I am making a forest like this in Blender (I have the trees yet) so I need ideas of how to make the floor
I sure hope you have a hell of a machine, OP because there will have to be a lot of displacement and particles goin on in that scene
>>523877Well I thought in make it more simple, like make the ground with a texture and leaves over it but i'm not sure at all about it
>>523879dont understand what u want man. u want it to look realistic? then yeah like that guy said u need displacement maps and badass pc. cos putting a texture on a plane with some leaves is gonna look like ur in world of warcraft
>>523877Surely thou doth jest? You'd do all that in post>>523876>so I need ideas of how to make the floorSculpt a plane
I made this one a long time ago. I think this scene took something like 18GB of ram but if you're smart you could proabably do in a quarter with bigger particle batches and less polys per particle. Plus there's not too many leaves going on in the op scene.
>>523892fuck me, can't tell if its cg
Sculpt a plane but put lots of forest junk over it
>>523892Didn't this get used as a splash image a while back
>>523876If you want it to look fairly realistic without going full Hollywood you want to use a fairly dense ground terrain with all the major shapes you see there as actual geometry.Then use deep normal mapping, parallax mapping or a tesselation shader to inexpensibly generate a sufficiently detailed ground texture of a forrest floor.Not familiar with blenders shader capabilities, but those are the kind of technologies we have that can pull off what you propose.
>>523916How can you not immediately see the noise and artifacts? Not denying it looks very good though.
>>523917do that>>523934yeah. That was years ago on 2.5something. I do sex stuff now mostly
>>523892The big pebble like stones in bottom left corner and the unnatural grains ruines it, but the rest looks fucking amazing af.
>>523892What renderer did you use?
>>526680it was cycles. I think that render took like 15 hours on the cpu.
>>526688don't render on CPU
>>526770There was no choice back then. You either render on cpu or you were limited to your gpu's ram.
>>526792>Back thenIsn't that still the case now?
>>526798no and hasnt been for years
>>526799So then how come I still get messages containing about insufficient VRAM?I thought when you do GPU rendering it only uses your VRAM.
>>523892So you're this guy:http://www.blenderguru.com/competitions/new-blender-competition-photo-realism/#