How to view raw terrain file in PS CS3 with layers

hi,

I am checking to learn how to make terrain files for sl.

And I want to check the terrain files in .raw format downloaded from secondlife.com

And I am using the photoshop CS3. and if I open the file it shows in flatterned single layer mesh file..

I hear I have to make the mesh file removed or invisible to be able to view the height files..of the terrain..

I think I must change the setting of photoshoop to be able to view the layers..having it unflattened..the layers that are showing to be flattened..


Does anyone know how I can do this?


Thanks in advance.


ps: if anyone can tell me good programs that I can try out to make terrain files and scuptie textures..it would be much appriciated also.

If the file was downloaded from your Sim to your computer properly, it should be a file with a filename ending in .raw (even on a Macintosh...). Photoshop CS3 should see that .raw filename, and should open it as a single *layer* but as 13 *channels*.

Open the Channels tab, and turn off all but the "Red" channel. The Heightmap data is on that channel. Copy that to a normal layer, edit it, and paste it back into that "Red" channel, just like you would do to paste in an alpha channel.

Ceera, I'm wondering why you'd bother copying the channel to a layer. Why not just edit the channel directly, right where it is?




WindFairie, I'm not sure what you mean by "mesh file". RAW terrain files are simply 13-channel images. They do control the height of the land mesh (and other things) for islands in SL, but they are not meshes in and of themselves. So what exactly do you mean?

In any case, it's perfectly normal for a RAW file to be flat, as the format does not support layers, and it's perfectly normal in ANY image for the what's visible on the layer(s) to be a composite of what's happening in the channels. So don't worry about layers at all. The RAW file has 13 channels in it, and that's where all the action is. Just go to the Channels palette, and work from there. Don't even touch the Layers palette.

Each channel is a map to control some aspect of your island. Channel 1 (called Red by default), for example, controls the height of the land, from 0 to 255 meters. Channel 3 (called Blue by default) controls the height of the water in the sim.

For a complete listing of what all the 13 channels do, see http://secondlife.com/app/help/islands/pi_rawfiles.php


Well, you have a good program for making terrain files. It's called Photoshop.

There's also a program called Bailiwick, which I've heard is good, but I've never used it.

As for sculpties, take your pick. There are dozens of progams you could use. If you're looking for professional grade, then Maya and 3D Studio Max are both excellent choices. I use Maya, myself. If you're don't happen to have $2000 to spend, though, you might want to try something else. Blender is a very good freebie, if you don't mind dealing with an interface from Hell. Wings3D is also free, and handles sculpties quite well, although it's got a few quirks. There are lots of others. Check out the sculpty wiki for a good list.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Sculpted_Prims:_3d_Software_Guide

Thanks chosen..it is in very detail, your explanation.

I appreciate it.


What I was wanting to know is..how to view the terrain file..in the format that I can edit..like when I was drawing it..

before getting it saved in raw. format



...

Also, If I view the terrain file downloaded from sl.com

it got only one layer in my PS.

I think maybe I got the setting to be able to view the multi layers disabled?

It's not that bad. You put a lot of people off of even trying it ( and probably wasting a lot of money) by your comments.
It's Windows itself that has that honor.

I'm not sure what you were doing before you saved it, so I can't quite answer that. However, to edit a channel,simply click on it in the Channels palette, just as you would click on a layer in the Layers palette, and then paint on the canvas. That's all you need to do.




The RAW format does not support layers. All RAW files are inherently layerless. Whenever you open one, it will always be flat.



I very much doubt you or I have that kind of power over anyone. If someone wants to try something, they will.

Personally, I think Blender has one of the worst interfaces in the history of interfaces. I absolutely hate it. There's nothing wrong with my expressing my opinion on the matter, and frankly it's disturbing to me that you would imply there is.

That said, Blender is a great program. It delivers an absolutely awesome amount of power for free, which is fantastic. I can't say enough about what a wonderful thing that is. As I said, if you can stomach the interface, which clearly you can, Kornscope, then it's superb. I can't, though, and neither can a lot of other people. Again, there's nothing wrong with saying so.

I don't think pointing this out puts anyone off. In fact, I'd submit that it if anything, it probably creates a healthy amount of curiosity. I was similarly forewarned about Blender's interface before I tried it the first time. The warning certainly didn't stop me. It simply made me wonder if I'd be able to find something in it that the people who warned me were missing. And I'm sure you probably heard the same things before you tried it, but it certainly didn't stop you either.

You ended up liking the program enough that the interface was fine for you, while I ended up hating the interface enough that nothing else mattered enough to me to overcome it. Both answers are equally valid. I'm glad you like it, really. I wish anyone else who wants to try it the best of luck with it. If you can make it work for you, fantastic.

Just don't expect me to censor myself on the subject. I certainly wouldn't want you to do that. Healthy disagreement is very important in life.


As for the subject of "wasting money", all I can say is I'm aware that open source enthusiasts tend to consider any amount of money spent on software to be a waste when free alternatives are available. I strongly disagree with that.

Investing money into anything is never a waste if you get enjoyment out of it. People spend tons of money on much less useful things than software, and don't think of it as wasteful. My kitchen knives and cookware, for example, probably cost more than your car. So did my guitar rig, for that matter. But I like to cook, and I like to play music, so to me, those things are well worth it. Someone who doesn't like to cook, or who doesn't play, or who just simply doesn't care about quality might call it a waste, but I certainly don't.

And no amount of money can ever be a waste if it makes you more employable. I hate to keep rehashing the "importance of industry standards" argument that inevitably comes up every time one of these discussions starts, but the fact is knowledge of the tools most commonly used in any industry will help you get a job in that industry, if you happen to want one.

People spend tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars for a college education for precisely the same reason. A college education makes you more employable. Someone without a college education who happened to do well for himself anyway might tell the graduate that he wasted his money, but I think most people would agree college is worth it.

By the same token, solid experience with the leading tools in the graphics industry is worthwhile. It's never a waste to invest in yourself or in your tools. No offense, but to claim otherwise can make you sound pretty ignorant.



Do you think this comment will "put anyone off" of using Windows? I think you probably know that that's not realistic. You have no more power to stop anyone from using Windows than I do to stop them from using Blender (not that I'd even want to do that in the first place).

I think most people would agree that Windows itself as an interface is pretty good. It certainly has its flaws in other areas, but as far as actual human interaction with it goes goes, it's fine.

Vista blows chunks, no argument there, but even MS is starting to figure out they dropped the ball on that one. But even in Vista, it's not the interface that's the problem. It's the way the system itself does things. The actual human interaction with it is pretty much the same as what it's been with Windows practically forever.

I can say the same about the Mac OS as well. There are certain things I like about it, and certain things I don't. But the actual interaction between the human user and the on-screen interface is no better or worse than Windows. It just requires a few alternate habits is all.

I've never used Linux, so I can't comment on it, but I'd imagine the same is true there too.

So I'm not sure what you're getting at here.