"Mike Miller" <mil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Samuel B." <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A landscape sketch. [...]
>
> Nice work. Lighting, plants, and hills look very natural. I agree it's hard to
> get the look of undercuts with a height field. Maybe just some mid-range rocks
> or rougher terrain at the base of the hills?

Thanks Mike. Yeah, placing rocks would be a good idea, but this scene isn't set
up correctly to make it easy.

> >> So, I guess the other best option would be sculpted meshes ':/
>
> There's some 'Megascans' style libraries out there - some free. Quixel has some
> great models with even greater poly counts. :)

Thanks for the link. I tried Quixel a while back, but I was annoyed by the
always-online nature of the program and promptly uninstalled it. But looking
back: of course it needs to be online to download things! So, I might give it
another shot in the future.

> If you do sculpt some topo/rock forms in Blender, I'd be interested in your
> process. I haven't modeling natural forms in Blender other than blobs.

I learned a neat Blender sculpting trick this year: use the flatten tool, and in
its advanced settings, check one or both boxes for the original normal and
plane. These will allow you to sculpt hard edges. It's not perfect, but it does
make sculpting rock forms much easier. And of course, make sure to use dyntopo.

> I assume rendering time grow as triangles increase?  It's been a while sense
> I've work with mesh in POV.
> Mike.

Yeah, render times go up with higher triangle counts. But you can always try
decimating the mesh or using the simplify sculpting tool.

Sam

Post a reply to this message