Geology is a passion of mine....... Why not to make it simple use Regional Land Types??? There are 4 types in the world that i am aware of - Highlands, Coastal Plains, Continental Shield and Continental Plains... each of these distinct land features have there own look with what types of terrain is contained in each type... but i was thinking making macro's out of each type with a detailed description as well... Possibility perhaps.......... i brought up this very subject of unique land forms as land sculpting tool sets for terragen 2 and i beleave i sent it John McClusky as he sent it to the developers... probably Matt i would think..... it was a PDF file covering every single type of geology i could find in the text books... each tool had a series of functions and what it was supposed to imitate... i really went into this one........... never knew what became of those suggestions though???... i think a macro supplied with a tutorial with references to the actual terrain form could be done by someone here... me??? maybie..... if i am up to it......... after v1.0 is released these types of tutorials could be added by us world machine users leaving the basic user manual information to what will be supplied with the final release......... what does anyone think about this??????
I think that kind of stuff is well within the limits of macros, especially in 1.0, and that it is definitely the realm of user generated content. If World Machine wanted to be a "terrain type combiner", it would be L3DT, which is to say a completely different application. :D It certainly has the flexibility and functionality to *implement* that kind of thing, but to officially create and support it, I don't know if that is what WM is about.
Geology is a minor passion of mine -- I'm one of those geeks who likes poking around in the mountains, or sitting glued to the passenger window of an airplane seeing the landforms pass by.
With that said, I think having guides to create the specific types of natural landforms seen in the real world is probably outside of the scope of the WM documentation. It's more of a "Guide to 101 WM Landscapes" type companion guidebook than an integral part of the product. I think the best I can hope to reasonably do in the basic WM documentation is to give the users the know how to reason out how to produce the effects themselves.
I have thought of the same sorts of things as you though Sethren -- that it would be possible to make a well thought out and integrated Geology macro set for WM. It would be a large task, but the result would be something more "concrete" for WM users to use rather than the more abstract, mathematical "Perlin Noises" and "Displacement" and all that.
I'd be interested in seeing that text fiile you wrote up.
"I think having guides to create the specific types of natural landforms seen in the real world is probably outside of the scope of the WM documentation. It's more of a "Guide to 101 WM Landscapes" type companion guidebook than an integral part of the product. I think the best I can hope to reasonably do in the basic WM documentation is to give the users the know how to reason out how to produce the effects themselves. "
Yes... i agree.........
I am still thinking on working on those geology macro concepts even if it takes me weeks and long hours to work on but for me it sounds fun..........
i was addicted to this software at one point having hundreds of presets but i went through them and dumped all but the ones that seemed the most plausible to me... some of those are based on the regional land structures that exist in real terrains but with v1.0 coming out they will need much improvement ofcourse...........
I am going to have to look for the PDF on one of my CD-Rs so it will take afew days but i can e-mail it to you... now the tool sets i made up are based on a type of painting tool concept with specialized brush types almost like what ZBrush does but based on terrain features only... all the same you might find the ideas to be very facinating......... thanks for the intrest......
CORRECTION ON THE Continental Plains - IT IS A STABLE PLATFORM!!!
OOPS!!! MY BAD...................
Sethren, I'd be very interested in that PDF as well, so if you wouldn't mind CC-ing me on it... :)
Sure... not a problem... i am looking for it today and should e-mail it to you and stephen momentarally..........
Here are short descriptions of the structural land regions i am wanting to make macros out of... :)
Stuctural Land Regions
Continental Shield- Very little geologic activity, mostly flat and contains the oldest rocks, mostly igneous and metamorphic.
Coastal Plain- Marshes, beaches and geo-synclines.
Highland- Folded mountains, fault-block mountians and plateaus.
Stable Platform- Plains, uplands, lowlands and plateaus.
Did you guys get the PDF... have not heard anything!....... concerned a little...........
Hehe, I got it, just haven't had time to look yet. Sorry. :D I'll reply soon.
Allright....... Sometimes yahoo mail can be buggy so i was not sure weither it sent out or not....... glad you have it.
I suppose this replay about Sethren's PDF isn't strictly on topic for this thread, but what the heck. :D
What you have put together is a great set of tools for landscape creation and editing. However they don't seem to particularly fit into the World Machine procedural paradigm. In their current described state they'd fit with an application like Leveller better, I think. The Bryce editor actually included "brushes" and other tools that created many of these effects, so clearly they're possible and desirable. Doing them in realtime as "brushes" might be another story though. ;)
One possible way to approach it would be to use spline paths as guides. You drag your brush stroke where you want the effect to go, and then it calculates the effect afterward, so you have freedom to "paint" in realtime, smoothly, without needing a "monster" machine (I don't think some of those effects would be possible even with the best available today). The downside there of course is that it doesn't give you truly realtime feedback. It's possible the effects could be applied at quarter resolution (for example) and lower accuracy, while painting, and then at the end of your stroke it would calculate the full effect or (optionally) only when you pressed a "calculate" button or a checkmark to confirm changes. Using lower resolution proxies for realtime editing is common where processing time is an issue.
Anyway, it's a great overview of some great geological operator tool types. Now you just need to find a dev to create them, and an app they fit into. Talk to Joe Slayton of Wilbur http://www.ridgenet.net/~jslayton/wilbur.html or Ray Gardener of Leveller http://www.daylongraphics.com/products/leveller/index.htm
Of course all of those are things that could potentially be implemented into WM, but they'd be done as devices/filters with masks, rather than using painting input, so many of your controls (Size, etc.) wouldn't be applicable in that context. But they'd still be a great set of devices to have available for WM! I'd definitely like to see more real world oriented "geological operator" devices like fault generation, etc.
Of course Stephen will now chime in telling me this is exactly the kind of thing that WM will have in the future and I'll shut the hell up. ;)
Split this topic off into its own thread as its interesting in its own right.
I'll post a real response to this in a bit :)
well... i never intended these tools to be for world machine heh,heh allthough they would be grand as devices rather then brushes so i am with that... my greatest apologies if anyone here thought i wanted to see these brush tools integrated into world machine... did i give that impression??? :? :? :? i was thinking about this for terragen 2's sculpting tools... The spline paths are a great idea and thank you for mentioning that neat idea... some of those more complex effects in a realtime function reminded me of something simular to ZBrush's PIXOL technology with the ability to paint very complex 3D effects in real time... but that is there own technology and i had never seen anything else like it... perhaps the 3D aspects of these tools can be dumped and only apply to 3D displacement in other software maybie leveller and the 2D can still easily be applied... i had dug deep into Bryce 5's terrain tool editor SLOW, VERY SLOW but some very nice terrains that just needed higher resolution and speed... i beleave i sent stephen a short e-mail sometime back wanting to see these very same terrain types into world machine like sub-contours, lava flow, metamorphism and so on... he showed interest in that so that was cool... anyway back to the tool set ideas, i was particulally interested in the river tool that paints L-System effects over the general terrain... what had me thinking on that particular tool was MojoWorld's River Generator developed by some astrophysist but ofcourse getting massive continent size river networks was a pain to work with, render time, ram, CPU power etc... MOJOWORLD HAH,HAH!!! and i gave up and thought why not paint river networks instead... i think a more complex river device is something to look into so i can atleast mess with that idea and perhaps allthough this may be pushing it abit getting it to properly grab to the contours of the terrain starting up a mountain and spreading into a plain going towards open water WHO KNOWS???... anyway when world machine 1 emerges i will have to work on many of these geology types and see where it goes from there................. EXCEPT FOR THE 3D ONES heh,heh..........
Sethren, I think you were clear in what the document was originally intended for, I just lost sight of that by the time I read it and misconstrued your intent (it having been discussed on a WM forum, I presumed you intended it for WM use). I think they intend to have some of this kind of stuff in TG2, but I don't know how extensive it will be. There was talk of a very powerful new terrain editor a few years back, but it's unclear if that is now going to be a part of TG2, or what.
ZBrush is indeed a very impressive and powerful application. I would love something like that tailored toward terrain creation. In fact the Middle Earth DEM Project is looking at ZBrush for our final "beauty pass" in detailing our terrains. But specific facility for geological operators like this would be great. Is ZBrush very pluggable/expandable? If so, perhaps a terrain editor plugin could be created that would setup the UI specifically for terrain use, and add tools such as these.
By "3D" vs "2D" tool types, are you referring to such things as the overhangs mentioned in one or two of the tools? Most of these sound like "2D" tools, from that definition.
The l-system river network idea is a good one. I don't know how well l-systems are able to be tuned to adjust to outside parameters such as terrain slope, etc. but it seems like something worth looking into. If nothing else you could do it in reverse, laying down the river network first then using it, with an "effect distance" parameter, to control an erosion or other strong terrain affector to create the path for the river carved into the terrain itself. This is less desirable since your river creates your terrain, rather than being able to apply a river logically to an existing terrain, but it'd be a start.
Anyway, good ideas and good discussion. You'll definitely have a lot of room to play with these kinds of concepts in WM 1.0 and just maybe you can create some of these operators as macros. :)
Yes... the 3D tools were based on overhangs of some type... but most of them are 2D... that river idea you have is something i will absolutley try out in world machine... alot of the times i go to the ZBrush user forums and get alot of scripts for plugins but no one had ever based anything on terrain functions but i think i have an idea concerning alpha maps based on terrains exported from world machine for 3D use... hmmmmm i think i have an idea!!! if i can save bitmap alphas from world machine renders and import them into ZBrushes' alpha tool sets next to the default's i may have something neat going on here... i want to try that... then i can add 2.5D and 3D tools to those terrain alpha maps and come up with something nice i hope... an idea is forming............. sorry if there was a mis-communication there as i am not very good with people in general... bit of a loner type........... i really need to keep the focus on what this forum is intended for... my mind tends to wander alot... thanks for the enlightening discussion though....
The problem with any sort of geological-based effects and generators is that, well, to put it simply, the problem is downright hard. Most of what we do for terrain nowadays, in any application, is based upon fractal noise, which has no direct correlation to geological reality (there are arguments to be made about natural processes and 1/f noise and so forth, but I wouldn't call those direct).
To have a set of tools that actually works geologically is very powerful, very rare, and if they are well created, very valuable. :) It's not a matter of applying man hours of coding to the problem, or implementing the latest popular algorithm like a lot of graphics is; there's fundamental R&D that has to go into creating each effect. Hell, for more than a few geological processes, geologists agree on the generalities but disagree vehemently over the specific mechanics of the process. This makes it hard to create a very realistic model for asthetic use. :)
As a side note, I actually met with Jim Bardeen to pick his brain on his river systems for Mojo -- mostly since he's in the neighborhood, so to speak, as he's a professor of physics at the UW (where I went to university). From what I recall of our conversation, essentially, his method grows the terrain and the river system together, where each is able to influence the values of the other. It was a couple years ago now so my memory of it is a bit hazy.
Hello all :)
Kind of late to this discussion hehe, but this thread seems so relevant now to what's afoot.
What Sethren suggested is exactly what we want to do over at ME-DEM. Basically set up a taxonomy that (preferably) a group of developer's (or at least a body of users) can agree on. A first approximation is better than none: in theory anyway.
I think with WM, you can either:
create the morphologies by mimicking the processes
create them through visual 'hacks'
The first option looks preferable but I have my doubts as to how feasable that would be.
The second imo is probably the one to go for. Looking at the feasabilty of mimicking processes would be useful though wouldn't it? See how far it could take us.
The latter will simply demand people getting together and building the macros under an agreed taxonomy.
ZBrush was mentioned and that's still very much on the agenda for ME-DEM EVENTUALLY. I had a good search but was surprised to find very little terrain related discussion.
Ray Gardner has some ideas on custom brushes: painting rocks, talus, erratics, etc: Planned for version 3.0 I believe.
L-Systems is something that Joe Slayton is definately looking into. The idea of generating the rivers simultaneously with the terrain is interesting. That's a little inflexible for what we're looking for. The difficulty is generating interdigitating networks (Surface networks: ridges, channels) from one network. Both the latest Wilbur release and Geocontrol have demonstrated that there is some promise in L-Systems. The ME-DEM problem domain is really map transcription, which I think is pretty demanding.
Another thing which I think terrain modellers absolutely need is an ice model. A simple distinction between land:water:ice. In the right places ice has volume just like terrain.
Could WM generate ice like terrain and import/export of ice maps. At present, snow surface is added as part of erosion right? Sediment layers. Would it be possible to have more control over ice/snow per se?
Scale is another driver. with larger scales: continents, worlds you need to start to create geography as oppposed to terrain; systems of interrelated topographies. Rivers are really the narrators for the story that is the creation of the land mass. You have to be able to trace them logcally from mountain top to the sea.
Perhaps with what we have seen with what World Machine Pro is offering when i check out the blog is that version may offer us a closer possibility of more close to realised Geomorphic approaches with the freedoms of the newer drawing and blending tools as hand and with larger scales being a factor as well this should open up some very nice ideas to experiment with... for the basic regional land types i want to put together the four types but with current World Machine i am finding it very hard to achieve this... Some World Machine Pro beta testers may want to see what is possible with these particular subjects... hint,hint! :wink:
Hi Sethren- is there any chance that you could dig out that pdf you did? I'd like to have a look. There seem to be a number of approaches to classification: it just depends on what you want to mesure it seems. I was thinking that maybe one path would be to use a process classification, but that may be difficult as a lot of control is needed: process emulation, etc and as Remnant said, geologists are not entirely agreed upon these.
QuoteCould WM generate ice like terrain and import/export of ice maps. At present, snow surface is added as part of erosion right? Sediment layers. Would it be possible to have more control over ice/snow per se?
That shouldn't be a problem with a good macro.
In General, most of the problems discussed in this thread could be solved with a macro and some general knowledge about the topic. :)
Hi nikita, one way is to blend two terrain layers. The first is the straight terrain, the second is a glacier 'dome' created from a mask of the valley floors. The problem is, this is quite a tedious way to do them (en masse), and doesn't really entail any application-intelligence regarding these terrain types: it's superficial and not generalised: different mask for each glacier.
What I'm describing is not necessarily a way to extract ice information from existing terrain: ie, this sediment in this high valley is ice, but rather a complete distinction within the app of ice volume vs terrain volume. I don't know if I'm right here, but isn't the sedimentation produced at the moment really soil/earth? A glacier bears little resemblance to soil in terms of properties. Would it be possible to modify existing deposition procedures to imitate a glacier flow or ice plugs? What would be the options for a generalised macro?
That sounds more and more challenging... I'll try to build a small macro and try some stuff...
I'd better add that the method I described with the masks didn't involve World Machine (necessarily) :wink:
Well, has anyone done any work on simulating this stuff as far as an "erosion" sim (like the normal erosion sims implemented in many of these terrain apps)? If yes, then it's probably something that could be implemented as a plugin, provided it doesn't require keeping track of multiple terrain "layers" and whatnot. Even then it might be doable. But it would really be easiest if it was just another way to modify a normal single heightfield procedurally using some certain rules. That may not go as far as you want it to, but it'd be a cool start. And hey, no one has done a glacier erosion simulator yet, so it'd be a first if WM had it. :D
It would be nice if somehow World Machine could do erosion like Dymtry's MojoWorld Plugin has done but that is asking alot there......
Sometime ago i mentioned that i had lost the PDF but Stephen and Oshyan should have copies i beleave... they were and still are some very radical ideas i had at the time but i was wanting primarily a basis for larger scale non-homogeus terrains spanning a almost continent 1000 Kilometer + size using what are classifed as the 4 basic land types... Highlands, Coastal Plains, Continental Shield and Continental Plain... i wanted to generate macros for the types and mixing them on a very large resolution output map for the Pro version... the big problem however is creating the river networks from northern glacier melting and mountain chains draining into lakes and deltas.......... :shock:
The glacial erosion would result in the formation of the "Continental Plains" revealing the oldest rocks and lots of flat scraped terrains with long river flows... so up far north we would have ice carving the mountains out and down south older carved water/ice flow terrain like the plain states... certainly a nice idea for one hell of a plugin............. :)
Sethren, Dmytry's erosion is apparently procedural *at render time*, so it's not really something that is applicable to WM's heightfield domain. But it's very cool regardless. :D Have you noticed there have been no updates there for about 2 months though? I wonder what that's about...
Really... i could have sworn i was looking at hieghtfield representation in MojoWorld before render time at his site??? I know there is something rather unique about his erosion that no one else can do yet... i just can not place what it is??? something about old and new erosion mixed over the same terrain fractal???
Who knows... i am sure he has something cool up his sleve... wish i could say the same for Planetside! something small from Matt or Jo would be better then nothing at all......
QuoteEven then it might be doable. But it would really be easiest if it was just another way to modify a normal single heightfield procedurally using some certain rules.
How about a simple system where the app knows the difference between ice and rock and can operate on them both differently as needed (using modifications of existing devices). The difference would be represented visually on the model.
A system is implemented that procedurally accumulates ice. WM would need to have either ice maps (at input), or better still, understand terrain altitude from which to procedurally generate those ice maps, or whatever.
If you keep things simple to begin with: a dialog to indicate the climate, latitude for that area. This combined with the altitude, waterflow (and possibly aspect) would determine the rates of ice formation.
If I'm understanding correctly how World Machine's erosion works: at the moment it's a matter of take material from A and deposit it at B. Does it do this?
Supposing it does, A is currently defined by land.
In the case of ice, A is derived from water availability which determines the extents/rates of ice deposition. Water availability could be determined in part by the dialog mentioned above.
Erosion and ice formation are coupled over time- ie they are not connected in series, but would a simple: do erosion, then calculate ice, work?
If you get:
* internal descrimination between ice and land
* simple climate input (climate device?) to influence water availability
* procedural deposition of ice,
* Once you have static ice, you are surely then in a position to attempt moving ice, which is really just very large accumulations under specific topographies right? (glaciers are just moving water in a different form- WM already does erosion via moving water).
QuoteSometime ago i mentioned that i had lost the PDF but Stephen and Oshyan should have copies i beleave...
Oshyan, do you have the pdf...anywhere?
Quotethey were and still are some very radical ideas i had at the time but i was wanting primarily a basis for larger scale non-homogeus terrains spanning a almost continent 1000 Kilometer + size using what are classifed as the 4 basic land types... Highlands, Coastal Plains, Continental Shield and Continental Plain... i wanted to generate macros for the types and mixing them on a very large resolution output map for the Pro version... the big problem however is creating the river networks from northern glacier melting and mountain chains draining into lakes and deltas.
I read your post last year on very large terrains and had wondered how you'd gone on with that. This is uncanny, because these are exactly the same problems that issues that we are tackling over a ME-DEM. They've been lurking on the horizon for a bit. :) We're talking about rivers at the moment. Imo, rivers are THE most important consideration for this scale of work because at this scale you get to see the whole of the hydrology cycle, not simply a part of it. Mountains to sea to mountains.
Have you had any ideas on how you would do this?- does the upcoming Pro version have any new solutions?
Well as far as the very large terrains are concerned... we really have two options here... 1 Wait for World Machine Pro or 2 Wait for Terragen 2.
I did not go anywhere with the large terrain ideas... i am hoping the pro version has the solutions because of the large tile outputs, drawing tools etc...
Here is a basic drawing of an idea i had with a possible construction of Glacier Macro... it's a rough idea so forgive the sloppy aspect of it......
QuoteMountains to sea to mountains.
Still, all you need is the "Mountains to sea" part :wink:
'will try this glacier macro tomorrow/later today (depending on the time zone you live in :P )
And pro will
large terrains as Stephen mentioned in the blog :D
Sethren, what's unique about Dmytry's erosion is that he's able to do it procedurally *at all*. That it has theoretically "infinite" detail, just like normal procedurals. It's not really the specific look or result of his erosion that is special - it's not like he's simulating some new *type* of erosion. It's just special because he can apply it procedurally.
Erosion is usually an iterative process performed on a per-heightpixel basis and thus is inherently a finite resolution process. The simple way to get "infinite detail" erosion would be to sample a procedural terrain 1 height element per screen pixel (or more, ideally, for AA) and do erosion on that, though it would require some very complex manipulations for even that to work, and even if it did it would be very slow because each frame would require a recompute of the erosion for the entire visible terrain. What Dmytry has done is figured out some way to actually apply an erosive-type filter to a terrain and keep it procedural - or at least that's what he claims and what the results he shows indicate. Read up on traditional erosion models and then on what Dmytry is doing (he's written about it some before), you'll see the difference.
Monks, I'm fairly certain I do have that pdf somewhere but I've been through 2 computers since. :D I'll be able to dig it up at some point, but not immediately. Feel free to keep bugging me about it.
As far as doing ice/glacial erosion, basically you need to do the following:
1: Determine what effects ice actually has on a terrain and how it moves over and/or accumulates on the terrain. This sets the tone for everything to follow.
2: Determine what factors are involved in those effects. What is the effect of ice on different terrains, rock, soil types? How does slope affect it? etc.
3: Presuming (hopefully) 1 or at most a few major definable effects and a few "factors", you create 1 or more mathematical models that simulate those effects using simple per-pixel heightfield modification functions - add, subract, multiply, or more complex, but still operating directly on the heightfield based on some fairly simple rules. This is essentially how most erosion models work. You start with "rain" which defines a property of a certain amount of sediment carry, etc. which expressed mathematically is just a certain chance of picking up x amount of material and then y chance of depositing x amount of material at each point of traversal, at which point that "drop" stops. That's a very gross simplification and Stephen may take issue with it. :D But the point is that it really just comes down to simple operations on the heightfield based on a mathematical interpretation of what water does in the real world.
4: You create a device based on these simple mathematicla models of the effects of ice and the factors involved in its effects. Examples of this in the current device are the "rock hardness" values - take the real-world idea of rock hardness, which probably takes into account slope variations, etc. and then translate that into a mathematical effect on the system. In a glacier/ice model slope would probably figure heavily into it. You might have a "slope sensitivity" or "effect of slope/gravity" control. Figuring out what other controls you'd have and how they would translate to mathematics is the trick.
5: Once you have all this it should be a fairly simple process to create an input that determines where ice initially starts. An "ice mask" which would be defined just like any other mask in WM right now. No need to really have some new device type or anything, the "ice" would be unique to the "ice erosion" device though. So you couldn't model ice globally throughout the device chain, just in the one device. But it would have output for "final ice deposition" or whatever too, so you could then take that in to your 3D app and texture it properly, etc.
Now this *is* more complex because ideally you want to define a difference between ice and soil, where ice will also have volume. SO it's *separate* volume. Whereas a regular erosion model just moves the same "stuff" around - it's all soil. So depositing a chunk of soil here just makes things higher, the model doesn't keep track of what *new* soil is there, except to record how much soil was put there with the masks. But resulting heightfield incorporates that deposited material.
I suppose it might be possible to output the ice normally as part of the heightfield, but then to optionally just take the ice mask output and subtract that from the terrain, resulting in the soil height itself. Then you use the ice mask output as your "ice volume", maybe a separate heightfield in 3D apps that allow that.
I dunno I'm just blabbering here really, but this is the immediate, practical way I see of doing it, that fits within the current WM paradigm. Actually having some different data type for ice, if that's what you were suggesting, seems more out of left field.
Sethren, TG2 probably won't meet your needs for specific large-scale terrain creation. It will certainly have a heightfield editor in it and good procedurals, but unless you feel Vue and/or Mojo currently offer you what you need (as both have the separate elements that TG2 will better combine - heightfields and procedurals), then you probably won't be that much better served by TG2. WM will still be a better terrain modeler in general I think, for heightfields at least, especially with Pro.
Ah-ha... OK! I suppose it was those procedural details that tricked my eyes into thinking that the erosion was a specific specialized type besides just being procedural...... :D
Has anyone mixed both new and old erosion in the same terrain which is what is seen with mountains and the like... fresh water flows with older flows with larger scale deeper carvings in the mountains?
I am thinking could not a erosion device with strong erosion settings and another erosion device with weak settings (new flows) be connected to a combiner device with masked ridge channels for the combiner device therefore both having old and new erosion mixed? Does this even make sense???
I am not going to pretend i know what i am talking about as far as the mathmatical/technical aspect of terrain heightfield generation goes... i just would like to try having a large mix of non-homogeus hieghtfield terrains split into four basic groups so i am hoping i can mix them with the Pro version because i want to put mountains where they belong as opposed to just scattering them anywhere and that is probably where the Sketch Shapes come into play because just simply generating the terrain types would break the geology rules!
I can use the Functional Blocks (Groups) that can be utilized for the Land Type Macro creation where the network can be easy to manage for converting the devices into a specific Macro... sense these will be Macros and not drawn the geology rules do not apply much here without the accurate placement of terrain using Sketch Shapes but perhaps with some work there can be abit of a workaround to get closer to the rules here???
and lastly for the very large-scale terrain and what i mean by large-scale is somewhere in the ball park of say 10,000 pixel output or so, just enough hieghtfield detail to clearly identify mountains and desent size hills... nothing to extreme perhaps... i can use the Land Type Macro Devices i want to do with the Tiled File Input Device to freely blend the larger terrains (Regional Land Types) into a more worldly-scale output so continents can be identified in the thousand+ or so Kilometers......
I know... wacky ideas i tend to think............ :roll:
QuoteI am thinking could not a erosion device with strong erosion settings and another erosion device with weak settings (new flows) be connected to a combiner device with masked ridge channels for the combiner device therefore both having old and new erosion mixed? Does this even make sense???
Give it a try - have fun! :mrgreen:
(that is 1 minute of work)
Ummm... is it that easy to produce the effect? because i have not seen anyone do it or am i just crazy??? :)
Sethren- that seems to tell the story to me.
Quotei want to put mountains where they belong as opposed to just scattering them anywhere and that is probably where the Sketch Shapes come into play because just simply generating the terrain types would break the geology rules!
Exactly. The Sketch Shapes tool should be very cool.
The new and old erosion sounds like something I should look into. A simple idea, but right in the area of what's doable.
I'll try and reply more fully as soon as I get a chance: Oshyan you missed one item from your list: Must get Stephen to implement it :) :)
From what i understand the Erosion Device has the only option of going from light to very heavy erosion but not the two intermixed......
I just re-did my PC and keep on forgetting to install World Machine darnit... (Never mix Coffie and Benadryl) i should have a go at the erosion idea as well... i am very inexperienced at making good macros so may or may not work out......
Sethren, here is a nice breakdown of river styles:
Wouldn't the newer erosion just happen *on top of* the older, and thus simply chaining erosion devices would simulate it? That's basically what I recommended above in my first mountain suggestions post.
As for converting ice effects into mathematic operations on a heightfield, sure that could be hard, but a good start at least would be cataloging what effects ice actually has and what factors are involved in that. Start with step 1 and 2, that's something any one of us could probably do with a bit of research. Once that's done any reasonably clever programmer could probably figure out some mathematical approximations.
"Wouldn't the newer erosion just happen *on top of* the older, and thus simply chaining erosion devices would simulate it?"
Good question... i could give that a try and see if it is possible......
here is a link to fundamentals of physical geography, there is some inf on Glaciation as well as other aspects of geology .several pics. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/chapter10.html
I've been reading through a book I have on mountain geomorphology.
Regional surveys of topographic attributes of mountian ranges have served to highlight basic down stream patterns.
The book maps out process domains on a graph of local slope vs drainage area and summarises it:
Plot of upstream drainage area versus local slope showing the charactersitic domains of key processes in erosional landscapes. Within these domains, the exact nature of the area-slope relationship for a given process depends on local conditions, and specifically on the rock-uplift rate, mean precipitation and precipitation variability, and rock-mass properties.
Starting from the top and going downstream one might find the folowing sequence of process domains in a river catchment (the river catchment, or drainage basin, is all the land from the mountain to the seashore, drained by a single river and its tributaries):
bedrock river channel,
mixed bedrock-alluvial channel,
coarse bed alluvial river channel,
fine bed alluvial river channel
Create initial DEM sans fluvial erosion.
Determine map of local slope/drainage area using terrain analysis in a GIS program (eg SAGA).
Use that map as input to control macros which have been designed to mimic the above process domains, or at least their visual appearance.
In addition the inclusion of a device which could model very simple precipitation amounts and variabilty, coupled with rock hardness maps. This would give all of the parameters (except rock-uplift rate) identified above to be used in the macro.
Perhaps even vegetation could be included ultimately as it also has an impact on sediment transport.
Not sure if it would work, but that's one idea.
The major problem is this: Terrain Modelling by classification will always have problems with transitions and "realism".
We can look at a terrain that has been created by nature and classify the various sections of it in many different ways, both on a very broad and very specific scale.
However, although some classifications are quite geologically based (ie, mountains made via uplift versus volcanism), others are merely our attempt to better describe what in nature is a fluid continuum. Thus, it really isn't possible to model them in isolation and expect the results to mesh together in any easy way.
I certainly have some ideas that help solve the blending problem quite a bit, and I'm currently doing a bit of R&D on a couple of them. If they work out, awesome, the new devices will probably make their way into Pro. If not, then they don't work. We'll see. But even then all it does is blend between different characteristic land types better: there's still no overarching method to the madness.
That kind of outcome will have to wait for something a little more next-gen. So many things to try, and so little time to do it in...
QuoteWe can look at a terrain that has been created by nature and classify the various sections of it in many different ways, both on a very broad and very specific scale.
However, although some classifications are quite geologically based (ie, mountains made via uplift versus volcanism), others are merely our attempt to better describe what in nature is a fluid continuum. Thus, it really isn't possible to model them in isolation and expect the results to mesh together in any easy way.
Yes, I take your point that there are no really perfect classification schemes. As soon as you look into those, they immediately proliferate along what question you are asking about what.
Perhaps the way to classify them is by classifying the macros by visual similarity to a morphology or terrain type- but then we are back to classifying terrains, but at least not by theory or process. So you are classifying macros, not natural landscapes, the output not the input. This surely is what Geocontrol has done in fact. It makes no pretense at simulation of a process.
QuoteI certainly have some ideas that help solve the blending problem quite a bit, and I'm currently doing a bit of R&D on a couple of them. If they work out, awesome, the new devices will probably make their way into Pro. If not, then they don't work. We'll see. But even then all it does is blend between different characteristic land types better: there's still no overarching method to the madness.
That still sounds very useful- and no doubt will be awesome :).
I imagine that the tech behind the future spectral combiner may have some good applications for blending- using FFT to isolate noise frequences. Would that would be useful for blending?
I keep thinking about the potential for rivers regards blending - and deep down I'm sure I'm on the right track :lol: The river would have to carry and deposit sediment, that would be crucial Surely rivers are maps in themselves. Even from a purely toplogical point of view, they are maps, because you can determine where the steep and shallow gradients are from river courses. Add to that the fact that they also map the geologies because the underlaying substrate determines to some extent the course of a river. There are other factors but that's a start. If you can extract such information about a landscape from a river, then you can also input it to determine the landscape via the river- does that make sense?
I was thinking today if there might be a possible way of making a device like this?
An idea for River System Networks.
A modification of the current Erosion Device but with isolated channel flow points from the highest elevation... in other words every time an erosion device is attached to a perlin the erosion occurs at every high point but with a River Device the the effect is isolated and scattered around abit while remaining at the highest points while such a device would allow the isolated channel flows to work themselves farther out to the lower parts of the terrains but remain digging into the lowest points winding through basins, plains, valleys etc... the isoflows can have devertion controls, certain complexity controls, displacment type controls and as it finds the lowest point it fills a hard edged subtraction operation for a lake or larger body like a sea or ocean by filling in black areas depending on how much subtraction a user wants that can be controlled with a fill size slider... at the end of each low point the device can have delta creation operation by splitting into additional channels before filling in the lowest parts with the black... the deltas can be randomized and or limited in how many are to be formed......
sounds nutty? probably... how might it work? i have no idea... does this even make sense... :?
"A full stop or period (sometimes full point or dot), is the punctuation mark commonly placed at the end of several different types of sentences in English and several other languages."
Yes, the way you describe is basically a simulation of real rivers. We should split it into several smaller problems (divide and conquer)
- the rivers shall behave differently in some places (where there's hard rock or in lower areas)
+ that should be possible with some masks
+ for the single styles you propably have to write a macro
- Deltas... that is somehow inverted erosion, that could be tricky but possible
btw: I couldn't build a glacier macro that is independent of user-made-masks yet
Yes, i agree that we should split it into several smaller problems as this is a complex task. I think this may be better suited for a plugin rather then a macro but i could be wrong and if this is possible would take looking into the internal structure of the erosion device for example if such a thing is possible. For a plugin i would try at this myself but i know knothing about programming math operators sense i have more of a artists mind set. I just think of these wacky ideas but have no clue about how the programming works. You have to excuse my unorthodox grammar structure, it is a bad habit and i write storys to so go figure. :)
Yes, a plugin could propably do the better job... but as you said it is much more difficult too. :)
PS: The quotation only says "commonly" anyway. :mrgreen:
About the new and old erosion mixing.
I wonder if the Spectral Combiner for the Pro version might do the trick? Something to test that idea later atleast.
OK, a network for glaciers is ready...
Looks quite nice, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. 8)
Nice Indeed! :)
:o Very nice indeed! Share, share! :D
it does look verynice indeed.. SeerBlue
Late to the game but is Sethren's pdf file still floating around somewhere. Sethren, is this still available? Thanks