Jump to content
mikoian

Footprints on lunar surface

Recommended Posts

I am not sure how to start doing this (except going to the Moon :) )....

I read that the collision deformer could do this...but not sure where to start.

The footprints should be there without people walking (so they are static)...but also created while people are walking - dynamically (this one together with some dust as the footprint is created).

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume these footsteps will be appearing on the section of moon rock we looked at yesterday ? I'll warn you now, you will need one hell of a powerful CPU to do collisions with that !! I forget how many millions of polys it was, but the Collision Deformer doesn't like meshes that dense, especially those of the large physical size we are talking about. You might find viewport feedback painfully slow. Also, we have to consider the fine powder on the moons surface, which is almost flour-like in that it compacts and sticks together and can show a surprisingly defined boot-print. You will need to make that boot in 3D, and make sure the treads give the right sort of pattern when intersecting with the ground. Personally I think that might be beyond the ability of the collision deformer - generally speaking the deformations it makes are of a much simpler type.

 

Unfortunately, dust is another area that is problematic for Cinema - all we really have to simulate that is Pyrocluster, which is both very old, very slow, and doesn't look that great after all the effort. You'll get a far superior result if you do the dust in X Particles, TFD, Houdini or in Post.

 

CBR

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cerbera said:

I presume these footsteps will be appearing on the section of moon rock we looked at yesterday ? I'll warn you now, you will need one hell of a powerful CPU to do collisions with that !! I forget how many millions of polys it was, but the Collision Deformer doesn't like meshes that dense, especially those of the large physical size we are talking about. You might find viewport feedback painfully slow. Also, we have to consider the fine powder on the moons surface, which is almost flour-like in that it compacts and sticks together and can show a surprisingly defined boot-print. You will need to make that boot in 3D, and make sure the treads give the right sort of pattern when intersecting with the ground. Personally I think that might be beyond the ability of the collision deformer - generally speaking the deformations it makes are of a much simpler type.

 

Unfortunately, dust is another area that is problematic for Cinema - all we really have to simulate that is Pyrocluster, which is both very old, very slow, and doesn't look that great after all the effort. You'll get a far superior result if you do the dust in X Particles, TFD, Houdini or in Post.

 

CBR

 

 

Yes, it's that section of the moon rock from yesterday.

Can't I reduce the polygon count there? Also, when seen from the distance it doesn't have to be very accurate/have definition...it's just have to be seen that a imprints in the soil are made when the astronaut is stepping, without much dust.

And if I do a close of of the boot then I can do a a scene without using that whole section of the moon rock (doing a scene from zero so I won't have that many polygons).

I do have Turbulence FD but I don't have X-Particles. No Houdini also. I already have that boot in 3D (from the astronaut model I already have). If it's beyond the collision deformer then what other solution is there?

I will have to watch that video digitvisions  posted to see what's about...and I will be back if I have questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikoian said:

Can't I reduce the polygon count there?

Yes you can, but I worry that won't find a balance between geo that looks good close-up, and having enough detail remaining to show imprints at the sort of resolution you need for those, whilst not also killing the scene speed.

 

7 minutes ago, mikoian said:

And if I do a close of of the boot then I can do a a scene without using that whole section of the moon rock (doing a scene from zero so I won't have that many polygons).

That is a much better idea :) by doing this you can circumvent a lot of the problems above.

 

7 minutes ago, mikoian said:

If it's beyond the collision deformer then what other solution is there?

Modelling the footprint into the ground and using Pose Porph to make it appear ? Or via textures, with animated sub-poly displacement ?

 

If you have TFD then at least you have the dust sorted. However I don't have that, so am not the person to ask about setups there...

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

Yes you can, but I worry that won't find a balance between geo that looks good close-up, and having enough detail remaining to show imprints at the sort of resolution you need for those, whilst not also killing the scene speed.

 

That is a much better idea :) by doing this you can circumvent a lot of the problems above.

 

Modelling the footprint into the ground and using Pose Porph to make it appear ? Or via textures, with animated sub-poly displacement ?

 

If you have TFD then at least you have the dust sorted. However I don't have that, so am not the person to ask about setups there...

 

CBR

"Modelling the footprint into the ground and using Pose Porph to make it appear ? Or via textures, with animated sub-poly displacement ?"

Pose Morph maybe? I have to look into that, never used it.

Via textures? And how is animated sub-poly displacement done? I know you can deform a surface using displacement in the textures but animated?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikoian said:

Via textures? And how is animated sub-poly displacement done? I know you can deform a surface using displacement in the textures but animated?

No you wouldn't animate the texture, you'd animate the displacement depth in the material...

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick test file for you using the collision deformer, which looks like it can be persuaded to do this with very high res geo...

 

Here we have a really badly modelled boot I quickly threw together (shown upside down to show what the tread looks like), then an instance of that is set up to collide with a plane, which I have already displaced with Luka noise to approximate your moon surface close up. That looks like this.

 

2083477733_moonrockfootprintlow.thumb.jpg.6fd9da6b3570f771347f0c184cc822f6.jpg

 

If we want that to look properly detailed, we need to up the plane segments to something like 600 x 600, which grinds everything to a halt, but does get us close to the amount of detail we need. Note, I have used R20 fields to make the displacement not appear where the foot has fallen - in R19 you would need to do that with falloff, but actually you don't need ot do it at all because you don't need the displacer as you already have the deformed geo. I needed it here to test if it worked on an undulating surface.

 

751451715_moonrockfootprinthi.thumb.jpg.fe097f74bec0993cacd2ab0905b3a85e.jpg

 

Now we're getting a nice sharp indent, but with some edge artefacts. Because I did this on a plane, which is all quads, I could Sub-D this one level to fix that, but you can't because your moon rock is built of triangles and horrendous topology. Of course if you made a nicer, more accurate boot, and subdivided that a bit, you might get a nicer result.

 

So hopefully that helps you decide whether this idea is worth pursuing...

 

CBR

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

A quick test file for you using the collision deformer, which looks like it can be persuaded to do this with very high res geo...

 

Here we have a really badly modelled boot I quickly threw together (shown upside down to show what the tread looks like), then an instance of that is set up to collide with a plane, which I have already displaced with Luka noise to approximate your moon surface close up. That looks like this.

 

If we want that to look properly detailed, we need to up the plane segments to something like 600 x 600, which grinds everything to a halt, but does get us close to the amount of detail we need. Note, I have used R20 fields to make the displacement not appear where the foot has fallen - in R19 you would need to do that with falloff, but actually you don't need ot do it at all because you don't need the displacer as you already have the deformed geo. I needed it here to test if it worked on an undulating surface.

 

Now we're getting a nice sharp indent, but with some edge artefacts. Because I did this on a plane, which is all quads, I could Sub-D this one level to fix that, but you can't because your moon rock is built of triangles and horrendous topology. Of course if you made a nicer, more accurate boot, and subdivided that a bit, you might get a nicer result.

 

So hopefully that helps you decide whether this idea is worth pursuing...

 

CBR

 

 

 

 

Well, like I said, for a close up I would rebuild the scene from zero so I won't use the moon rock I already have. So I can use subdivision on the plane. This looks promising.

For larger scenes, panoramas, where I use the moon rock I have the imprints need not to be accurate. Just to be shown that there are imprints but need not to be detailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cerbera said:

A quick test file for you using the collision deformer, which looks like it can be persuaded to do this with very high res geo...

 

Here we have a really badly modelled boot I quickly threw together (shown upside down to show what the tread looks like), then an instance of that is set up to collide with a plane, which I have already displaced with Luka noise to approximate your moon surface close up. That looks like this.

 

2083477733_moonrockfootprintlow.thumb.jpg.6fd9da6b3570f771347f0c184cc822f6.jpg

 

 

So hopefully that helps you decide whether this idea is worth pursuing...

 

CBR

 

 

 

 

Could you send me this scene so I can look at it? Thank you :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Here's a version that will work without fields in R19...

 

MoonPrint R19.c4d

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cerbera said:

Sure. Here's a version that will work without fields in R19...

 

MoonPrint R19.c4d 1.73 MB · 2 downloads

 

CBR

I may have found a solution for footprints seen from distance (which don't need to be very detailed).

 

This is what I have done (see also the images below):

 

1) I selected an area (by setting the scene in the Edge mode), where I know the astronaut walks, from the initial moon rock plane (which has lots of triangles) and used Split (right-click on the selection then use Split). That would make a copy of that area with the same material/texture as the original. Thus I created an area which is identical with the original area - in size and textures) and I used that for the astronaut walking only.

 

2) Because on the original moon rock mesh I couldn't use Collision deformer (being high in polygons would slow down my computer to a crawl...also, the polygons were not dense enough to actually see the footprints produced by the Collision deformer) now I can use Mesh->Commands->Subdivide command for about 5 times ONLY on that area I split in #1, which is a much small area. So now I have much more polygons to work with using the Collision deformer.

 

3) I setup that small area to be as close to the ground as possible but not penetrate the ground, going under  the original area (otherwise the Collision deformer results cannot be seen). I added also a Spherify deformer to the small area so I can give that area just a bit of curvature. This helps me blend that small area and the original mesh better (the margins of the small area blend better when sinking into the original while around the center - where the model is - stays afloat, above the original).

 

4) Depends on what lights in the scene you have you can add that small area to be excepted as casting shadows (but not as receiving shadows). You do that by going to that specific light (or lights) you have in the project and look for Project properties (it's near the Lens property). There you drag and drop the small area in the Exclude, then uncheck the second icon, after the triangle icon - otherwise you will see the area as black, not receiving light).

 

5) If you use Ambient Occlusion in rendering of the whole scene you need to make sure AO doesn't see that small area. You do this by adding a Compositing tag to the small area and uncheck "Seen by AO". For good measure, you should also uncheck "Cast shadows" there.

 

6) Use the Collision deformer now on that small area only. It doesn't bog down the computer now and you don't use it where you don't need it.

 

See the result in the image below.

Image 1 shows how it looks rendered from above and in the distance.

Image 2 shows how it looks without having "Seen by AO" unchecked. You can see that small area rectangle which I split from the original.

Image 3 also shows how it looks rendered closer. Of course I still have to refine the Collision deformer result but at least I am working now only on that small area and not on the whole mesh.

Image 4 shows the original mesh with the selection (in orange) I chose to Split and the newly created mesh (in black).

Image 5 shows the dense small area mesh (in blue) after I used Subdivide for 5 times.

Image 6 shows how detailed is now that small area mesh after using Subdivide 5 times. The bigger triangles on the left side are from the original mesh (on which I am not using the Collision deformer)

 

Now I have to refine a bit the results of Collison deformer but seen from distance it looks pretty acceptable.

footprints.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

ABOUT US:

C4D Cafe is the largest CINEMA 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favorite software :) Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and much more. If you need to find solution to your problem or otherwise ask for help, Cafe is the right place.
×
×
  • Create New...