Xfrog 4.2 for C4D

[nisus]

Hi all,

 

Anyone tried this???

http://www.xfrogdownloads.com/greenwebNew/products/productStart.htm

 

check out the amazing 'pruning tool'

http://www.xfrogdownloads.com/greenwebNew/news/xfrog42_press_release/pruningc.avi

 

rgds

 

nisus

[mbr]

Cool stuff. I wish they'd focus on the polycount and not features, though. Their models are great, but they are just too cumbersome to use effectively in everyday situations.

 

I've used XTune, but it barely works. To get the polys to anything reasonable, it just kills the look completely.

 

Even when lower the GI on the trees to next to nothign, it still doubles the rendering time for just a few trees.

 

Their flowers, though, are superb and worth the polycount.

[nisus]

Hi MBR,

 

I've used XTune, but it barely works. To get the polys to anything reasonable, it just kills the look completely.

 

I don't agree. I've tried the Xfrogtune and it looks great, without killing the detail. There is even a technique to keep trunk curvature and kill high level branches... Chech out the tutorial (pdf) or the videotut:

http://www.xfrogdownloads.com/Walli/tutorials/tune/tune.html

 

rgds

 

nisus

[mbr]

Yeah, I actually got them to write that up (I think that's the same one) because we couldn't figure out a good way to do it. It's fine if you want to go from 120k to 60k, but if you want a 20k tree, forget it - at least in our experience.

 

Have you had success getting them that low?

 

Also, one thing that is nice about many of their models is the numerous bitmaps used for various parts. Once you use XTune you kill all the mapping (this obj export/import seems pretty archaic these days). Have you had problems with the mapping (sometimes it looks ok with just bark and one leaf, but considering they give you a ton of maps, it'd be nice to use them!)?

 

 

I've yet to try Natfx, have you tried their products? They are just too expensive and without good reference to what they can do, it's hard to think about switching. The new Speed Tree looks pretty interesting, too.

 

I've also thought about making RPCs out of rendered XFrog models. Seems a quick way to get decent results with a large variety of species.

[nisus]

Hi MBR,

 

We have only bought the libraries (today).

I am still testing the LOD in max. Xfrogtune demo doesn't save different LOD, so testing in max is impossible for now. I'm waiting for different LODs models (asked them a few hours ago). I hope to have them by the end of the week.

 

I'll keep you informed about LOW LOW resolutions. I don't know about killing mapping problems yet, because I was not able to export for now...

 

 

I've tried EasyNat, but honestly I think it's more shouting out loud than really useful. Hybrid construction takes ages (can be a bit faster using the pool, but I don't want to pre-construct many files... takes all the advantages of 'seeds' away!) rendering) and for what I do I simply can't get enough detail into them... Basicly, it's back to 3d-models (bionatics is less nicer than Xfrog) and it crashes max after about 6 large trees, whereas I can easily render +30 FULL Xfrog scenes in a scene ,-)) Colors are also off imho...

 

From my tests with Xfrog vs EasyNat, I find that the way the bush/tree is connected with the ground is MUCH better done in Xfrog... but this is just IMHO.

 

rgds

 

nisus

[mbr]

Hey Nisus,

 

Glad to hear that about Natfx, I was never sure and a little skeptical at how tiny the pics are on their site.

 

I've not used XFrog, just the models with XTune. LOD was not developed (although it shows up in XTune as an option) when I used it last. Looks promising, though, if it works.

 

The problem with the mapping is that you have to export as OBJ, not 3ds or max files. You also have to install a free obj to max importer. Once in Max, it's a generically colored and mapped object. Then you have to map the leaves and the branches (they come in as two meshes). That's why you can't map each piece (unless you spent a good day or two detaching pieces of the mesh). Honestly, we felt the product looked like a beta version and years old. You also have to do some funky things (at least for me) to get the materials to look decent (in general, you need to self illuminate them to be bright enough).

 

I can't wait to see your results. The models are superbly made and I'd love to see it all come together. It's reasonably priced, too.

 

Post some samples when you get a chance. Maybe it's time to revisit the idea of a foliage forum. It's an ongoing debate and there are many interesting products out there (Onyx looks good, too, and offers things like bamboo that would be very handy).

 

Cheers