Materials still not rendering properly with Raytraced

Similar to the following posts, my Raytraced render of plants is white and low-poly.

Had I known about this limitation, well, it would have been a deal-breaker for me.

I was wondering, is there an update to this or a workaround if this is still a limitation?

@albert @nathanletwory @Holo

We fixed the Raytraced issue in version 5.8. It is going to get released this week.

Hi Edward,
I hope the update fixes this for you. I test Lands every now and then and report some bugs, but I don’t rely on Lands for production. It looks promising and I hope they fix the big issues soon. Meanwhile I think it is important that the users know it’s limitations and these are the most important ones for me:

Height curves are a mess, as default they are at 10x per terrain object, which nobody has ever used in the history of documenting terrains, because height curves are there to document heights, not just visualize the terrain. And if you set a fixed distance between the curves then it starts calculating from the base of the terrain, not from worldZ = 0 so two terrains that lie next to each other won’t get corresponding height curves, so this is wrong on many levels.

IFC export exports the terrains with the base, and if you try to export selected objects then it also includes the bases of all other terrains, even if they are not selected.

IFC import doesn’t support version 4, and it doesn’t tell you that this is the reason it thinks the document is empty.

Holes doesn’t work, you can not get a proper hole, only dug out areas.

If you choose a smooth terrain, which is needed if you want to use the roads tool etc, then the terrain isn’t true to the input curves any more, as it is smoothed out. So be aware of that if you need your terrain to be accurate.

All of these things are reported and will hopefully be fixed one day.

The plants can be a great asset, but many of the trees have wrong low res representations. Like birch has a tree with red fruit (apples?) on it, etc.

So test it out thoroughly and use the tools that gives you good results and report the ones that doesn’t. It’s the only way the developers will get insight in how we expect it to work.

PS! I am not part of the development, but I have reseller status in Norway, and I tell my customers about known limitations so they don’t get frustrated when on a deadline.

What Birch species are you talking about? Do you refer to the lowpoly version of the realistic display or to the detailed display? A screenshot would be helpful!

@elham Thank you for responding. I look forward to updating this week.

@Holo Thank you for the lengthy response. It was an interesting read.

I did find a workaround for my situation: explode all vegetation.

My file went from 120 MB to 780 MB.

It has a lot of promise, especially with such a nice database of vegetation

I hope they can iron out some of the issues.

@elham I was just wondering if the v.5.8 was still going to be released this week.

I would appreciate any update.

Thank you!

Hi Edward -


@wim Thanks for the notice. I look forward to using it.

1 Like