If it can be UV mapped, it can have normal maps.

The left side used a different image that was not the same resolution... oops.

I am following this thread with interest and as I said already I was impressed by Monsoon`s slideshow. There are a couple of rock examples I have not seen in Vue so far (especially those with edgy shapes).

Still, what rocks are concerned, I am asking myself: why do we have to use an external app in order to achieve this? And is there an other reason than faster rendering which makes you guys want to use normal maps?

Maybe those questions are silly because I am missing the point. But currently I dont see any reason why realistic rocks could not be generated all within Vue. What Im thinking of is taking for instance a standard Vue rock and then working on the color and bump displacement mapping by using noise/fractal noise functions.

Better rocks or more natural looking rocks is exactly the point. Especially for large scale formations, cliff faces etc. now that Vue has terrain sculpting abilities. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's all I've been working on for the past year in my Vue sessions. I've been studying geology and photos by the gazillion and conferring with our resident geologist/paleontologist at work.  And every time I think I have it, I don't. Or I've gotten close but no cigar. 

One of the things I've encountered trying to work totally within Vue is that I'll create something that looks pretty close to perfect......from one vantage point. But turn the thing around and it's not so hot. Or change the lighting and there it goes out the window.

Now I must say that I haven't been using a lot of displacement. Rarely. I'm shooting for the effect with just bump and texture and going for something that looks good in all situations but can be displaced if wanted. I still have a relatively low end system and since the early days of Vue I've become accustomed to working with a low render budget

On the other hand I haven't had total luck by using just outside apps either. For instance I did the Gnomonology cliff face with alphas tutorial that's online. Did all the Zbrush stuff and brought the object into Vue and it was just ok.....nothing to write home about. Great tutorial though. Another instance would be the UV thing from 3dCoat that I started this thread with.

I think that the ideal solution, is going to be some kind of combination of the two. Hence my present course and the ensuing issues. I broke out Laurent's sculpted rock package and saw that he used a combo of image color and Vue bump to great effect.

Getting cleavage right, crack flow and angles, detritus, a nice base mesh are all considerations.

I think in Vue, one of the secrets of success is leaning toward very subtle filtering.......

But better answers may be right under my nose lol....compared to many Vue folk out there, Monsoon's Vue world is very small indeed. :)

Interesting how the normal mapping does not cover the edges like displacement mapping, i guess for that you would have to round the geometry of yourself. I suppose normal maps would be best used for animation as opposed to stills though as don't they contain all the lighting/specular/bump/occlusion information ?

Quote - And is there an other reason than faster rendering which makes you guys want to use normal maps?

My take on normal maps is that they allow for high-def looking raised textures on very low-def poly models.  Saves RAM as far as poly count goes.

Quote - And is there an other reason than faster rendering which makes you guys want to use normal maps?

Maybe those questions are silly because I am missing the point. But currently I dont see any reason why realistic rocks could not be generated all within Vue. What Im thinking of is taking for instance a standard Vue rock and then working on the color and bump displacement mapping by using noise/fractal noise functions.

Oops.  I forgot to add that I use texture baking to speed up rendering because generating the texture while rendering is much slower. 

Quote - Interesting how the normal mapping does not cover the edges like displacement mapping, i guess for that you would have to round the geometry of yourself. I suppose normal maps would be best used for animation as opposed to stills though as don't they contain all the lighting/specular/bump/occlusion information ?

Normal is just a bump with more depth information stored in it.  Neither normal or bump alter the polygons.  Models with normal maps applied still need spec, occlusion maps applied if you want even more surface detail.

The main problem with my texture is that I used a rock image that already had a highlight on it.  The trick that Fallout 3 uses is their texture images all have neutral balanced shading (no shadows).  That way the game engine can fake the correct surface bump and spec no matter what direction the light comes from.  If I change the lighting direction on mine, the texture is exposed for what it really is.  Just a sprayed on photo using 3D-Coat.

Quote - Frank, can you link a couple of your gallery entries that contain Normal mapping ?

I just think it is retarded that NOTHING native to Vue can be normal mapped LOL !!!

There aren't any :biggrin:
A render of a sphere with a normal mapped blob on it wouldn't be something I'd post here (or anywhere come to that)

Ah ok, i always though that normal maps contained all that information already, I love learning new stuff :D

Quote - Ah ok, i always though that normal maps contained all that information already, I love learning new stuff :D

Most 3D apps (renderers) contain that info in their material/shader settings.  But each piece has to be baked out into a JPG image somhow if OBJ models are to be used in other apps.  Some file format out there might transfer all this info together (included normal mapping)?  But each new version of a program creates a new version of its file format that all the other programs have to incorporate into their import-export I/O (if they have a license, or if they have and SDK, or if they have hours/people in a day to code for that file format).

So baking gets the job done in most cases these days since a lot of apps are now able to part out their material/shader info separately into image files for sharing.

I have been using CrazyBump, since it's inseption and have been moaning about Vue not supporiting normal mapping as I use them a lot in Cinema 4D for my renders. I always thought from a video game perspective the "glossiness" of a texture resided in the normal map.

@ Frank, i meant even the terrains, i use a lot of image maps for my terrains and would be cool if i could Use the normal maps that CrazyBump generates for this, but is there a way to "UV map inside Vue ? i know it triangulates everything, but not UV maps obviously.

I use either GeoControl or the Vue terrain fractal for my terrains mostly, I don't really have a need to UV map them, I just tile textures on it when I need to do that sort of stuff.
I always thought that the glossiness was down to specular maps rather than the normal map but ICBW 

Here are some tests I did just using Vue functions for displacement, trying to capture some of the complexity and look of real (big) rocks. (So this is an attempt to create everything within Vue)

Before I post some pictures let me say that I do not claim this to be the best possible way, or that this is the way to go at all. Also this should not question any other workflow that has been suggested.

The renders all used the same basic function. This is not a function which is especially elaborated. But it was interesting enough to play  with, and to find out a bit how the look of Vue rocks, on which the function was applied to, could be changed.
No baking has been applied before rendering the "rocks" in order to preserve as much detail as possible. Btw. the contribution of the color to the details is only minimal.
The lighting model used was Global Radiosity ( Global Ambience did not look nice).

In some cases I had trouble getting rid of displacement artifacts. Playing with the various quality options, or replacing critical noise nodes, seemed to help.

Of course, when using fractal noise for bump displacement, without first converting into polygons, takes longer to render. However the benefit is infinite amount of detail (which certainly makes sense when rocks are placed in the foreground).

1-  Simple fractal/ Noise: Cellular pattern/voronoi 1st-2nd neighbors/spikes followed by filters (as Monsoon suggested). The noise has been chosen to create cracks.

2- Simple fractal/ Noise:Cellular pattern/Crystals. This function should add sharpness.

3- Simple fractal/ Experimented with various noises, mainly Gradient Perlin Noise and Terrain Perlin Noise. This noise is converted into a vector and feeds the origin of the two fractal nodes below. The effect is what can be achieved with turbulence noise. However with the way I chose, the unconverted noise can be mixed with the two other fractal nodes.

The left part is for coloring

4- Color is very simple. The left node is a Color Variation Map.
To the right is a Color Map node into which the "cracks" are fed, in order to apply a darker color to them.

That`s all for this experiment.

As I said, I don`t claim this method or this function to be the ultimate method, or replacing other ways of producing rocks. Nevertheless I found the results interesting enough to be posted here (and to continue experimenting with this or other functions).

Question......What are those 'composer' nodes I see there and why do you have 'offset' at the top like that? Not quite sure what offset's all about.....

Here's my latest experiment......an ode to Fallout 3.....all Vue except for the color in the rocks which is an image map. Displacement is used in the pebbly ground noise. That's basically sick rock bump inverted and pebble noise function.

I managed to get some nice cleavage in the main rocks by using a basic repeater of crystal stretched along one axis then rotated laterally. Duplicated vertically and blended. They aren't straight up and down but tilted slightly. Fractures and facets in nature are rarely at 90 degrees.

That looks great. Convincing shapes and mats.
I like the geometry of the main rocks, and  with the pebbles you are on a very good way. IMO the tops of the pebbles are a bit too flat.
I also like the mats you used. Convincing and natural looking.
I was wondering why the main rocks did not cast any shows on the pebbles.

As for your comment on my posts:

1. Actually I should have been more precise. I used A Simple Fractal with Terrain Perlin Noise. Both noise options were unchecked (you can access those options by pressing "edit")
   The result is a ridged perlin noise, but with softened ridges (softness can be changed in the noise editor. By pressing "edit")
2. Offset does exactly what it says. It offsets (moves) everthing that is connected to it. In my case I placed the offset node on the top of the function to move the whole function (basically to get variations)
3. Composer->see below

 Thanks for the explanation. Shadows were being cast but I had them turned down to see what I was doing and never put them back for the render...........

Now THAT is a great rock material Monsoon, and eonites rocks are looking great as well (;

You guys um... well ROCK !!!

I've been experimenting with adding detail with light/dark distribution of the same material. But since Vue can't do cavity or AO mapping, it has to be done with an image map.

Here is an object created quickly in Metasequoia. In the upper left it has a Vue material that has bump of stretched and angled crystal basic repeater mixed with a touch of the terrain fractal eonite used earlier. In the upper right, I took the object into 3dCoat and painted with black in the cavities and a touch of white on the edges. Then in Vue, I mixed black with white via this map in the distribution box.

Then I simply pasted the first mat into the black and white mat boxes. Then I turned down the effects on the first making it darker. 

Then you can just move the mix slider for more effect or less.

Looking good, maybe a bit on the "square" side.

Hmm... I like the basic shapes and actually also like them to be on the "square side" .

I just googled "rocks" and watched a couple of pictures, and when directly comparing those to your rocks, there is still something that makes them look like CG.

Maybe what you need is to check and experiment with displacement mapping.
It would certainly add roughness to the actual geometry.
The more I experiment  with displacement (mapping) the more I find that rocks look significanty more realistic  with displacement checked (if I manage to render them without artifacts)

But this is just how I personally perceive it.

I would be curious to see how such a displacement function would look on objects you generate with external apps.

 I like this last one the best. Fabulous... Looks very natural.....

Are these metablobs or Vue generated rock objects?

I've been trying to reproduce your mat but have been unsuccessful.  I couldn't make those metanodes I guess or crossed my vectors or something lol......I need to study more.....

But here's that squarish cliff object for you to try it on if you wish. Made in Metasequoia, voxelized and exported in 3dCoat and then optimized in Meshlab.....

www.monsoonsky.com/MetatestOpt.zip

I really like this render....

I've seen vids showing how to make rocks with the hyper thingie in Vue.  I can't remember what site it was, but the rocks looked great.

 Hey eonite.......if you wouldn't mind.....what's the turning a number to a vector thing all about?  I've gone through all my trainings from Asilefx and other places and I can't find anything that references that or why one would do it.
I'm trying to reproduce your mat but I don't know what I'm doing or why. The fractals and filters I have down but it's the composer nodes that are throwing me........Thanks.

I'm still in the shallow end of the FE pool :)

I went to geekatplay and watched their FE tuts. I think I get it a bit more now. We'll see when home from work today.......

Monsoon: Glad you liked the last example. Some enlightenment on the vector conversion thing will follow (it`s quite powerful).
Thanks for your Metasequoia example. (Just loaded it into Vue and applied the same mat as in my last example. Did a render. It seems the current displacement function does not work very well on your object. Noticed some artifacts. But this does not mean too much. Maybe some modification somewhere will eliminate them.)

Btw. my last example was not a Metablob, but two of the standard Vue rocks, which were placed one on top of the other. The Vue rocks seem to be rather "displacement friendly", maybe because "smooth mesh" has been checked or the quality has been boosted  (not sure if this is the real reason).
Have not really experimented with Metablobs yet.

Anyway, here is a scene file with my last rock example, so you can check out the function/settings directly. Please let me know when you (and everyone interested) have downloaded and loaded the scene, so we can discuss it further.

http://www.artmatica.ch/Vue_temp/Rock5d.zip

Quote - I went to geekatplay and watched their FE tuts. I think I get it a bit more now. We'll see when home from work today.......

We just crossposted. Indeed there are some enlightening tutorials at G@P!

Awesome...thanks for sharing.  Uh oh....feel a 'functional' illness coming on....may have to leave work early lol.......

Shawn: Hypertexture, if this is what you refer to, is certainly something that has a huge potential because it allows to "sculpt"  3D shapes directly inside of a primitive.
Last year I spent some weeks experimenting with Hypertexture. What I was trying to achieve was a real way to create 3D terrains. And, believe it or not, it actually works. IMO, it works even better than all other terrain options.
Of course, since the terrain is calculated in real 3D space, it`s slow to render. Also rendertime is directly dependent on the function used to create such a terrain. As soon as fractal nodes are involved, rendering is getting really slow. Personally I never went past using a couple of noise functions and one single fractal noise.

But the real downside is that the resulting surface is not fully supported by Vue yet. For example in the camera views you just see the primitive, but not the actual terrain that has been sculpted. Also the surface is not recognized by ecosystems. Therefore it becomes really frustrating trying to populate such a terrain.
What seems to work well however is the assignment of mats.

Quote - Awesome...thanks for sharing.  Uh oh....feel a 'functional' illness coming on....may have to leave work early lol.......

lol...it`s a dangerous kind of illness, you better leave work right now ;-)

Monsoon, FYI, your imported object is as displacement-friendly as a Vue Rock!
( I must admit that working with mesh objects is new to me. Prior to this thread I have never used such objects, so, little to no experience...)

Here is another scene file. The sole purpose is to provide a simple function which hopefully sheds some light on the vector conversion thing. This function, although in this example its applied on a Vue rock, is not meant to create some suitable displacement for rocks. At this point its not even important that it`s connected to the displacement output and is affecting the geometry of the rock.

Everything the nodes do can be observed directly inside the function editor.

So all you need to do is to select the Vue rock and then accessing the function via material editor.

Here is the link to the scene file:
http://www.artmatica.ch/Vue_temp/Numbers-Vectors.zip

Below is a sceenshot of the function along with some explanations.

A noise node outputs numbers. Imagine an infinite 3D space and this noise node assigns a value to each point in this space. Often it`s a value between -1 and +1. The result is a (random) pattern accross this 3D space.

Now, when you connect a Composer 3 node to the output of for example a noise node you transform numbers into vectors.
A vector has a magnitude and a direction. Vectors are not directly visible but, as you can see the effect in our example.

2-This is a Math Pattern Line node. Just like the Nose node, they output numbers. This node in specific outputs numbers that result in a line pattern.

3- This is a constant vector node, which is connected to a multiply node along with the output of the composer nodes. This way you can conveniently determine the the direction and magnitude of the vector. This constant node has 3 input fields, one for each dimension.

4- It`s a Combiner node in "Add" mode. I added it, so I could mix the output of the Line Pattern node with the (unconverted) output of the Noise node (1).

As you can see, the Multiply node (which outputs a vector) is conncted to the Origin parameter of the Line Pattern node (2). This allows the vector  to "disturb" the pattern generated by the Line Pattern node.
Now what is important, when you experiment with this function, is to observe the preview of this Line Pattern node. You will be able to directly see the effect the vector has on the pattern.

Check out how entering a value into one of the input fields of the Constant Vector node effects the pattern. Try to understand what happens there (for instance entering a value into Input field X will affect the line pattern by pushing the pattern in the x-direction (depending on the value of the vector at a given point)

Its not really easy to explain. Its best if you experiment untill you are familiar with it. It`s easier than it sounds.

Note: This technique is not really very important when you build Displacement functions. But it can for instance be helpful when you have a node that generates straight lines/borders and you want to get it to look more natural.
Note 2: Instead of using a nose node and converting its output into a vector you could of course use a Turbulence node (which already outputs a vector). One of the reasons why I`m using Noise/Fractal Noise nodes and convert the into vectors in order to apply Turbulence is because this way I have the option to also use the unconverted output.*

I hope it was not too confusing

Fabulous indepth addition.....so much better to dissect and see a node in action than try to glean something from a handbook entry. Thanks again.....I'll post some experiment results soon.

It does have some interesting capabilities beyond previous versions but it certainly crashes a lot.

I like how the constant vector perturbs the main functions of the material....subtle yet definitive. The turbulence nodes were sometimes too swirly for my tastes. I like this better.

The native Vue rocks in V8 take displacement exceptionally well. This is a single rock with criss crossed  crystal basic repeaters..one horizontal, one vertical...perturbed by the veronoi spikes as suggested above. It exhibits some nice angular cleavage with a hint of cracks.

We're getting somewhere. The toughest one to emulate is cubic fracturing and cleavage like you saw in Avatar. Even though the Halelujah mountains were image mapped with photos of China's karst formations, the cubic fracturing was obvious...especially in the little sample of 'unobtainium' that the corporate rat held.

I think some variation of the crystal function will lead to that answer.......

That definitely looks great!

It has all those elements that are needed to set it apart from regular CG rocks. In fact, it has the look of a rock that could be found in nature.
Also it seems that Vue is rendering those sharp edges and the shadows correctly.

When experimenting with the object you posted I got some good results, but it was not easy to get renders with no errors. So maybe Vue rocks are better suited for displacement.

Agree, displacement in Vue 8 looks a lot better than in Vue 7...and you have those additional  displacement options.

As for the Hallelujah Mountains it would love to know how they were generated. As you said, probably lots of image mapping involved. For the fracturing I really don`t know.
If it was actually done with noise/fractal noise, I also assume that some kind of cellular pattern, like crystal noise, was involved.

Btw. If you liked the vector technique, here is something you should definitely check out:

Take the function thats explained further above. Replace both noise functions with a fractal. Whats important is to make certain that both fractal noise nodes have exactly the same settings (at least to start with).
Then use the Constant Vector node and enter a positive or negative value for example into the X input field and see what happens.  It`s better to start with low values and then gradually increase, if the effect is too subtle.

Have been running some displacement mapping tests with the new Vue beta version, and it seems that there are far less artifacts with this build ( 51487) .
The object that Monsoon posted some days ago works much better now when displacement mapping is applied.
Dont know how stable this version is otherwise, but its definitely worth trying it and testing the improved displacement (You can always revert to the previous version).