i've found it very powerful. Crysis is the natural evolution of Far Cry and Sandbox 2 of Sandbox 1. But, my actual computer isn't powerful enough to support my work. Ass soon as i want to buy a very powerful rig.

[Jules Verne]

First to laugh (if you're one of them) take a look at this:http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/38/33/
Like you, i'm one man band. By this time, these articles are 2 years old; and since now i've waited for new tools that allows me to better model First Age Tolkien world. Actually i'm looking for Crysis game (that contains the engine and the Sandbox 2 editor); clearly i don't want to own only CryEngine that is around $500,000, but my purpose isn't to develop a game, but a free mod that allows Tolkien's fans to visully discover his world. Other ME-DEM guys actually are interested in Third Age Tolkien world.
The other tool, naturally, is GC2

I've played in the past with Far Cry Sandbox, and i've found it very powerful. Crysis is the natural evolution of Far Cry and Sandbox 2 of Sandbox 1. But, my actual computer isn't powerful enough to support my work. Ass soon as i want to buy a very powerful rig.

If you had read any of my other posts, you'd see I'm the last person to laugh at your plan. I'm doing what you're doing, well, the huge landscape side of things anyway. I opted for a custom built engine over using a pre-built one because I need it to do things others can't do without access to the source code, which is well out of my price range.

Actually, my engine would probably have suited your project down to the ground (pardon the terrain based pun hehe)

Have you considered giving Oblivion a try? Don't listen to those who claim it doesn't run on anything but the most powerful machines. With some modding you can get it to run on just about anything, and look good in the process. It also seems to be much better geared towards the scale you're looking for, with plenty of detail, without any real slowdown on medium quality PC's. Though one thing to consider, is it may be possible Oblivion suffers from the same issue that Morrowind had, which was the further out from the center of the world you got, the less accurate the colision became. Oblivion might not suffer the same though, being a much improved version of the NetImmerse/Gamebryo engine.

It would be worth considering before you invest too much time into your project. A lot of the new version of the Crytek engine's capabilities are unproven right now besides demo's by the developers. While the Oblivion engine is out there and well documented. Speaking as an ex commercial games developer. I can tell you that they will have used a lot of tricks in those Crytek demo's to make things look better and to get around problems.

Ok, just checked out the GarageGames site. A FULL Torque license would cost you, for what you need. Only $295! :O

That would let you do -anything- in it. There's tons of free to use source code on the net that would make things even easier for you to build up exactly what you need. I'd give it some serious thought, it could be perfect for your project.

[mauronen]

Hi Johannes.
Which are system requirements (minimum and reccomended) for GC2?

Thanks in advance.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

The only reqirement is a monitor resolution >= 1024*768

Anything else depends on the terrain size. In general: If you can render a terrain in your favorite application, you will be able to produce it in GC2.

[mauronen]

The only reqirement is a monitor resolution >= 1024*768

Anything else depends on the terrain size. In general: If you can render a terrain in your favorite application, you will be able to produce it in GC2.
I would manage terrains of 8192 x 8192. I suppose that are huge terrains in GC2. Other tool use tile technique that allows to use it with PC not so powerful; but GC2 (if i understood well) allows to make tiles of a terrain after that it's modeled, not at the same time. If it is true, is important for me to have right system requirements that allows to buy a PC with right configuration (at least about CPU, GPU and RAM).

Thanks again for your answer.

Mauro.

[Jules Verne]

I would manage terrains of 8192 x 8192. I suppose that are huge terrains in GC2. Other tool use tile technique that allows to use it with PC not so powerful; but GC2 (if i understood well) allows to make tiles of a terrain after that it's modeled, not at the same time. If it is true, is important for me to have right system requirements that allows to buy a PC with right configuration (at least about CPU, GPU and RAM).

Thanks again for your answer.

Mauro.

If you can run Crysis at high quality, you'll have no trouble running GeoControl 2 with all the bells and whistles. GC2 Alpha runs great on my system and its a pretty old PC now. It's much faster and seems to be more resourceful with memory than the first version.

So if you get a PC that can run that game at the quality you need. Editing 8192x8192 maps in GC2 will be a breeze for you! :)

[cajomi]

8192 terrain are yet not solved. GC2 is a 32 bit application and windows fails to manage the memory, so randomly memory allocation errors occur.
I just try to get informations, if this does not happen on windowsxp 64 bit.

So max terrain size is 4096*4096, which than can be tiled.

[mauronen]

8192 terrain are yet not solved. GC2 is a 32 bit application and windows fails to manage the memory, so randomly memory allocation errors occur.
I just try to get informations, if this does not happen on windowsxp 64 bit.

So max terrain size is 4096*4096, which than can be tiled.
This is a bad new for me. Will you foresee a 64 bit version of GC2 or, alternatively, a dynamic tiling management of heightfields that allows to have huge terrains? Probably the second option could be better. If you need some tips, you could take a look at L3DT site (http://www.bundysoft.com/L3DT).

Best regards.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

As I wrote: Greater terrains will be solved with a tiling, what means, there are in general no limits. You tile a 4096er terrain into lets say 8 parts, and then work on the tiles by enlarging them to 4096, and so on....
A 64 bit version of GC2 will not be released, because that needs a 64bit compiler, and the developers of the compiler (PureBasic) will that not do in a short time.

Do you really think, that I would try to get tips from the developer of another terrain generator, or that he would give me some?
Do you really think I would give him a tip?

[mauronen]

Johannes, i wanted only to say that dynamic tiling could be a valid option. I've summoned L3DT only as an example. In the world there are many other developer that have built software or library that manages tiles (VTP is another).
I think that you are a great developer: GC1 demonstrate it. But i think also that all of us have to learn by each other. This forum is a good example: many peoples have proposed many features that would appreciate in GC2, even though some of them (an me is a good example...) don't have skill in languages as PureBasic or C++ (i'm an IT Architect expert in Java/J2EE technology).
However: if in any case i have hurt you, i'm sorry.

Mauro.

[cajomi]

If you would have written, "I like those layers in ...", well, no problem. Even though that would be some advertisment for a competitor.
But do you really think that competitors help each other in developing there software? This happens with open source projects, where many developers put together to reach a common goal.
But L3DT and GeoControl are commercial projects and our goal is to do it better than our competitors, to simply create the best software for this segment.
A open source project is based on team work, a commercial project is based on competition (even though there may be teams internal).
So we have respect for each other, discuss some general problems together, not here of course, and try to find new standards.

[mauronen]

...But do you really think that competitors help each other in developing there software? ...
I'm working for an italian IBM business partner and i know very well how the sea is full of sharks (or competitors, as you like). I don't think that rival companies could help (without earnings) each other, but i think that everyone of us could learn from other people, competitors also if they make good products. That doesn't mean that a competitor could steal an intellectual capital of other competitors.
I know that GC, as L3DT, isn't an open source tool and i don't expect that one could help the other to better improve his tool.
However: yes, probably i'm a dreamer. In a world of competitors is ever more difficult to share great ideas (and GC is it) that allows to build great tools that could take the best of each other. So, forget my previous tip; i'm sure that you are strong enough to grow your great tool.

Mauro.

[Jules Verne]

People want choice, its not always a good idea to have companies merging idea's together. Look at Microsoft, it's built on a history of buying up competition and merging technologies together. Which is great if you like their software, but what do you do if you don't? The only viable alternative is Linux, but that comes with a whole host of issues if you want to continue using all the same software and ultimately you end up having to use an emulation of Windows to achieve it. This causes a monopoly which is not good for business.

I like that L3DT, GC etc. are all different, it gives people a choice.


Now something like Earthsculptor and GC, those could merge because they aren't really in competition, one is a realtime editor with no advanced filters or 2D display which is more geared towards smaller maps for game mods (SE) while GC is geared towards larger maps with no realtime 3D display but advanced features for prerendered visualizations. Combining those two could achieve something very interesting... 3D Brush and Isolines, interactive update in 3D of rivers and streams and roads etc. etc. etc. Oh the possibilities! lol.


As for the terrain resolution. If your using tiles then really you don't even need to use the highest terrain setting you know? Ok yes you do in other programs, because thats your lot, 1 pixel is 1 pixel. But GC has procedural zoom and a single pixel doesn't really mean much because of the procedural way you can zoom in, exposing more and more details. Look at the Mandelbrot programs out there for an idea of how GC kinda works. You could work in 512 mode and by using enough tiles create exactly the same amount of detail as someone using a larger resolution and less tiles. The highest terrain display is there really only for those who are using a single tile and must have as much detail as possible. Those working in prerendered projects for example.

In GC, four 512x512 zoomed tiles will look just the same as a single 1024x1024 image. So in that respect. There would be nothing stopping you from taking a 4096x4096 image, cutting it up into tiles, each one 4096x4096. And creating something many many times larger than L3DT's full size paging terrain. Do you see what I mean? Sure GC can't do absolutely huge terrains in one shot, neither can the others, but with a bit of planning ahead, GC can actually do far larger terrains.

[cajomi]

I have been testing real time 3D preview. Well, it works only up to a terrain size of 512, all greater sizes produce problems. Possible is a final 3D modell in realtime, up to max. 1024, of course with sometimes a crash because of memory allocation errors.
That is why I decided to use not a full 3D preview. That does not mean that a least there will be a window in realtime with 3D, but it will be with 8bit heightresolution and max. terrain size of 512, well that could be a part of the whole terrain.
Not sure when this will be build in.
Btw: These simple post work brushes in Zbrush or grome style will also to be seen in GC2, may be you have to wait a bit, but you will see, brushing on a generated terrain to rise, lower, and so on, may be to add structure will also be available in GC. And that at least non-destructive, means, 10 risings, 10 lowerings and you have exact the same terrain as you start with.

[Jules Verne]

I wouldn't worry too much about a realtime display in GC. While I admit it would be cool to have, unless a program has been developed from the ground up to work that way, they tend not to ever really work too well. When I first started using GC I thought I would miss the fact there is no realtime display. But to be truthful I haven't missed it at all. By the sounds of the limitations it would have. I'd probably not continue work on it and concentrate on other area's instead. If anyone must view their terrain in realtime, they'll likely have other software to hand that has been built from scratch to offer that ability.

The Zbrush style brushes though DO sound interesting, does this mean you'll be adding GC 1's brush back, in some form? :) I love the new isolines, but I can't help but miss the brush hehe. Even if it wasn't as advanced in GC2 it would be nice to have the ability to use a brush of some sort if required (but its not the be all or end all and I can happily live without it)

[cajomi]

The GC1 brush will not be back again. It causes to many problems and would block the developement.
It will be more the typical brush we all know, and be very good for smaller corrections, smoothing, flatening and so on. It will be optimized for post work.

[Criss]

Huh, that brush sounds interesting. So it sounds like if you wanted an particular area of the terrain more rigid you can take this brush and roughen that area if i am understanding this correctly.

[cajomi]

Yes, should be possible.

[mauronen]

To Jules Verne:
thanks Jules; i alredy knew this feature in GC1 because is explained very well into Monk's Article: GeoControl's infinite detail (http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/56/33/). But, because i haven't even tried GC2, i don't know if Johannes has kept this features in that way or has modified it. When talks about tiles, i suppose that there is a way that, automatically, zoom up a raw terrain (for example 1024 x 1024) and, at the same time, applies filters procedurally and recursively.
To Johannes:
with GC1 Demoversion i've tried to import in CryEngine Sandbox 1 (FarCry) sample heightfields in that way:
1) Terrain Export (Terragen .ter or Raw 16bit for Carrara .raw): this produces a stepping terrain because of 16 bit formats.
2) Import .ter or .raw in L3DT Pro and apply Filter(diffusion) to slightly smoothing terrain
2a) Let L3DT to build whole terrain and test with integrated 3dViewer. Final result is very good
3) Export .raw
4) Import .raw into Sandbox1 and build vegetation textures. Also in that cas final result is very good.
This could be some examples of integration with GC and other tools or with GC and 3DViewer/Engine.

[cajomi]

There must have been something wrong:
A 16 bit raw does not produce any stairs. The ter and raw format are high end formats, and GC1 use them, to export stairless terrains.
The problem here is the import of you engine. You should study it and find, what is causing the engine to produce stairs with ter and raw files.
The workaround you are decribing is also not very sensful:
If you need a smooth terrain, would it not be better to create a smooth terrain?

All what I can see here, that you may not trust GC, and really think, that GC exports a staired terrain, what it is definitly not doing, or that the workflow from GC is so far away from you thinking, that you simply get not "warm" with it.

[mauronen]

There must have been something wrong:
A 16 bit raw does not produce any stairs. The ter and raw format are high end formats, and GC1 use them, to export stairless terrains.
The problem here is the import of you engine. You should study it and find, what is causing the engine to produce stairs with ter and raw files.

Ok Johannes, i try to study and find the issue.

The workaround you are decribing is also not very sensful:
If you need a smooth terrain, would it not be better to create a smooth terrain?

Because the terrain generated by GC1 (or samples that has inside) are very beautiful except the stairs (that, for .ter and .raw are very little but visible; however i'll investigate it as said before)

All what I can see here, that you may not trust GC, and really think, that GC exports a staired terrain, what it is definitly not doing, or that the workflow from GC is so far away from you thinking, that you simply get not "warm" with it.

I've never said it Johannes. I've tested GC1 only for the time that Demoversion has allowed to me (30 days about 8 months ago). I think that GC is one of the most powerful tool in the world (and that i've said since know, if you reread my previous posts). Why you put yourself on defensive with me? If i have thought that GC is unreliable or is a poor/bad tool, i will have never posted in this forum.
Is my aim to put GC2 as tool to use in First Age Tolkien world. An that wouldn't have more sense if GC is unreliable or is a poor/bad tool, do you know?

Mauro.

[Jules Verne]

Are the sample heightmaps with the Crytek engine 16bit to begin with? Or have you been editing them between moving them to other applications and switching them to 8bit without realizing?

Is it possible if the demo you tried being that long ago, that it was an earlier version which may have had a bug in it?

Another possibility.. Are you saving the heightmaps to take into the sandbox, in a format that allows 16bit? Not all formats will allow that, and the problem could be there?

[cajomi]

Very simple:
If there would be a terrain generator, which is unable to prodcue stair free raws or ters, while there is another application that does that already without, then I would say:
There is a bug in the software which produces stairs, the output has a low quality.

I really do not know, how you get the imagination of stairs, but when I think, you are telling in a forum about your workflow, and you did it here, to avoid the "GC" stairs, well, thanks, that is the way you can really cost me money.
And that all, because you simply do not trust the qualtiy of GC1.
There are tons of images in the galerie on the geocontrol hp, at renderosity, did you ever there recognize stairs? Do you think, they all have done before rendering a stair removement with another software?
Sometimes artefacts, with some shape filters, are visible, that is improved for version 2, but stairs?

If you would trust in GC, you had written here in the forum, with an example, and asked, how to remove those stairs. Surely we would have found the reason, what had given the impression of stairs. But you had choosen the software you trust, to remove them.

To make it again clear: A software which produces unwanted stairs in 16bit outputfiles, is trash!

[Jules Verne]

Quick example in GC1, no stairs. I imported/exported/imported the heightmap back and forth, and still it rendered correctly with no artifacts. So the fault can't be with GC.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/196/nostairsty9.th.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nostairsty9.jpg)
Click me!


If you want to try it yourself, a fair test so you can find out what software is causing the problem, do this.

Create a 1024x1024 black image in Photoshop. Draw some white circles or shapes. Then switch the image to 16bit (important) then go to the Photoshop filters, you'll know if you're in 16bit mode because most will be ghosted out. Blur still works, so select Gaussian blur. Give it a small radius (important) then ok that, then keep pressing Ctrl+F to run the filter over the image many many many many times. The reason you need a small radius, is it gives a much smoother blur over time, instead of a rough one in a single pass. Eventually you should end up with completely smooth white blobs in your image. Save it as a TIFF file in 16bit, or RAW in 16bit. Or PNG even, that also allows 16bit, as does TARGA I think.

Then test it in all your applications. The one that isn't using 16bit correctly will soon show steps in those smooth bumps you just made.

[mauronen]

Ok Johannes.
Stop now this useless polemic (useless for me).
If i have done something wrong, please excuse me and feel fre to edit/delete post that has offended you or your work.
I'll continue to think that GC is one of the most powerful tool in the world, and that would give you the right merit. If this isn't enough...well, i dont know what to do.

Mauro.

[mauronen]

Jules: i'm persuased (but not by now, but by the beginning) that it isn't a fault of GC1 but a fault of engine or, more probably, MY MISTAKE in workflow. Your shot shows that GC1 3D renderer hasn't stairs. I hadn't no doubt about this, because i've made many test with it. I've noticed stairs into CryEngine Sandbox 1.

[Jules Verne]

Jules: i'm persuased (but not by now, but by the beginning) that it isn't a fault of GC1 but a fault of engine or, more probably, MY MISTAKE in workflow. Your shot shows that GC1 3D renderer hasn't stairs. I hadn't no doubt about this, because i've made many test with it. I've noticed stairs into CryEngine Sandbox 1.

I've read there are limits in the original sandbox, the terrain is limited to 255, and this could well be the problem. An 8bit grayscale image is 255 shades. So it could be possible that the Crytek engine can't use 16bit heightmaps correctly. Another test would be to try import a known 8bit and a known 16bit terrain into the sandbox, and note any differences between the two.

[cajomi]

Yes, that may be. At time I am discussing with Eon, because the import of 16bit files there causes also stairs. I hope they fix that.
But it can not only be the engine: If it would be the engine, then the output raw from L3DT would also prodcue stairs in the engine, or you had smoothed it very much.

I think it is very important to get rid of this problem, because as I said: Stairs are trash. I am not developing high end algorithm to get all the details smoothed away to use it in a game engine.

[Jules Verne]

Could it be something in the file formats used? Because another possibility is that while the heightmaps are being saved correctly. The sandbox engine may be recognizing them differently?

Mauronen, what formats are you important into the sandbox from GC, and what formats are you important from L3DT? If you're using different ones, try import as the same file format and see if there is a difference there. It could well be that the Engine is seeing things differently, or not expecting 16bit from a particular format and only seeing 8bit?

[mauronen]

Johannes, probably i've explained myself badly.
The process that i've previoulsly explained is derived because of another provious process:

1) Terrain Export Raw 16bit for Carrara .raw.
2) Import .ter or .raw into Sandbox1 and build vegetation textures.

In this case i've noticed little stairs. At this point i've tried to integrate L3DT in workflow, just to smooth these little stairs (and this workflow has worked fine for me).
Probably the issue is into CryEngine Sandbox1 or, better, in handling process of 16 bit .raw file. I've introduced L3DT little smoothing process to "get rid these little stairs".

Mauro.

[mauronen]

To Jules:
1st attempt: From GC1 export .raw -> Sandbox1 import .raw (little stairs)
2nd attempt: From GC1 export .ter or .raw -> L3DT import .ter or .raw, apply Filter(diffusion), export .raw -> Sandbox1 import raw (no little stairs)

[Jules Verne]

To Jules:
1st attempt: From GC1 export .raw -> Sandbox1 import .raw (little stairs)
2nd attempt: From GC1 export .ter or .raw -> L3DT import .ter or .raw, apply Filter(diffusion), export .raw -> Sandbox1 import raw (no little stairs)

No no, don't do the smoothing part.

Do this.

Import a .raw 16bit file from GC1 into the engine, check for stairs.

Import a .raw 16bit file from L3DT into the engine, check for stairs. (Do not smooth it)

Import a .raw 16bit file from Terragen into the engine, check for stairs.


Ensure that each file has been created ONLY within its own software, don't take things over to others or smooth things in other programs or any way effect the terrain.


Sandbox imports .ter files correct? Try doing the same thing as above, only next time, use .ter files from the three programs instead of .raw ones.

This should, if done correctly. Show where the problem may be, and if it is with a particular file format the engine is having trouble recognising.

[mauronen]

No no, don't do the smoothing part.
Sandbox imports .ter files correct?

No. Sandbox1 import only .raw and .pgm. Terragen .ter is treated by L3DT that could export into .raw and .pgm.

[Jules Verne]

No. Sandbox1 import only .raw and .pgm. Terragen .ter is treated by L3DT that could export into .raw and .pgm.

I see, well just do the raw test then from each application, perhaps for a more conclusive test, download other terrain software and test importing .raw formats from those too.


To help. I've saved out two 16bit .raw files for you. One from GC1, and one from GC2. I removed all filter effects, so the resulting terrain will be entirely smooth. Both images are 1024x1024 2mb each, 16bit.

From GC1
File gone

From GC2
File gone

Try import those, do not change either of them in any way, and then upload some screenshots so we can see how each looks inside the engine.

I've also included an 8bit version of the exact same heightmap. In raw format. So you can use that to test and see if there is any difference in the sandbox between the two 16bit ones, and a normal 8bit one

File gone

[mauronen]

Thanks Jules. This evening i try your .raw.

[Jules Verne]

Thanks Jules. This evening i try your .raw.

No worries. :) We'll get to the bottom of this and find out what's causing the problem with the Sandbox. :)

[mauronen]

Jules; i've noticed that heightfields that you have sent to me reproduce something like dunes (without live edges). With these heightfields is easy to assume that stairs doesn't appear (i've tried only GC1 and GC2 16 bit raw).
I've noticed stairs in models like WeirdTexture2 (i don't remember if is present in GG1 bundle or i've downloaded it from forum).
Here are snapshots:
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7449/gc1weirdtexture2mt8.th.jpgGC1 WeirdTexture2 heightfield (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gc1weirdtexture2mt8.jpg)
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/384/sandbox1withstairsrp1.th.jpgRAW imported directly into Sandbox1 (stairs appear) (http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sandbox1withstairsrp1.jpg)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2705/sandbox1withoutstairspz7.th.jpgRAW imported after applying L3DT Filter(diffuse) into Sandbox1 (stairs are very smoothed) (http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sandbox1withoutstairspz7.jpg)

[cajomi]

Oh, that explains it.
First I would that on the images not call stairs, it is simply very rough.
But, I am sure, you had seen real stairs with this terrain setting. It is a far overdriven terrain, which produces strong artefacts in the lower horizontal orientated areas. This artefacts look at some places like stairs.
It was a experimental terrain, I am not sure, who has created that terrain setting.

When I remember correct, the outstanding part of this settings were the stair like structures, they were the intention for this terrain.

[Jules Verne]

Those raw files, if GC was causing steps to appear. You'd see them very easily.


I've suddenly got this feeling that, looking at weirdtexture2.. you've been confusing stairs with just the way a strange terrain looks. I've included an example below of what real stairs look like.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1931/screenshot3zw7.jpg

Thats in Earthsculptor using the 8bit example I uploaded above. You can clearly see the stair effect in that image, a 16bit one would be completely smooth.

[mauronen]

Johannes.
When i talked about "stairs" i wanted to say "artifacts", not real stairs like Jules Vernes's shot. It's simply an heightfield full of little pyramid. I know that WeirdTexture2 was modeled keeping in mind the intention of a "weird" terrain, but these artifacts, as you can see, are too much visible. So i've applied a smoothing filter that has slightly reduced them.

[cajomi]

So it was at all only an unlucky naming.
And if you do not want these extem artefacts there are many other and then for you intention more useful presets.

[mauronen]

Thanks Johannes.
Whereas i couldn't play seriously with GC1 (since now...), im anxious to put my hands on GC2 to use these more powerful presets.

[cajomi]

Oh, there are no new presets.
While the presets were important for GC1, which will also work in GC2, GC2 is more aimed to the engaged user, who not only want to get a fast terrain by using a preset, but developing a terrain from the scratch or postworking a given terrain.
GC2 has not only more power, but it is also more complex and so a bit more difficult.

[mauronen]

If your description of engaged user is who want to develop a terrain from the scratch or postworking a given terrain, well, i consider myself an engaged user (remember my aim)

[cajomi]

Yes I know, but others might read this thread as well and I do not want to wake up wrong expectations.

[Jules Verne]

Cajomi, is it possible for you to split this thread and place all these off topic posts of ours into another thread and leave the original intention of this thread here? I think all this confusion and claims GC can't do this or that when all along it was Mauronen's mistake, doesn't really look so good for GC which wasn't at fault, and it would be better if these posts were all moved elsewhere to avoid confusion from visitors.

Mauronen. You have big idea's, but you've not really used GC, you've not got access to the engine you plan to use, or have ever used it. A lot of your plans are based on what you think/hope the new engine can do. I would suggest creating your mod on a smaller scale with the original engine first before jumping into something so big in a world of unknowns. You'll have a better idea if your plan is workable then.

[mauronen]

Jules Verne: thanks for your suggestion. Is sure that i don't know GC1 very well; indeed i bought it just some days ago, although i'm following all topics of this forum since September of 2006. Clearly, read a topic isn't the same that "play" with a tool. GC1 has many powerful features, but i need some others (like selections) that it hasn't and that would be present in GC2. If you read my modeling articles at ME-DEM forum (http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/38/33/), you could easily understand what i said. And, at the same time, you could clearly understand that my workflow is based exactly on your suggestion: first model the whole without thinking on particular, next add small scale details. I will want use GC1 not only as refiner of small scale detail, but to model the whole also.
My workflow was based on these tools:
- Photoshop to create mask selection
- Leveller to model heightfield (the whole and small scale detail; i wanted use GC1 to small scale detail, but it seemed to understimate it using only for this task)
- L3DT to render heightfield (i've tested FarCry next year, but when i've heard about Crysis i've wanted wait it)

So, in near future my workflow would be as follows:
- Photoshop to create mask selection
- GeoControl2 to model heightfield (the whole and small scale detail)
- L3DT to create textures based on his climate editor (i don't know if GC2 could be something similar; in that case will be GC2 also)
- CryEngine Sandbox2 to create "real Tolkien" environment (vegetation, buildings and so on)

I think (if my assumption about future workflow are corrects) that my plan is workable.

Johannes: i agree with Jules Verne about splitting the off-topic post and binding them into one new topic. I'm sorry for these off-topic proliferation.

[Jules Verne]

Jules Verne: thanks for your suggestion. Is sure that i don't know GC1 very well; indeed i bought it just some days ago, although i'm following all topics of this forum since September of 2006. Clearly, read a topic isn't the same that "play" with a tool. GC1 has many powerful features, but i need some others (like selections) that it hasn't and that would be present in GC2. If you read my modeling articles at ME-DEM forum (http://www.me-dem.org/content/view/38/33/), you could easily understand what i said. And, at the same time, you could clearly understand that my workflow is based exactly on your suggestion: first model the whole without thinking on particular, next add small scale details. I will want use GC1 not only as refiner of small scale detail, but to model the whole also.

Ohhh, my mistake. I thought you hadn't actually begun any work on it yet and was waiting for this new engine. But you mean then, saying you're doing what I suggested that you've already been working in the first version of the engine? My bad! :)

Could you post some screenshots? I'd love to see it!


My workflow was based on these tools:
- Photoshop to create mask selection
- Leveller to model heightfield (the whole and small scale detail; i wanted use GC1 to small scale detail, but it seemed to understimate it using only for this task)
- L3DT to render heightfield (i've tested FarCry next year, but when i've heard about Crysis i've wanted wait it)

So, in near future my workflow would be as follows:
- Photoshop to create mask selection
- GeoControl2 to model heightfield (the whole and small scale detail)
- L3DT to create textures based on his climate editor (i don't know if GC2 could be something similar; in that case will be GC2 also)
- CryEngine Sandbox2 to create "real Tolkien" environment (vegetation, buildings and so on)How will you be creating the buildings, characters, flora and fauna?

[mauronen]

Screenshots are into articles. :)
Flora and fauna i'm expeting to find into Sandbox2.
Building are very hard. I'm not an expert 3D modeler, so i'm looking into Internet to find something (or someone) that could be right for my project.
Characters could be fine to use these (http://www.simarillion.com/ElderDays.htm). I'm waiting for Crysis, to see if that meshes could be used into it.

[Jules Verne]

That site isn't easy to navigate, your going to have to link to the articles/screenshots yourself. I could only find three posts from you there.


And I don't think your going to find middle earth Fauna in Sandbox2

Fauna
1. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Animals, especially the animals of a particular region or period, considered as a group.
2. A catalog of the animals of a specific region or period.


And those would be very low quality characters to be used in that engine, assuming they could be imported.

[cajomi]

Ok, I have moved this tread and hope, the category is fitting.
I have also renamed the category Rendersoftware and game engines.

@mauronen
Do you remember, that I told you, that the reason for not taking part at testing is, that it is only for licenced users?
Well, if that has changed, please mail me the name you have GC1 licenced to and try GC2.