Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(36 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies) Members Gallery
(516 replies)
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  Go to the next page  Last page
show user profile  cbflex
A Work In Progress

read 3243 times
11/7/2014 7:19:41 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 7:19:41 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
That's interesting.

What style are you going for?
read 3239 times
11/7/2014 7:22:57 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 7:22:57 AM)
show user profile  cbflex

I know my Ocean Bump Map is fucking up... But I'm not too worried about fixing that. Just gotta give it a different bump map. The hardest part for me by far was getting volumetric clouds and a volumetric atmosphere...
read 3235 times
11/7/2014 7:46:55 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 7:46:55 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
Oh, I thought it was surreal.

Well, for photoreal there's a lot to fix:
1. Ocean is wrong (as you said, the bump), plus the colour.
2. the night-time lights.
3. The clouds are completely off. They should be more planar.
4. The atmosphere is the wrong colour and extends waaaaaaaaay too far out.
5. No stars.

I'd change your end-goal to surreal/sci-fi. Right now it looks almost alien and is kinda cool. I'd use it as a backdrop to show off a uber-cool satellite or spacecraft or something like that. Hell, with a few tweaks you can pretend it's an alternate earth (like Pandora).
read 3231 times
11/7/2014 8:03:52 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 8:03:52 AM)
show user profile  cbflex
I couldve made just a sphere with cloud texture and opacity map over Earth, but I want to animate a flythrough from space, and I want it so that as we fly through the clouds, that it doesn't look like a plane, but instead looks like volumetirc amazingness...
read 3222 times
11/7/2014 9:40:59 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 9:40:59 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
Well, I would reconsider the clouds. Having a sphere (or two or three) with alpha textures for the clouds is a perfectly fine way to do it, even for a flythrough, just have the spheres different diameters.

read 3218 times
11/7/2014 10:04:16 AM (last edit: 11/7/2014 10:04:16 AM)
show user profile  LionDebt
Yeah - currently those clouds (in your render) are orbiting earth as opposed to being part of the tropsphere (6500 to 23000 feet from Earth's surface).... Secondly their scale is just wrong.

If you're going for photorealism I'd suggest (like Herfst has) to pick a photo of Earth and recreate it.
read 3204 times
11/7/2014 2:39:23 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 2:39:23 PM)
show user profile  cbflex
I like your idea behind using science to verify how my rendering is wrong, but at the same time I looked at these images..

They're both taken from Space, outside Earth's Atmosphere and you can clearly see some volumetrics. I wanna be able to have a smooth transition between Planet Earth, and seeing volumetrics as you get closer. Possible?

read 3197 times
11/7/2014 3:45:36 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 3:50:25 PM)
show user profile  herfst1
First one isn't a photo. A good clue is the three planets. It's a composit of low level flying over clouds made to look like it's taken outside the stratosphere. i.e. Surreal.

The second one shows planar clouds (when viewed outside the stratosphere). This would be best achieved using two spheres (of different radius) with two different alpha maps of clouds.
read 3192 times
11/7/2014 4:19:04 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 4:19:04 PM)
show user profile  Manolo
The 1st image is a PS composition. That view just doesn't exist (on this planet, at least).

The angle is tricky on the last one. The clouds occupy a really thin layer -related to the earth's size-.

I'd use an opacity map for the approach and a different technique while neart to / passing thru the clouds, and put them together in post.


read 3192 times
11/7/2014 4:20:17 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 4:20:17 PM)
show user profile  LionDebt
My point still stands.

Any photograph taken of Earth at any great distance (ie. from space) will show the clouds to be a part of the surface (ie. planar) rather than as in your render.

Green: The earth is spherical.
Red: The clouds are a part of it's surface features. Not outer-space.
Yellow: This 'glow' represents the atmosphere? It's far too large. And wrong coloured.
Pink: This area, maybe even 50% smaller, should hold the atmosphere.
Text: I'm basically repeating the crits herfst has given you :)

read 3184 times
11/7/2014 4:33:34 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 4:35:25 PM)
show user profile  herfst1
Yeah, I was also going to mention it being too spherical. But that's actually more of an understatement than you would possibly believe...

Get ready to BLOW YOUR MIND...

read 3183 times
11/7/2014 4:35:36 PM (last edit: 11/7/2014 4:36:05 PM)
show user profile  cbflex
What about these images? Are they all photoshopped too?

read 3137 times
11/8/2014 9:55:14 PM (last edit: 11/8/2014 9:55:45 PM)
show user profile  9krausec
The first one is a comp for sure man..

Last two look real to me, but the clouds are sticking closer to the surface of the earth than what you got going on.

Also another thing to think about is where the sun is in those last to shots. If it's more of a key light in the scene, then more depth is going to be shown due to the shadows.

In your project it looks like the sun is acting more like a rim light so the shadows will be far less than your examples (something to think about)... Also, that might work in your favor considering the depth effect would be smaller so you should be able to get away with applying clouds to a sphere with an opacity map.

- Portfolio-

read 3134 times
11/8/2014 10:10:05 PM (last edit: 11/8/2014 10:10:05 PM)
show user profile  LionDebt
1st one is... surprise... entirely comp-work and photoshop.

Third one is a photograph... but with the lense flare and some adjustments in photoshop.
Here's the original at shutterstock:

Second one is photorealistic. Ie. It is an unedited photo and if your render is to be photorealistic, that's what you should be using as your reference.

read 3121 times
11/9/2014 3:18:20 AM (last edit: 11/9/2014 3:18:20 AM)
First page  Go to the previous page   [01]  [02]  Go to the next page  Last page
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window