Grass

Display your final art here...
Forum rules
Important notice: All artwork submitted on our public gallery forums gallery forums may or may not be used by OTOY for publication on our website gallery.
If you do not want us to publish your art, please mention it in your post clearly. (put a very red small diagonal cross in the top left corner of the image)
Any images already published on the gallery will be removed if the original author asks us to do so.
We recommend placing your credits on the images so you benefit from the exposure too, and use a minimum image width of 1200 pixels, and pathtracing or PMC. Thanks for your attention, The OctaneRender Team.


For new users: this forum is moderated. Your first post will appear only after it has been reviewed by a moderator, so it will not show up immediately.

This is necessary to avoid this forum being flooded by spam.
User avatar
kubo
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Madrizzzz

you could use a more "physical" approach to the grass, even thou there are no instances yet on octane, u can model the grass to get a more realistic result, and you can keep polycount depending on the view, or even combining it with your texture (which is quite a load on memory too) you can see 2 examples on the wip gallery:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1496
or even my approach that it's not so good, but you can see how with lower poly count you can achieve similar results
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1495
And here is a great tutorial on how to model it in a few steps, once you get the feel, you can do the whole process in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.peterguthrie.net/blog/2009/0 ... al-part-1/
Just my opinion, I've done a lot of grass, and even thou displacement is great is a huge sucker to render, the instances approach beats it every time on render time and results. In very large areas, the best is always a nice tileable textures anyways.
windows 7 x64 | 2xGTX570 (warming up the planet 1ºC at a time) | i7 920 | 12GB
User avatar
n1k
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:55 pm
Contact:

When octane matures it would be great thing to have some sort of instanced geometry scattering. Most of todays high quality architectural exterior renderings heavily rely on scattering plugins for creating rich environments.
[email protected], 8gb RAM, Gainward GF 460 GTX 2048mb,Win7 64bit.

http://continuum3d.blogspot.com/
GeorgoSK
Licensed Customer
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Prague/Bratislava ;- )

kubo wrote:you could use a more "physical" approach to the grass, even thou there are no instances yet on octane, u can model the grass to get a more realistic result, and you can keep polycount depending on the view, or even combining it with your texture (which is quite a load on memory too) you can see 2 examples on the wip gallery:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1496
or even my approach that it's not so good, but you can see how with lower poly count you can achieve similar results
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1495
And here is a great tutorial on how to model it in a few steps, once you get the feel, you can do the whole process in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.peterguthrie.net/blog/2009/0 ... al-part-1/
Just my opinion, I've done a lot of grass, and even thou displacement is great is a huge sucker to render, the instances approach beats it every time on render time and results. In very large areas, the best is always a nice tileable textures anyways.
Thank you, good post ;) Sure I can model a grass, but I think it would cost me way more memory now when no instaces are there yet as you said too. But I look forward to it :)
Intel C4Q , 4G ram, GTX 285,
User avatar
acc24ex
Licensed Customer
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:58 pm
Location: Croatia
Contact:

GeorgoSK wrote:
kubo wrote:you could use a more "physical" approach to the grass, even thou there are no instances yet on octane, u can model the grass to get a more realistic result, and you can keep polycount depending on the view, or even combining it with your texture (which is quite a load on memory too) you can see 2 examples on the wip gallery:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1496
or even my approach that it's not so good, but you can see how with lower poly count you can achieve similar results
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... f=6&t=1495
And here is a great tutorial on how to model it in a few steps, once you get the feel, you can do the whole process in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.peterguthrie.net/blog/2009/0 ... al-part-1/
Just my opinion, I've done a lot of grass, and even thou displacement is great is a huge sucker to render, the instances approach beats it every time on render time and results. In very large areas, the best is always a nice tileable textures anyways.
Thank you, good post ;) Sure I can model a grass, but I think it would cost me way more memory now when no instaces are there yet as you said too. But I look forward to it :)
There's my version of the grass in there, that's I was saying your grass looks great since it's a texture, you can't really avoid creating a high poly count whatever else you do. I tried a few techniques, sub polygon displacement and all.. it still renders slowly even though it has a low poly count, hair renders in the same amount of time, but hair looks 10 times more detailed.. the optimal choice is a good texture..
SurfingAlien
Licensed Customer
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:05 am
Location: Italy

of course it cannot compete with actual geometry in close-ups but I like this textured grass very much! I think it's very convincing for this kind of archiviz and stuff.

the concrete wall - grass intersection is the only (little) problem indeed: one trick I saw about it is using some alpha mapped hair texture at the base of the wall... not perfect but quite good to break up the straight line, specially for a quite distant view like this
MacBookPro unibody 2x2.4GHz | 4Gb | 9400M+9600GT 256Mb | OSX 10.6.8
i7 2600-K @3.4GHz | 8Gb | GTX560Ti 2Gb | Windows7x64 | Octane 1.0 b2.52
GeorgoSK
Licensed Customer
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Prague/Bratislava ;- )

SurfingAlien wrote:of course it cannot compete with actual geometry in close-ups but I like this textured grass very much! I think it's very convincing for this kind of archiviz and stuff.

the concrete wall - grass intersection is the only (little) problem indeed: one trick I saw about it is using some alpha mapped hair texture at the base of the wall... not perfect but quite good to break up the straight line, specially for a quite distant view like this
I thought about it ;- ) Yes this indeed cause problems...
I will try this later.
Intel C4Q , 4G ram, GTX 285,
User avatar
Proupin
Licensed Customer
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:01 am
Location: Barcelona
Contact:

Do not forget there is photoshop for this kind of stuff, I mean get a good brush and clone the grass-wall intersection
Win 7 64bits / Intel i5 750 @ 2.67Ghz / Geforce GTX 470 / 8GB Ram / 3DS Max 2012 64bits
http://proupinworks.blogspot.com/
v_m
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:15 am

well, this is just a texture, of course it looks good, but you would only be able to use it in a still, and probably from no other angle :)

you could also use geometry or maya pfx, there are lots of ways to create grass and plants, but displacement is the least useful, I think. displacement could look ok for something from very far or very subtle, like a rug maybe. but you need high quality displacement, like renderman can output, and most other renderers... not so much.
I like the vray grass tutorials linked to in this thread btw, they're excellent!
GeorgoSK
Licensed Customer
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Prague/Bratislava ;- )

v_m wrote:well, this is just a texture, of course it looks good, but you would only be able to use it in a still, and probably from no other angle :)

you could also use geometry or maya pfx, there are lots of ways to create grass and plants, but displacement is the least useful, I think. displacement could look ok for something from very far or very subtle, like a rug maybe. but you need high quality displacement, like renderman can output, and most other renderers... not so much.
I like the vray grass tutorials linked to in this thread btw, they're excellent!
They all relly on instances, (Vray proxy..) so one can't use that here ;) unless, he can stuff that into his memory, which I doubt :)
Intel C4Q , 4G ram, GTX 285,
Post Reply

Return to “M is for Metaverse Gallery”