Neat stuff.

Thanks!

Beautiful landscape.

Thank you!

You're welcome.

I've watched a few tutorials on procedural landscapes and other objects. I once saw how to make procedural trees and other plants.

Quite interesting. If you zoom in on the scene does it still look good or does it get more pixelated?

I gotta get going on Blender. Im getting the urge back, I just need the time (now that I got a new laptop). The desktop machine still works, I just use the laptop for practicing when not at the. big machine.

It doesn't look as great when zoomed in, but it was not intended for this. Still, not too bad I think:
https://ibb.co/BcScW69
The camera is practically lying on ground level on top of that dark mound in the foreground, and then some polygons are visible. But just a bit farther away it's all smooth again. The scale of the textures has been adjusted for this picture, they're 2k in themselves so they don't look pixelated at all.

I can't make those foreground polygons any smaller, the overall polycount becomes too huge to comfortably handle if I increase the subdivisions any further (it's already subdivision level 4 resulting in 2.5 millions or so ). Now, this scene does not use microdisplacement, which probably would have been the way to go if you want both close-ups and huge distances in the same mesh. Otherwise, there could have been differently detailed meshes for different landscape features, depending on the distance.

As it is, the whole scale of the scene is kind of too big for close-ups. It's based on a plane, and it looks to me that one side of the resulting landscape would be some 500 meters, if not more. It would be easy to make the overall scale lower, which with the same subdivision would enable better details at close-up.

This thing here is one method for making landscapes, but the Blender's built-in ANT add-on is really powerful too.

I also wanted to work more on art this year. But ever since the plague struck here in mid-March, it feels like I'm going from one misfortune to another, and I'm not afforded enough peace of mind for developing my artworks.

I'm interested in these procedural plants, any links?

It's basically how I made 3D landscapes in Photoshop years ago. I took one of the pictures I made, convert into black and white and then use Photoshop's 3D to make it into a 3D landscape. I'd just choose the New Mesh from Layer and then Depth Map set to Plane. Then I'd find a ground looking texture and apply it. Because Photoshop didn't have a UV editor, some of the texture would stretch. For the most part it did okay.

I watch a tutorial about micro displacement years ago. I made a moon and on the edges of the circle, you could see the crater rims, https://www.furaffinity.net/view/22508825/

If memory serves about the plants, it was this one: blender procedural plants.

I just gotta my ass going on getting back into blender.

nicely done...

V.

Thanks!

Powiem Ci, że kiedyś miałem długą polemikę z moim profesorem od Prawa Autorskiego, czy wygenerowany przez komputer utwór wciąż jest uznawany przez prawo za utwór i czy jest chroniony >_>.

Ale fakt, proceduralne generowane środowisko to spore ułatwienie, szczególnie w grach komputerowych. Choć dużo też zależy od tego, jaki generator losowy został użyty do stworzenia mapy wysokości. Najczęściej używany jest generator Perlina, który w takie scenie jak ta daje dobre efekty, ale jak masz wygenerować planetę, to już efekt nie jest taki naturalny :(.

Dziwny problem. Odpowiedzialność spoczywa na tym, kto puścił komputer w ruch, więc "na chłopski rozum" ta osoba powinna być uznana za autora. Jest autor - jest i utwór.

Sprawa komplikuje się przy AI, bo wtedy mamy zbiór wejściowy używany do treningu i ten może być złożony z elementów chronionych prawem autorskim. Pewnie widziałeś:
https://thisfursonadoesnotexist.com
Ale nawet wtedy jest ktoś kto zaprojektował i uruchomił całe to "ustrojstwo", więc powinien też być uznany za autora - nawet jeśli przyjmiemy że efekt pracy AI jest utworem pochodnym, czymś w stylu remiksu.

Faktycznie tutaj jest Perlin. Do wyboru jest jeszcze Musgrave z paroma wariantami, muszę wypróbować jak się sprawdzi.

Dość sporo bawiłem się Space Engine i rzeczywiście jak sobie teraz porównam, to proceduralnie generowane planety mają często teren podobny do mojego.

Terragen says hello from 2001. :P

Hopefully not in the sense of this looking so old?... In any case, Blender3D is not a specialized landscape generator, and the effect seen here was wrenched out of it using generic procedural texture tools. I didn't even realize it's possible make a landscape this way in this software, until I happened upon that tutorial.

Actually looks exactly like a Teragen render from that time. It was mind blowing at the time and has been used in movies and art work since.

Interesting;the details are actually captivating.

The concept reminds me a bit of an idea the American Composer Raymond Scott (real name Harry Warnow) had back in the 1960s. He wanted a machine that would compose music automatically, given input parameters. At the time, the available electronics were primarily analog; digital logic was still primitive. He worked on the idea with a number of assistants who would become famous in their own rights, such as Robert Mood (Moog Synthesizer) and Jim Henson (The Muppets). He eventually succeeded with a device he named the Electronium. After constructing a prototype, he sold the first (and likely only) production unit to Berry Gordy of Motown Records. His most popular piece of music, however, was written decades before; his Powerhouse was used in dozens of Warner Brothers cartoons.

Awesome. =)

Man, you just reminded me of one of the models I made during in the 'Computer Animation' class I had in high school.
(which was really just learning how to use Blender)

One of the tutorials we did was making and animating a shark swimming through an underwater scene.
The underwater topography I made was very similar to what's seen here!