• This Website Is Not For Sale
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Discuss the 2017 Formula One Australian Grand Prix here.

Tree Generation Freeware

Discussion in 'Racer' started by QuadCoreMax, Apr 26, 2011.

  1. Hey everyone,

    While doing some research, I found this site which generates on fly 'parametrized' trees for using in our tracks :


    Hope it'll be somehow useful for your track creations :)
  2. QCM,
    Itried the link but as I don't have firefox i couldn't use it, don't like firefox. It only generats an image of a tree to be used, I expect, as a texture.

    Here is a Tree generator for Blender, makes real trees. It's for version 2.5x but might work on 2.4x.

    Attached Files:

  3. Tried it, but the results weren't too convincing. I'd still prefer real images of trees to be used as textures.
  4. Or really good CG textures are better still... but unfortunately to make them look really good does take a GREAT deal of work. Think two weeks for two breeds that I'm still not happy with, and that doesn't include maturity variety (ie, trees phyllotaxy changes a great deal from youth, to maturity, to old age, due to coppicing, branch loss, genetics etc etc)

  5. Yeah Some1, I tend to generate 'scripted' 3D trees from my 3D app, nothing to do with the old method of creating flat trees...
  6. I've been playing TDU2 a bit recently, and the trees 'look' good. They are fast, their LOD'ing is seamless, they work as trees, you can drive around them, under them... mmmmmmm, looks good. But in isolation, I can sit and look at a tree, and have NO idea what breed of tree it is meant to be. Does that mean it's a fail as a good tree?

    I'm not sure what really matters, but I do question how important these uber 3D trees are these days, when even GT5 uses X trees with a few extra planes in for extra 'depth'... and it looks stunning in most cases, AND you can really start to see tree breeds matching up when driving around looking at real videos vs game footage.

    Just two different approaches to trees still it seems.

    If only any given SpeedTree tree, looked like a specific breed. And if only SpeedTree was cheap haha!

  7. I think what type of tree you should use kinda depends on how that tree will be used.. imo anyway.

    Even though I do not know what type of tree this is here in TDU2 the trunk still looks detailed and the rest is not terrible either:

    These GT5 trees just look bad, though I suppose you are not going to be noticing while racing since in GT5 you never stop..
    This one looks a bit better but it still looks bleh(though less bleh than trees used in racer atm)
    Bad angle?

    Honestly, I have no idea what any of these trees are in either games except the palms in the TDU2 shot. Though, I am surrounded by pine, larch, spruce, cedar, etc and do not spend much time around, nor much time identing leafy ones.
  8. The GT5 trees suffer from bad viewing angles, and also not breaking up the edges enough... an X-tree is more obvious when you can track the spine or the X itself, which is what you get in 1st and 3rd pics. I'd say making the tree into several smaller clumps helps quite a bit (though you couldn't texture straight from photographs then, you'd need to make a foliage-only texture) and is how TDU2 looks nice. Upping each tree from 2 quads to 8-10 isn't a huge strain on modern GPUs, I hope, until they're a little farther from the track anyway.

    In the second GT5 screenshot I would say they're good enough. though definitely a little flat. That's probably down to the texture being kinda bland, and sky-through-transparent-texture is never gonna look great with low res textures, since you can see the interpolation method and some of the leaves around the edges float unattached.
  9. Collidable trees should always be 'real trees' for good simulation reproduction & X trees should always be used in areas where your car won't drive or for far scenery details.
  10. Yeah, if you can hit it, then 3d is handy :D

    I'd say the TDU shot looks the most fake, and the composition generally looks worst with regards to different thinks looking 'real' in different ways.

    The GT5 shots all feel 'of a piece'... so although in isolation the trees don't look great from a graphical excellence point of view, they 'blend' with the environment really faithfully and don't stand out with their surroundings so much.

    I guess it's hard to compare, but watch some real life vs game footage of GT5 circuits, and the trees look really good. You could probably use certain trees as cues for braking points etc. However, SpeedTree types are not used in racing type games so much. They are great for random tree populations, but not so nice for specifics I suppose?!

    Making 3D trees en-mass with lots of variation is best left to things like SpeedTree for now I guess. I'd hate to be generating them all manually with LOD's and normal map types etc, with lots of random variation, for a Racer track/road... the only ones I have ever seen done like that are too similar (due to constraints making lots of varieties), to look nice up-close... and often fail to have good LOD to work for a massive amount of trees that you drive past, and also then fail to blend nicely with 'cheap' X-type trees further away.

    Tis a tough one for now. I'm lost on what is the ideal solution. SpeedTree is nice because it's all automatic, but to copy that manually in Racer is near impossible, hence everyone who does that kind of thing is using SpeedTree, or if they don't, they use X-types or similar... hmmmm...

    All this said, I'm fairly happy right now with x-trees, and good textures, with the new shader Ruud gave us for trees. The ones hanging near the road probably need a few more polygons to break their shapes up a bit, but that is only really to please photomoders' requirements I guess :D