[REQ] Support normal maps in Indigo.

zsouthboy · Post by **zsouthboy** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:37 am

Please?

Displacement maps would be even better, but I'm finally coming to terms with the restrictions of simple bump mapping.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:55 am

yes, that really would be great.
It also would open the full powers of
MaPZone

Btw: I never thought about that...
Does a displacementmap require Normalmapping or Normalmapping?
You definately need a texture...

Or can you use both for it? (which would be the best, as then, you'd e able to use any map, without the anoyance of trying to convert them somehow... If that's possible at all)

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:00 am

Real displacement is the shift of vertices along the original normal of the surface, subdivision is a separate process. So I guess you need a heightmap (usual gray bump).

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:10 am

yes, but then, it would have the same problems as bumpmaps have, wouldn't it?

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:15 am

like any displacement mapping. That's cool.

drBouvierLeduc · Post by **drBouvierLeduc** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:40 am

noob question : are normal mapping and microdisplacement the same things ?

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Thu May 31, 2007 8:47 am

noob answer: no!

normalmapping rotates normals, to fake deeper parts and higher parts. Like bumpmapping, but somehow more complex, dunno the detail.
You need a coloured map for normal mapping...

micropolygondisplacement creates a mesh-grid around your shape, that's so hipoly, that one pixel on your map is at LEAST one polygon, usually even more.

drBouvierLeduc · Post by **drBouvierLeduc** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:32 am

thanks for the clear answer.
So I request microdisplacement !

Zom-B · Post by **Zom-B** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:08 pm

I don't thin that normal mapping is interesting for the most Indigo users!!

In a non animated content you (nearly) don't see the difference between bump mapping & normal mapping

much more interesting would be such stuff

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:08 am

or steep paralax mapping or...

I think, as the only "nonfake" method is displacing, why not using the "ace" of the displacement mapping for a physically correct renderer?
(Which at the moment is micropolygondisplacementmapping, as far as I know... [what a word])

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:26 am

Yes displacement is the best ! I think the main difference between standard displacement and micro poly is the way it's managed in ram, standard holds the whole displaced mesh in memory while micro poly surfaces are divided when and where needed.

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:30 am

I thought more this way:

Standard Displacement mapping is using the normal mesh, as needed, as you said, but micropolygon does a hipoly grid at minimaly the resolution of the texture, normally even higher and replaces the original mesh by the deformed gridmesh...

But subdividing may also be possible...

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:05 am

I'm thinking now that micropoly can be a way to natively use NURBS or SubD's in a renderer, I like the idea.