Hi,

I have a cloud layer that I want touching the tops of my trees. The problem is the cloud altitude is already at 0. And when I enter a negative value it still remains at the same altitude. The clouds are way about the ground plane so does anyone know how to get the cloud layer below 0 altitude?

Negative values do not work.

Thanks :) 
Jon

You mean you want this ??

Yeah, pretty much Gill, problem is my ground plane is at -150m as it is. But the cloud alititude wont go lower than 0. For unspecific reasons I cannot raise the ground plane at this time, it would make the whole scene, atmosphere etc look a little off.

If I have a new scene and normal ground plane I can get the clouds where I want them, but lowering the ground plane and then trying to get the clouds to move, it just isn't happening.

Jon

Here is a better idea of what I am talking about, the lower set of clouds just won't go lower

I have just added the link as the image messed up the size of the forum :-

i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp114/jonj16111/Clouds-2.jpg

Jon

Yes, I see your problem.  Other than moving the ground plane back up and modifying everything else, only suggestion I can thnk of is to use metaclouds as you can position and size those pretty much as you want

Hmm, its always the simplest things that seem so hard to do!

Cheers Gill, guess I just needed someone else to confirm the issue.

Thanks for your time :) 

Jon

Try to lower the sea plane (in the preferences). When I remember it right, the sea level is the limitation, not the ground.

Cheers Wabe, will give that a go.

Currently rendering right now, but when its finished will try it out, thanks again :)

Jon

Maybe in the meantime you can check what the manual says to that. I am on holidays right now and do it out of my head.

Hi,

The manual was the first place I checked and all that said was that you can change cloud alittude by using the slider or directly typing in the number, it says any number would be possible. Clearly they weren't referring to negative values lol

Jon

I encountered this limitation too.  My solution was to select everything in the scene (including lights, camera etc) and move it up so the ground isnt below 0. Wouldnt that work for you?

PS if I remember correctly it wasnt just the clouds but the whole sky that starts from above 0, so if the horizon is visible you would have a gap with no ground and no sky ...

I might have to do that artpearl, though it seems so silly that for a scene set in a 3D space that it cannot move below 0, lots of other things can have their parameters set to negative values.

My render is nearly finished so will try again then.

Thanks everyone

Jon

I had the same problem once and got the sea level tip from e-on. Worth trying therefore.

I have moved the whole scene it, it seems to have worked and hasn't changed the atmosphere too much.

Wabe, I couldn't find anything about the sea level in the preferences, have I missed something?

I am using Vue 7 Complete

Cheers
Jon

Quote - ...though it seems so silly that for a scene set in a 3D space that it cannot move below 0...

I agree  - I cant see the   sense in this limitation, whether it is the ground or the sea plane that cause the problem. It is a bug or at the very least a flaw in the implementation.

I had the same problem once and got the sea level tip from e-on. Worth trying therefore.

Wabe is right, the sea level is the answer. I had the same problem. Just create a sea infinite plane, hide it from render and move it up and down. As you do that, the clouds will also move, keeping always the same distance from the sea level. Weird, but true.

Ah, coolio, will give that a try, just couldn't understand if it was something I was doing wrong or if Vue was acting odd.

Thanks for the advice
Jon

Quote - " It is a bug or at the very least a flaw in the implementation."

I don't think it is a bug nor a flaw. They had to find something to define the level zero, upon which the rest of the atmosphere settings are defined. There were basically three possibilities: the sea level, the ground level or a specific setting created just for that purpose.

The ground level is not a good reference point because it varies tremendously, it has ups and downs. Creating a specific setting could have been the best choice but in the real world, the sea level is normally an important reference point (for example, altitudes are measured relative to the sea level). So, using the sea level for that seems to me like a logical choice.

Quote - Wabe is right, the sea level is the answer. I had the same problem. Just create a sea infinite plane, hide it from render and move it up and down. As you do that, the clouds will also move, keeping always the same distance from the sea level. Weird, but true.

Weird, I just tried that and as I moved the water up the clouds came down until they met.  Moving the water down mad the clouds go UP.  My Vue is blonde too !

What?! :-)
Now, that looks like a bug. :-)
I just tried again now and in mine it works fine (Vue 8 Infinite).

Ah, yes, I know what happened. You were moving the sea level below zero in the z axis. Your clouds probably were set at zero too and so they met at zero.

Gill - if I set the cloud layer's altitude to 0 and the sea to 0 the clouds  sit on the sea. Moving the sea up or down the clouds move with it precisely. I'm using v7 complete.
As for bug /flaw:
1.The manual says about cloud altitude: "altitude is pretty straightforward. The slider covers usual altitudes, but any value can be indicated"
It doesnt specify it is relative to sea water, and it  isnt correct as you can not  specify negative numbers.
2.From wabe's posts I figure there might be a way to define sea level in preferences in Vue infinite? there isnt one in v7 complete. Having to do it by adding a sea plane (when I dont need one in the scene) and having to change the location of the sea and hiding it, is a flawed way of setting it up.(actually removing it instead of hiding seems to work too, it rememembers the new sea level).

1. If everything is defined relative to sea level, how come moving the sea up or down doesnt affect the ground position? I had my ground at -300 and sea at 0. Then I moved the sea to -100. The ground stayed in its place(-300) although now it is -200 below sea level. Is that not a flaw?

Whatever their definition of altitude is, it should be

1. well defined in the manual.
2. Changeable by the users without adding and deleting a sea plane
3. Consitant. All altitudes defined relative to an arbitrary point, or all defined relative to sea level. Defining it randomly is a bug or a flaw in their treatment of coordinates.

Quote - "1.The manual says about cloud altitude: "altitude is pretty straightforward. The slider covers usual altitudes, but any value can be indicated"
It doesnt specify it is relative to sea water, and it  isnt correct as you can not  specify negative numbers. "

Exactly, it doesn't specify. Which means it can be relative to anything and it's always correct. :-)
You probably assumed it's relative to zero in z axis, but it's your assumption. :-)

Quote - "2.From wabe's posts I figure there might be a way to define sea level in preferences in Vue infinite?"

If there's one, I don't know it or don't remember it.

Quote - "Having to do it by adding a sea plane (when I dont need one in the scene) and having to change the location of the sea and hiding it, is a flawed way of setting it up.(actually removing it instead of hiding seems to work too, it rememembers the new sea level)."

What's the difference in adding a sea plane or changing a value in the options menu? It takes less clicks to do the first, so that's good! I don't see any flaw in making our life easier. :-)

Anyway, you only need it if you want a special effect like the one described (really low clouds). So, most of the times you don't need to worry about it.

Quote - "If everything is defined relative to sea level, how come moving the sea up or down doesnt affect the ground position? I had my ground at -300 and sea at 0. Then I moved the sea to -100. The ground stayed in its place although now it is -200 below sea level. Is that not a flaw?"

Huh?!... I don't understand your point. I was talking about atmospheric settings (read my post). The ground is no atmospheric setting. Anyway, what logic would it have that the ground moves when the sea moves?! That has no parallel in the real world whatsoever.
So, no, that's no flaw (it would be a flaw if the ground would move!).

Quote - "*Whatever their definition of altitude is, it should be

1. well defined in the manual.
2. Changeable by the users without adding and deleting a sea plane
3. Consitant. All altitudes defined relative to an arbitrary point, or all defined relative to sea level. Defining it randomly is a bug or a flaw in their treatment of coordinates.*"

1- Agree. Still, no flaw in the program, just in the documentation.
2- Disagree. Just do whatever's easier for the user.
3- Disagree. It's not random.

Regarding the option to define the sea level, I found it now. It's in "Units & Coordinates".

It is the software provider's responsibility to define what the coordinate system is. In real life atmospheric items such as clouds and items on the ground such as mountains, valleys etc. are all defined relative to sea level (as you so correctly pointed out).
In vue they dont bother to indicate what they are using but it turns out clouds are relative to the sea level and whereas terrains/ground is relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.
The ground should not have moved, but it's coordinate should have changed if the sea level is the reference point. The ground was 300m below sea at the beginning and its 200 m below sea at the end.
So  - unlike in real life they have chosen inconsistent definitions. That's a flaw, exassubated by not defining it clearly for the user.
Adding and manipulating an  object that I dont need just to enable a redefinition of a reference point is a twisted way of doing it, from a logical point of view. If a change in reference point is needed it should be done by...changing the reference point. If you cant see that - I wont be able to explain it any better. It is certainly not an obvious way for the average user  to go about it - neither Jon or I thought about it.
You are right that it isnt a difficult issue to fix - either by moving the whole scene or by manipulating a water plane, but it could have been done by allowing negative values for cloud altitudes.

Quote - "In real life atmospheric items such as clouds and items on the ground such as mountains, valleys etc. are all defined relative to sea level (as you so correctly pointed out). "

Actually, that's not what exactly I said. The altitude definition relative to sea level is just a human convention. Same cannot be said regarding atmosphere, which is physics (atmosphere does not follow the ups and downs of mountains and valleys).
So, whereas it does make sense (in Vue) to define atmospheric settings relative to sea level (a matter of physics), it's arbitrary if other settings (such as ground) should be also relative to sea level. They chose not to, which is as good as the other way around, since it's a human convention only.

Quote - "level and whereas terrains/ground is relative to an arbitrary coordinate system.
The ground should not have moved, but it's coordinate should have changed if the sea level is the reference point. The ground was 300m below sea at the beginning and its 200 m below sea at the end. "

Disagree, for the reasons mentioned above.

Quote - "So  - unlike in real life they have chosen inconsistent definitions. That's a flaw, exassubated by not defining it clearly for the user."

No, not inconsistent. They basically respected physics where physics should be respected and followed another convention (a more logical one, and easier for the user) where a simple human convention existed. It's not a flaw. Like I said before, the only flaw is in the documentation.

Quote - "Adding and manipulating an  object that I dont need just to enable a redefinition of a reference point is a twisted way of doing it, from a logical point of view. If a change in reference point is needed it should be done by...changing the reference point. "

Why do you say you don't need the object? You need it to define the sea level. You don't need to render it, but that's something very different.
Having an object to define a reference point doesn't seem odd to me and it's easier than defining an option in the menu. Anyway, they actually, they made both things, so you can even choose!

Quote - "It is certainly not an obvious way for the average user  to go about it - neither Jon or I thought about it."

That's very subjective. What's obvious for you is not for me and vice-versa. For me it seemed obvious (I found it without anyone telling it to me).

Quote - "You are right that it isnt a difficult issue to fix - either by moving the whole scene or by manipulating a water plane, but it could have been done by allowing negative values for cloud altitudes."

Is a negative altitude more obvious than thinking that clouds are relative to sea level?... Hmmm... not for me. :-)

Still not making sense.   I set the cloud alt to 1yd

Pic 1 shows sea level at zero and the clouds look to be 1yd above.  Ground in all is moved waaaaaaaay down

Pic 2 shows sea level at + 8 yds - clouds remain relative to 1 yd above sea level

Pic 3 - sea level is - 7 yds but look how the cloud layer altitude has gone UP

Quote - "Still not making sense.   I set the cloud alt to 1yd Pic 1 shows sea level at zero and the clouds look to be 1yd above.  Ground in all is moved waaaaaaaay down"

This does make perfect sense. The ground level doesn't affect cloud altitude. If sea level is at zero and clouds are at 1, the difference between clouds and sea is 1. That's fine.

Quote - "Pic 2 shows sea level at + 8 yds - clouds remain relative to 1 yd above sea level"

It also makes perfect sense. You set the clouds at 1, so this means they remain 1 above sea level, even if you move the sea level to higher levels.

Quote - "Pic 3 - sea level is - 7 yds but look how the cloud layer altitude has gone UP"

This seems like a strange behaviour but it's caused by the fact that you moved the sea level below z=0. So, don't. There seems to be a non linearity in the algorithm. This looks like a bug to me.

Ah but the whole point of Jon's original post was that he wanted to get the cloud layer below zero, thats why in post 3 I took the sea level below 0.  The lower you take the sea, the higher the cloud level goes up. 

Mighty weird

Gill, Seems to do the right thing for me  - sea level at  minus 7 and the clouds still sit flat on the sea. I also tried much lower sea lever (as I said in prev post) and that worked right. Maybe they screwed it up in version 8 (I'm on v7 complete). Of course I dont know why you have a problem, but I wouldnt be too surprised if they got cought by their own lack of consistency. Rutra, -I dont see the logic in the distinction between atmosphere being 'physics' and the terrains being 'Man defined'. It isnt like one could not imagine wanting clouds below the defined 'sea level'. Just an example - the dead sea is abut 400 meters below (general) sea level. Is there any reason why I shouldt have clouds right above the dead sea? Yes, I could change the position of the dead sea level, but then it isnt right in the physics sense. And maybe I want an image with  both the mediterenian and the dead sea, how would I get the clouds at -400m? (and similar situations could exist in sci fi settings). -I dont need a sea object in my scene. All I need is to be able to type in a number that defines the atmosphere altitude reference. It is ilogical to put in an object and hide it just to set a number. Waste of resources (no matter even if it is one poly, it's the principle). -A programs failing isnt measured by those who managed to figure out how to use a feature or overcome a flaw. It is measured by those who encountered problems.( I'm not counting those who didnt read the manual or ignored information within). In this case several competent users didnt get it. Obviousely Jon didnt. I didnt. It seems Gill still has problems with it. If I understand Wabe's post correctly he didnt get it till e-on explained it to him. So there  is a flaw there.  I didnt expect that my workaround suggestion would lead to a heated debate. But it is so depressingly inevitable - if I even hint that vue/e-on is somewhat less than pure saintly white someone will find the need to defend the holly cow... I used to love vue and believe in e-on. Precisely because of that I would point out to them and to users what I find bugged or flawed. I thought it will make a  great product even greater. I got disillusioned, I dont report bugs, I dont post about problems, I dont believe it has the slightest effect on e-on either way. Perhaps it is impossible to make a living by producing software without cutting corners in terms of quality control. They have my sympathy. But they do not have my moral support. People of quality who support them blindly disappoint me. Anyhow, doctor's orders I have to watch my blood pressure, so I'll bow out of this debate. Sorry if that may appear unsociable.

Gill, I see your point. Yes, you're right, that bug prevents Jon from getting the clouds he wants.

Artpearl, this was just a debate about technical details. I fail to understand how that can become emotional to the point of affecting your blood pressure, but it's probably my fault.

I was not defending any "holy cow". If I were, I would classify Gill's findings as anything else but a bug and I wouldn't have admited the flaw in e-on's documentation. I didn't, I admited both as flaws.

I was purely and simply expressing my opinion about what I consider a flaw to be. It's sad that I can't express a simple opinion like that without being accused of irrational behavior like defending "holy cows".

Its a Vue 8 thing - I just tried the same thing in 7 inf and the cloud layer kept to the same level above the sea no matter how far up or down I took it.  Even moving the sea below the ground plane, the cloud layer still remained 'attached' to it

7 Inf - 1 is zero on z, 2 is ground, 3 is sea

<Peers around the corner, is it safe to come out now?> :) 

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone that contributed to this thread, I have learnt some new things along the way, and will have to adjust my style of work for future low cloud related scenes.

Thanks again everyone :)

Jon

Jon, I would have run too. Oh boy, what discussion have I caused with such a little tip.

Ah but we did find something amiss though which is always useful to know.  

Hehe, indeed we did Gill, indeed we did :)

Jon

"Runs and hides back behind the corner"
"Jon, I would have run too. "

Really? Seriously? you have a question/info/knowledge/opinion/comment but you'd 'run away' just to avoid confrontation?
Hmmm..
Thank god for someone like Artur. In my opinion he sees vue with rose tinted glasses because his experience with it was good (and his images wonderful) which annoys me a lot, but what a worthy opponent!

Well, I wouldn't run from anyone, but I didn't have any confrontation with anyone either :)

Jon

Running away is the only sensible way of handling interpersonal relations problems.

IMO, there are few things in life more interesting than an exchange of intelligent arguments with an intelligent person. I don't call that a confrontation, I call it a game, a game of intelligence. Like a game of chess, where each player does his best move, while trying to antecipate the opponent's next move.

Sometimes, these games may turn emotional. That's a natural thing, we're only humans. But what's the problem in some emotions? Emotions are the salt of life. Without it, life would be dull. Emotions make your heart tick faster, your brain move in new and exciting directions.

Therefore, I don't agree with the positions of Jon and Walther. You made it sound like what happened here was a negative thing. It wasn't! It was positive, it was great. It was a great game, played with a great opponent. Exciting and clever.

And, as usual, I completely disagree with alexcoppo's position. I would run away from a tiger that wants to eat me but why would I run away from an intelligent or emotional confrontation with anyone? That doesn't make any sense to me, at all. Running away from that is the denial of yourself, the denial of your capabilities, the denial of growing, emotionally and intelligently.