3D objects imported to TFP V16 using TC V19, TC V12, & XFROG Plants

[funrob29]

gave it a 3D paint Material 

What happens when you do an Advanced render of the attached bld?

Thanks Jack,

You have giving me back HOPE that we would find and fix the issue

As you can see the Advance render worked with your bld file,

Q. 1- Did you create this with newer than TCad V12 ?
    2- Was the Corner pipes created in TCad using EXTRUDE or did you use 3d Object As  Solid/ Thickness (144 in)/ Material Category: 3DS- Material: (Color)?
    3- Save As/ File name:/Save as type: 3DS -3D Studio/ Setup/(X) Preserve loaded 3dS materials- ( ) Save Keyframe/ Save (X) Selection?
    4- Then Import-Object Wizard...1.Gave it a name- 2.Type of element..Exterior Structures- 3.Select the Object file...Autodesk 3D Studio... Next...Next....Finish. Place on terrain.
    5- Export  and Reimport?

In the second Attachment (Truss2) you will see my result, it render.

The added 3ds pipe that worked was created using my TCAD V12 using the steps above, imported to your bld opened file and it render in Advance ( NOT SIMPLE EXTRUDE OR TRAIL SWEEP)

(The pipes created using EXTRUDE or RAIL SWEEP did not work on my previous test)

I will open a New TFPLAN V16 and see if importing the 3DS pipe file that worked when imported to your TFPLAN  bld file will work on my NEW project !!

Robert

[funrob29]

Another issue to watch for using "billboard" trees, regardless of the source, is the lighting and the edges.

Often the lighting on the tree photo does not match the sun direction of the TFP scene and it looks wrong. For example photo taken at high noon which makes top of plant/tree bright; but TFP sun set to afternoon/4pm and the plant/trees should be side lit...and direction from left, right, or back (backlit) does not match...subtle but hauntingly wrong!

Also doing the "cutout" one needs to be very careful to avoid background creep; especially at edges or places of transparency. Photoshop has good tools for selecting and removing backgrounds....but look at TFP trees and you may see white edged pixels that were missed in inserting magenta color.

Look carefully at Allan's people by a lake...see the various wrong lighting on billboard objects.  I'm not attacking Allan's work as he did this as a very quick example for a different purpose....but some billboards don't match the brightness or sunlight/shadow on them (not the shadow on the ground concern) and they look like photos glued onto the scene.

With carefull selection of photo image billboards they can be convincing...just need to match all the variables to the scene using excellent transparency.

Another alternative:  Use a real 3D plant/tree (such as .3ds) in a scene all alone with the same sun/light source you plan to use in final TFP render. Render the tree/plant all alone on a plain black (or better yet, magenta) background and save as .bmp.  "Cutout" as needed.  Then use that image as a billboard. You get full control but avoid a scene with many large 3D .3ds objects....the best of both worlds.

This is exactly my point and why I despise using Photoboad Unless using it strictly as Background Far Back or to reduce file size. 3D objects will have the SUN LIGHT equal to the rest of the objects in the scene

Using Billboard will have the Shadow correct with the Sun but if the image light is not at the same side and angle as the sun setting that also is not good and very disturbing to the final scene.

The Other issue with Photoboard is Billboard shadow only work correctly in BASIC NOT ADVANCE. as you can see in the samples posted in the Forum!!

Robert

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Robert,

I agree with regard to the sun angle on photoboards - that is where the Stationary comes in as you can turn it around so the sun angle is  correct (or more correct ). In the Lake image most of the people are from TFP and not photoboards in the sense that they are not reversible so could not, in this case, be rotated to match the sun - just a quick example. Importing people as true photoboards works much better.

As far as photoboard plants are concerned I have added a close up image and distant example. Dispite any shadows that may be slightly wrong (again I have simply dropped them into the view), it would be very difficult to get a 3D plant to look as real.

Good to see you are making progress on the TCad 3DS file.

Allan

[Jack Zimmer]

Q. 1- Did you create this with newer than TCad V12 ?  YES V19
    2- Was the Corner pipes created in TCad using EXTRUDE or did you use 3d Object As  Solid/ Thickness (144 in)/ Material Category: 3DS- Material: (Color)? EXTRUDE
    3- Save As/ File name:/Save as type: 3DS -3D Studio/ Setup/(X) Preserve loaded 3dS materials- ( ) Save Keyframe/ Save (X) Selection? YES BUT NOT KEYFRAME (NEVER DO, WHY ??)
    4- Then Import-Object Wizard...1.Gave it a name- 2.Type of element..Exterior Structures- 3.Select the Object file...Autodesk 3D Studio... Next...Next....Finish. Place on terrain. (SOMETIMES I USE 'EQUIPEMENT FOR TYPE ... NOT AS MANY OBJECTS IN THAT CATALOG,,, ALL THE REST WAS THE SAME)
   5- Export  and Reimport? (NEVER)

SEE MY LAST POST ON PAGE 3

SO IT MAY BE TCAD VERSION THAT IS THE CULPRIT.

JACK

[funrob29]

Jack Thanks,

EXTRUDE seems to have the issue issue with my TCAD V12 import to TFPLAN V16.

Allan Thanks,

I don't want to sound PICKI But I"M 

I know your sample of the plants was a fast sample but I can't overlook the inconsistency of the Sun Light on the trees , the Flat appearance of the Bushes and Flowers.
If the sun is at 12:00PM on some and Others at different Times It reminds me of a Bad PhotoShop, Sorry.

I'm not sold on the Photoboard realism, in compare with 3D Plants. Photoboard still looks like a Cutout 
Flat Board 

I appreciate having that obption when no other choice !!!

Robert

[funrob29]

Issue with Plants

TFPlan doesn't have good plants, never has.

My simple solution is to take those found in Realtime Landscape Pro and add them as Photo Boards to TFPlan. I use Realtime for other things and borrowing it's plants isn't a difficult exercise.

As far as shadows not looking good in Advanced rendering mode, don't use Advanced, it uses Radiosity which bounces light around. There is nothing in an exterior view to 'bounce' off, so you get odd results. If you use Basic for exteriors your tree shadows should be fine.

Google Warhouse has 3D Trees and with my 3 year old computer, I have no problems rendering them. But I do limit their placement to either the foreground or within view. Any distant view trees are better using photo boards.

Note in the attached that the Realtime scroll bar is in middle on the right and 5 rows of trees are represented.
There are about 60 more rows to top and 60 more rows to the bottom of just trees.
Also note that there are a ton of other plants , flowers , shrubs etc

AND that is just the 2D Plant image part of the program, you have a ton of other options available too, like animation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4vk3BE_QMg&feature=BFa&list=UUIdjN0ItLqjjMc5wGzyrXBQ 

Jack

Thanks

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Robert,

I appreciate how you feel about the plants and my feelings are mixed too. Unfortunately it is only virtual reality ,so there are always compromises. I struggled for about 7-8 years with 3D plants (have hundreds of them) until the photoboards came along but sadly both have their problems and it finally gets down to what works best in what situation.

Using more than one or two 3D trees took ages to render and sometimes I had to let it run overnight (only to find I had set something wrong and had to do it all again the next night  ), but thankfully a new PC eased the situation a little. The problem was then I was still left with plants that had all just the same even green leaves, often angular and with no texture in them.  I tried using textures for the leaves (grass etc) and that improved distant ones, but close up ones with broad leaves, looked as though a law mower had gone past.   However the shadows were always good and no worries about the time of day etc.

Photo plants render quick, have the detail in the leaf and flower but are just 2D and no matter what you do you cannot change the shadows within the plant itself, unless you have photos for every different time of the day and year - what a nightmare that would be!! 

So it is a question of: what you want to achieve, if the PC is up to it, how close you have the plants to the camera and the time of day too I guess. Since the main function of TFP is building modelling, I try to concentrate on that and use whatever plants are appropriate for the circumstance, to dress it up.

Allan

[funrob29]

  Allan You made me Laugh 

I hear you, and all you said is the Reality.

I can Live with Basic for Outside Landscaping design when using TFPlan 

I use "Realtime landscaping" for Exterior Animation and "PoolStudio" until I can invest in more expensive XFROG and Other Software!

Of cource than I will have to invest in Better PC System and Processor etc,$$$$$$

I'm working on the  Main Store Interior design for Serena Lakes Plaza Project with more Knowledge using TFPLAN and TCAD  because of the circumstances and The Great Help from You and others in this Forum

Thanks

Robert

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Robert,

Will look forward to seeing some interior views when you are happy with them (or if you are unhappy and need help!!  )

It is a totally different ballgame working with interior lighting and Advanced render. Turn daylight off for starters!
Because the process is so different, best to raise any questions in a separate post. 

Allan

[Doug.S]

Since this idea above may have gotten lost above; here it is again:

"Another alternative:  Use a real 3D plant/tree (such as .3ds) in a scene all alone with the same sun/light source you plan to use in final TFP render. Render the tree/plant all alone on a plain black (or better yet, magenta) background and save as .bmp.  "Cutout" as needed.  Then use that image as a billboard. You get full control but avoid a scene with many large 3D .3ds objects....the best of both worlds."

[funrob29]

  Great suggestion Doug, awesome

Robert

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Doug and Robert,

The idea sounds fine and I have not tried it but wouldn't you still end up with the same disconnected shadow in Advanced render? The 3D object would have become 2D and although the plant would have the sun on it in the right place you would still have the potentially narrow and disconnected shadow wouldn't you?

I must try it out

Allan

[Doug.S]

I have not tried either, but I suspect the ground shadow would still be incorrect as it is now...but that is easily "repaired" in post/Photoshop.

In fact, from a real render of the 3D tree/plant, one could render to include the shadow (another render in addition to render to magenta background) and use that shadow (probably cut out) as a layer in Photoshop to place it just where needed with no guessing except to correct for other object's shadows in same shadow area (if any).

[Allan Chesney]

Hi Robert and Doug,

I did try the idea but while it may help in getting the angle of the sun on the tree correct and save memory, it is going create a lot of post processing to get the shadows right. In Basic the shadow is just a slit, if the sun is from that angle, while in Advanced the shadow is better (but no where near as good as the 3D one) and is separated slightly too. Making things worse however is that now, being a photoboard, the image itself deteriorates in Advanced render, so it loses any advantages the 3D tree had.

To make the shadow itself also a part of the photoboard may be Ok just on lawn, but since the model in this case is a shopping centre, the shadows are going to be over all sorts of things, so that would make for a lot of work too and given the image has deteriorated anyway, would not appear to solve the problem.

Looks like you may be best sticking with some good quality 3D trees in the foreground and photoboards further back where lighting and shadow issues can be obscured.

Allan