It seems you have two choices when painting instances. Either allow random rotations constrained to a selected degree or don't allow any rotation. It’s surprising that you can’t choose the direction that an instance will face. My work-around was to save versions of the huts facing in various directions. These can be loaded into the ecosystem painter and selected for an orderly creation of instances provided that the rotation is set at 0.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3475981

It's possible to choose the angle, that's not the problem. See in the link above a thread where I proposed a method for this. In the case of that thread, it was necessary a rotation in all axes but in your case (houses and similar stuff), the vertical axe is enough.

That's not the tough issue. The tough issue is to make the houses (or other objects) face a direction that changes along the way, like houses in a winding road. This is what I don't know how to do.

Not sure I understand, if it's simple enough to paint by hand each set of huts with the same orientation, cant you make a greyscale map with one value of grey for one orientation (all parallel roads) and another grey for another orientation (perpendicular to the first set of roads) and so on.
Then you  can use a different rotation (0, 90,45 etc) for each layer(or in a mixed material?)  using only one hut, or having your differently oriented huts in each layer and a rotation of 0.
From your other thread I thought you wanted something which will automatically detect the direction of the near roads.

Ah crossed posts with Artur...

Of course, if you want no rotation, all you have to do is set the slider 'Maximum Rotation' to zero, in the tab 'Scalling & Orientation', in the ecosystem settings.
In addition, if you want instances perfectly aligned, all you have to do is to tick on 'Regular alignment of instances' in the Density tab. In the case of houses, you may also want to tick 'avoid overlapping of instances'.

 The problems I'm facing with the ecosystem painting are almost overwhelming at this point. The ecosystem painter was not my first choice because the details of the island are lost in the preview. Because of the scale of the landmass and level of detail, it is nearly impossible to maneuver the camera. I've resorted to using a tiny sphere as an anchor for my camera rotation. It's too bad I can't tell the difference between the land, roads and canals until a preview is rendered. Because there is guesswork in trying to place the huts, I need to go back and erase those that land in the wrong place, which is sad because the eraser tool has ceased to function. This is nearly untenable.

Today was just a day for experiments. I'll probably end up using a grayscale map for the placement of the huts. Different grays for huts in different directions. Even that will be hit and miss until I discover the spacing that works best, of course. (Thanks for the suggestion, ArtPearl.)

I will read that other thread later, Rutra. Thanks.

I never made such a big scene with that level of detail at the same time. I think it would be easier to handle if you build the parts of the scene as separate modules and then joining these modules together in the final scene.

* I think it would be easier to handle if you build the parts of the scene as separate modules and then joining these modules together in the final scene. *

That's a good idea. I will do that.

Well, I thought about it a bit:) The bottom line is there just isnt the information in vue or PS about the directionality. (I'm not that knowledgeable about PS - if someone knows how to define a line/path so that it's possible to know the order of the points - let me know).But I have an algorithm in mind which will address the problem, but it will require writing a utility (python?), so it might take a while. At the moment, if you can break up your areas according to orientation ranges it is possible to get reasonable results. I tried it for a group of houses all facing a central point. My angle ranges are based on 8 ranges  of 45 degrees each. I made a bitmap which serves 2 purposes - it defines where the houses go and which direction they face. Each segment has one of the eight grey values 0,12.5, 25, 37.5, 50,......,87.5. (In my example I only used 6 out of the 8 ranges because I'm too lazy) In the attached image I show the density and the scale&orientation tabs, the function editor, and the final image. (The central structure has nothing to do with the issue, just looked nicer:) ) In the density tab, the filter function defines that anything that isnt white will be populated. I used regular spacing. (You cant use 'avoid overlap' if you have regular spacing, instead  if they overlap you need to decrease the density). In the scale &rotation tab the 'maximum angle' is driven by a function. Also only 'up axis' is used. The function editor shows the grey bitmap is connected to the density and to the angle of rotation. Note the 'no repeat' is chosen. (Mapping is object parametric) And the image shows it works well - all house face the centre. I think intervals of 45degrees should be a good enough approximation. Whether you have the patience to define all the regions like that - I dont know. I wouldnt have, but I certainly wouldnt do it by painting:) Eventually my plan is to just define the roads in PS using a one pixel pencil tool. From that my utility will assign directions to each road pixel, and than assign directions to off road pixels (up to a defined distance) according to the closest road point. The directions will be assigned a grey value as in my example above, and write it out as a bitmap. Easy -peasy - except I never programed in python and its been a decade since I programed in c/c++ . So again, dont hold your breath:) I hope this helps a bit, if not you Paloth, perhaps it will help someone with a project with a smaller scope.

I admire you for undertaken such an ambitious project!

PS if your houses have a diferent front and back you need to assign different regions on both sides of the road, and I dont know what you want to do about corners, perhaps it doesnt matter as long as they face one road or the other.

The python utility that you have conceived would be very useful. I wish I knew how to create that sort of thing. I may use your method of orientation via bit map at some point, but I’ve decided that such an approach will not be necessary for the current scene.

Controlling the distribution of ecosystem elements with a bit map requires a high sampling rate, but a sampling rate high enough to keep the huts off of the roads (for example) cannot be attained in a scene of this scale. When I top 2000 Vue crashes during the ecosystem generation. I started to think about it and decided to create a bitmap terrain consisting of only the land that will be covered with huts. My theory was that if the roads are missing from the terrain, there is less chance that huts will be generated on the roads. Also, there is an added benefit of being able to randomly distribute the two types of huts at two different angles in a general ecosystem on the terrain. In practice, there was a noticeable improvement, but I still get overhangs on some roads and canals. Of course, since my primary intention is to create views of the city at a distance, this kind of anomaly will be lost in the crowd, and even if it isn’t, I can edit the problem areas in PhotoShop. If I do flyover animations, motion will hide the defect.

Now I have to create a bit map terrain that will define the poplar-like tall trees that grow along the banks. Unfortunately, I’ll have to do this manually.  

 

That looks really good, if only you could have Vue populate it correctly. It's a pity. The roads look very thin, I imagine that it's really difficult to keep huts off of them.

But... I was thinking, is this important? If you make all the ground with the same color (the color of the roads) and you populate trying your best to keep huts away from the roads, the spaces that remain will look like roads. The fact that you used the same color for all the ground won't be seen in the areas that are covered with huts. So, everything will look fine! Spaces between huts will look like roads and there won't be the feeling that huts are on the roads.

In fact, this is even probably what happens with these old towns. I mean, before building a hut the builders don't cover the ground with anything, they just build the hut wherever there's space. So, the ground does have the same color everywhere. The remaining space not covered with huts is the road.

I'm not sure if I was clear... Let me know if not and I'll try to explain in a different way.

Of course, the canals are a different story. Here I think the best strategy is to have a space around the canals that are not populated. I mean, the distribution map should be slightly different from the city map itself. For example, one canal can be 6 meters wide and the area that is not populated is, say, 10 meters wide. So, even if there's a bit of 'invasion' of the huts in this area surrounding the canal, it will still look ok. You can populate the remaining 4 meters with grass and this will cover any defficiency.

Just a thought to add to Rutra's idear.

If you do want gardens look different from the roads, Attach a garden plane/box to the hut. Make it a grouped object and use that in you're ecosystem, populate with the gardens attached.

Quote -
... and even if it isn’t, I can edit the problem areas in PhotoShop. If I do flyover animations, motion will hide the defect.
 

You know you can select ecosystem instances  and manipulate them -eg translate/rotate?
Or you can convert them to objects, do what you want to them and then return them to the eco.
Use 'select ecosystem instances' icon on the horizontal top bar or edit-> select ecosystem instances from main menu.
It shouldnt take longer than editing in PS, and once its fixed its fixed for all future renders or animations.

*You know you can select ecosystem instances and manipulate them -eg translate/rotate? *

I didn't know that, but it's good to know. I'm tempted to go over the city, segment by segment, and manually fix everything.  It's possible, and I don't have a deadline. 

*In fact, this is even probably what happens with these old towns. I mean, before building a hut the builders don't cover the ground with anything, they just build the hut wherever there's space. So, the ground does have the same color everywhere. The remaining space not covered with huts is the road. 

**** ***You make a good point. At the very least, I'll give lesser roads a dirt road material. Even cattle make trails, after all. I think the bridges would lead foot traffic over specific areas that would probably differ visibly from the fertile garden/crop land. This could be established via Cherryman’s garden plane method, but since I've already put a lot of work into making the roads, I’m inclined to preserve them, even if it means manually adjusting huts for the next week or two. 

On the other hand, it might take all year. I can manually correct the most egregious areas in the view of the camera, or perhaps shrink the boundaries of the hut land areas. 

Quote - "[...] but since I've already put a lot of work into making the roads, I’m inclined to preserve them[...]"

With my method you wouldn't waste this work. Your road bitmap serves two purposes right now: 1) they serve to determine where a different material should be and 2) they serve to determine houses placement. With my proposal, your road bitmap would serve only one purpose (usage number 2), but it would still be useful.

Compared to the paved roads on every island, the dirt roads are a much subtler and natural effect, It makes the stray huts less noticeable--not that much of anything concerning the huts is noticeable at this altitude. 

 I would be careful with direct painting of ecoSystem instances is it's been my experience, on occasion, they just disappear. I can imagine the frustration that would cause if you spent a few hours painting an ecoSystem to have it vanish. Save early, save often!

I have also used grayscale maps to control orientation of ecoSystems-- and it works quite well. You might check out this OLD, but effective webpage:

http://www.graphique3d.republika.pl/

Click on the left SCENES button, then click SILENT SPRINGS at the top. HTH, Chipp

Attached Link: Protected

In my image "Protected" I oriented the fish in a circle using a projected texture map. This time the grey scale map is a gradient and indeed the orientation of the fish changes gradually. (I wasnt sure how sensitive it would be). I attached a screen capture of the function editor for the plane of fish - quite simple but seems to be effective.

Interesting. Is it possible to have the fish all facing outward from the center with a projected texture map?

Yes - there are 2 ways, one is to rotate the map itself by 90 degrees by using one of the little arrows in the lower right corner of the map (see my image in prev map). As you can only rotate the map in increments of 90 degrees you can achieve this way fish facing in, out, going clockwise or anticlockwise. The other way  is to add an offset  filter node after the map. A value of 0.5 (as in the attached image) will make the fish point inwards. A value of -0.5 makes them face out and a value of 1 or -1 will change their direction around the circle. (you can use any value, -1 to +1, to achieve different shifts in orientation, easy enough to try it out)   BTW- it seems I discovered another bug - if you compare the orientation of the fish in the preview window and in the final render, they are facing the opposite way, in my attached image they face outwards in the preview and inwards in the render. In my posted image 'protected'  one had them go clockwise the other anticlockwise.Hmmm... a bug in vue7, how rare:)

Thank you so much! I'll have to fiddle around with that; it could help a lot with a concept I've been thinking over.

That's great! Post something here too when you use it in your project.

Here's my first attempt.

I got it to work in still form, but decided to jump ahead a step or two and animated it. There are about 2,000 guys, and they don't behave in the way I had hoped, by spreading outward in straight lines from the center, but this is still an interesting result. I'll keep working on it as time allows.

www.youtube.com/watch

Thanks again for the pointers and screen shots!

Oh wow! I dont do animations, so for me its particularly impressive.
I think it behaves in the somewhat unexpected manner because of the way the greyscale bit map looks. I noticed some small distortions in my experiments too. Lines of equal greyness arnt precisely radial, they seem to have a spiral component. I dont know how to fix that because my 2d
 image editing skills are so minimal :)
Good luck in your next attempts, and keep posting!

Here's a quick test using the same gradient as a map, but changing the poser figures out for an animated primitive saved as a .vob. It seems to me that a guy could save several animated .vobs of different shapes and z-movements to end up with a rudimentary in-Vue particle system. The applications might be limited --I'm thinking mostly of tornado and explosion debris-- but it would be interesting to see what others come up with. When I have some real time I'll try to animate something a little more realistic than choreographed cylinders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OHZPbfxZuM

Quote -
Controlling the distribution of ecosystem elements with a bit map requires a high sampling rate, but a sampling rate high enough to keep the huts off of the roads (for example) cannot be attained in a scene of this scale.

I'm a bit late to the party, but have you tried to increase the height of the roads and populate depending on height and/or slope?

Tom

Hi. I didn't try increasing the height of the roads, but I solved the hut problem another way. The method was easy to conceive, but time consuming in its implementation. See the thread at http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2778761.

I haven't been brave enough to try to animate this one yet, but here's a still image using this technique:

This looks so good! In this case the slight discrepancy in direction we discussed above is actually a bonus, since one would expect  an element of chaos in their escape.
I'm really glad you finding uses for the method!