Welcome to the Vue Forum

Forum Moderators:  TheBryster   

Vue F.A.Q (Updated: 2009 Jun 22 9:41 pm)


 
For questions or problems related to this forum or to the Vue Gallery,
please contact  the Vue Moderator The Bryster

 Subject: Painting eco rocks in Vue 11 - Won't go below surface

MNArtist opened this issue on Feb 12, 2013 · 17 posts

Top of Forum Unsubscribe Print

  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 3:24PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

I'm sure I'm missing something very simple here.

I'm trying to paint rocks into a streambed, and want them to be embedded in the ground. When setting up the eco, I set them to be 55 - 65% below the surface relative to object size. But when I paint, they still "float" on the surface. I've tried changing the % below surface, but no difference. I have the "use ecosystem rules" box checked in the paintbrush dialogue, and I've clicked the limit to selected object icon. I make sure the "populate" brush is checked. I did this in Vue 10.5 with no problem, but now with the new brushes, I can't get it to work. What am I missing?? Appreciate any guidance.


  Mazak ()  ( posted at 4:50PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Did you turn off fast population mode?

 

Mazak

Google+ Bodo Nittel 


  Mazak ()  ( posted at 4:59PM Tue, 12 February 2013 


Here the rocks are painted and nice embedded.

 

Mazak

Google+ Bodo Nittel 


  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 5:17PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Quote -

Did you turn off fast population mode?

 

Mazak

 

Thanks for the responses, Mazak.

Where is "fast population mode?" I looked in the manual and can't find a listing for it. 

The rest of my settings look the same as yours.


  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 5:27PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Never mind, found it. Yes, it's off.


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 5:32PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Fast population doesn't act on the EcoPainter. Rocks are always painted/populated half buried, so using rocks isn't relevant, I'm afraid... Are you sure this offset  setting is part of population rules, MNArtist? And how about using the Lower brush with the Population  brush? Should work.



  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 5:41PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Okay, so this is interesting.

I originally had a number of faceted and rough rocks in the mix I was painting. I deleted those and switched to the lo res ones Mazak used in his example, and a mix of smooth and stones, and now they're showing up where I'd expect them to.

Wondering if one of you can try on your system with the rough and faceted and see what results you get.


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 5:41PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Made some tests, and offset from surface doesn't seem to be part of the population rules, as I thought. So use your Populate area brush in conjuction with the Lower effector, or use the Lower brush after you're done with the Populate brush.



  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 5:48PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

I'll check it tomorrow, off to bed now!



  Mazak ()  ( posted at 5:55PM Tue, 12 February 2013 

Faceted rocks and rough rocks make no difference. But they are heavy resource hungry, maybe that cause a difference?

 Mazak

Google+ Bodo Nittel 


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 8:07AM Wed, 13 February 2013 

Same as Mazak here, low rez are easier to use and manipulate, but otherwise, it's the same.



  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 8:42AM Wed, 13 February 2013 

Hey Guys -

Thanks for the guidance and the time you took. I'm rendering now, but am going to do some experiments after this finishes and will post the results. Using the lower brush helped, though it still seems there are some strange things happening.


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 10:37AM Wed, 13 February 2013 

Why didn't you just populate the object that is underneath the stream?



  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 10:42AM Wed, 13 February 2013 

I wanted the rocks to appear on the slope of the shore as well as under the stream, if that makes sense. Frequently, if I have a flat surface, I'll just create a transparent plane, populate that with rocks, and then position it, but this time I wanted the sloped surface to be populated as well.


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 11:44AM Wed, 13 February 2013 

Ok, I see, I would've carved the stream in a terrain, and populated the terrain material, according to altitude.



  MNArtist ()  ( posted at 9:03PM Wed, 13 February 2013 · edited on 9:06PM Wed, 13 February 2013

I figured out what the issue is. 

If you change the scale of the rocks in the brush palette, it appears to 'override" the offset. I had scaled my rocks up to about 2.5 in the scene. If I leave the scale in the brush palette at 1, they go below the surface, but if increased, they float on top.

 

Interestingly, if you change the scale in the material editor under overall scaling, it impacts the position as well, though seems to be to a lesser degree


  bruno021 ()  ( posted at 3:48AM Thu, 14 February 2013 

Maybe it's a bug? Might be useful to let e-on know.



 To create a post you must first sign in or register an account.