Reply With QuoteAs long as I can tell the "mountains on the midle" is still there. I also want a updated manual and to know where is the new Terraformer...
Can anyone comment on whether or not FT3 solves:
(a) The sine-wave shaped "ribbon" that went around the planet in FTPro and looked like it'd been scratched with a cheese grater.
(b) The mountains-always-in-the-exact-middle-of-continents issue.
(b) The interior-lakes-are-always-at-sea-level issue
Trying to decide whether or not to upgrade, and these are my main gripes with FTPro. Cheers!
As long as I can tell the "mountains on the midle" is still there. I also want a updated manual and to know where is the new Terraformer...
Terraformer has to be downloaded separately.....if you do a search in the CG you will find a link to it.
Ah....here is the thread
@chimpster: as far as I can tell all those issues are still there.
Last edited by ravells; 10-11-2011 at 05:42 PM.
So there is no new version of these material? I simple use the files from Fractal Terrains Pro: Terrain Data and Terraformer Package v0.50? So basically FT3 is FTPro with better compatbility with CC3? ... I spected more...Originally Posted by ravells
As far as I know, terraformer has not been updated since version 0.50. Also terraformer is free, so one can't really complain too much
As guy said, the cost of upgrading is not much - about US$10 so I guess you need to look at the updates and decide whether it is worth it for you.
I did have my first crash in trying to save a 30000x16xxx png file outright.
I didn't try anything smaller, so I'll try to figure out the limits over the next few days.
I've also gotta try the multi-file output and see if you get inconsistencies at edges (one pixel of rivers missing etc).
EDIT:
1. First test of multi-file output - still no png option, and must hold down ctrl-shift (or just one of them?) to get the bmp option to appear.
2. Multi-file - I tried a 4x2 output (7500 res) and it flaked out (aborted the save, but didn't crash)
3. Multi-file - I tried a 4x2 output (6000 res) and it appeared to be working, but as I don' use this (I prefer a final 30000 pix res) I stopped it after checking the first 6000x____ output of the whole map
4. Multi-file - I tried a 6x3 output (5000 res) and the whole image (5000x____) was fine. The separate images, however, show rivers ending 1-2 pixels from the edge, which means, when pasted back together, I'll have to manually fix the missing 2-4 pixels for every river that crosses the border of one of the 18 images that make up the entire thing. GRRR.
___
5. The maximum filesize limitation is still in place for saved files (2.x GB files) which seems to be calculated before any compression for png/jpg files, at least. I wish they'd add .psb so that we could save files at full resolution or by avoiding the multi-file cut&paste approach. It would save a lot of time and stress. Stitiching together 18 pics is one thing, doing it for the 3-4 layers I use (land, water, texture, climate combos, river layer) is tedious and frustrating.
6. the maximum file size (in round numbers) that it seems to let me save is 8000x4401 or so.
Last edited by guyanonymous; 10-11-2011 at 09:20 PM.
I am having little problems exporting files biger than +- 5000 x 5000 in the spin-view.
It's still a 32bit program, and limits itself to, well, not much memory as well as file saving. It's frustrating and means they still haven't updated things to deal with some of the bigger (pun intended) complaints I, at least, had about the old version. Let me use all my RAM to work with files, and let me save them in one step at resolutions that roughly reflect what it currently can deal with. (for me that's 30000x16000 or so).
EDIT: OK, I'm now seeing the good old crashes from the last version. While I'm not seeing them in saving files (it stops the save with an error message with some info this time), I've had it crash when raising terrain amongst other tools use. Right now I'm thinking that I paid $10 for better rivers (which to me is a bug fix) and an improved interface. Beyond that, I've not yet encountered any real benefits to upgrading.
Last edited by guyanonymous; 10-11-2011 at 09:36 PM.
30000x16000 images require 480Msamples. At a minimum 8 bytes per sample (4 bytes for terrain and 4 bytes for color), that's 3.84GB before allowing room for the program or for the operating system. That's just for holding the output data. The working data takes much more than that for handling the editing data (4 bytes per sample for each of offset, scale, climate, water, ). 32-bit Windows programs get 2GB to work with per process (3 GB if you do ultra-special things behind the scenes to windows and the programs). Assuming that the full 2 GB of process space is available (which it really isn't), then that would give you a maximum output size on the order of 10000x5000 or so. FT isn't hugely efficient, so you'll probably get a little less than that.
Implementing a good virtual memory system was a bit outside the scope of the planned FT development. FT originally made some assumptions about maximum data sizes and further assumed that everything would fit into memory (yes, I was sloppy). Rewriting the system to work with a paged system would be a bit non-trivial because it would require rewrites of huge chunks of the system, with the attendant new bugs and likely breaking changes in some areas. Add in the performance wall when you run out of physical memory and it was just a bit risky for FT3 in my opinion.
I cant find where I modify the streght and widt of the tools... I cant find it neither on the interface nor the manual .
Posting Permissions
