The most amazing bump mapping. ever.
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/The most amazing bump mapping. ever.
| ||
| http://www.paralelo.com.br/arquivos/pReliefMapping.zip Not mine, but oh my god.. As I rotate the quad it looks like a 3d scene is being rendered onto it, but it's not. You'll need a g5+ to view it, but it really does put basic normal mapping techniques to shame. |
| ||
 Not only does it make a flat surface look completely 3d, the bumps cast real time shadows on themselfs. |
| ||
Its nice, but with the frame-rate I'm gettin (it never stays put...) and the graphical problems viewing it at different angles, I'm not really sure what to say about it :  Notice the jaggies around the edges of the objects? (well, kinda hard thx to the jpg artifacts) |
| ||
| Sure, there's artifacts. But keep in mind, that one would not likely want to use such a method to render stuff with so much variation in depth, and one would be likely to use it to render natural surfaces which would not suffer at all really from such jaggies. You'd never notice jaggies on a rock wall for instance. And even a brick wall would still be rather noisy in terms of shape. These shapes here are very sharp. |
| ||
| but what's the point when it's so slow? |
| ||
| Wow. Amazing. A piece of wood with shapes in it. This whole bump mapping thing is pretty overrated. I think modulate2x blending has been a much bigger improvement to graphics than bump mapping has. |
| ||
| well, when it's faster than polygon shapes, then it definitively is useful. how do you think would doom 3 chars look without dot3 blending, that is some sort of bumpmapping too? It's just, when I read "FPS: 2", then well... |
| ||
| It runs at over 100fps at full screen on a high end card. Halo, post something better than I'll take your word for it. |
| ||
| On what card did you test it then? |
| ||
| hmmm, 100+ FPS on a high end system, it looks nice but from what your elling me its a single quad. If thats slow to render then its a waste of time but still cool. |
| ||
| Evak, it's mainly a pixel shader fx, so whether it's 1 quad or a hundred, if it fills the same amount of screen space there will be no difference in fps. (Because of the bump-mapping at least.) Well, unless it's got some heavy vertex shading going on as well, but a quad is 4 verts,so it's practically impossible in this case. Jfk, a g5. Doom3 runs at less than the 2fps on my set-up, so it's not exactly useful for guaging how fast an effect is. |
| ||
| Yeah, but it's a single quad representing how many polygons castin shadows? The sphere and the torus must be a lot. Anyway, it wouldn't run on my system (relief mapping) but it rendered at 985 fps ... ;) Anyway, I think bumpmaps have their place ... for now and will eventually be replaced with ultra high poly stuff, which will be replaced with some form of voxel system ... some sort of organic configuration for graphics. |
| ||
| That's the cool thing, it casts the shadows based off the reflief/normal map. So no extra polygonal data/looks are used. There's a few other textures in there, including a statue..as the light moves around I literally can not percieve the differance between this quad and a 100,000 poly or whatever it is, statue head, until the polygon is at a very sharp angle. When you switch back to normal mapping in the menu, it seems dull and lifeless in comparasion..tbh. |
| ||
| Relief mapping didn't work here either. The normal mapping looked quite nice though. |
| ||
| I'd prefer straight out high poly meshes (in the hundreds of thousands of polygons per limb) to bump mapping. The day I can do that and not have to worry about it slowing down at any point in time is the day I'll leap up in joy with my pants down. That said, I thought that this was called parallax mapping, but maybe that was another technique. |
| ||
| I'm not so worried about high poly, you ca doa hell of a lot with relatively few. If you have a budget of about 200,000 a frame, you can make almost anything if your carefull with optimizations. lighting is important and its good to see things moving in that direction. But for me the biggest thing missing froim something lie blitz is quick and eask masking between brushes and textures. Something you can only really do easily with simple 1.1 shaders. |
| ||
| I think this technique would really "shine" if you used an animated texture for the bump effect.. think x-files bulging-and-moving leeches under the skin ^^ w000t! |
| ||
| Doesn't work at all on my card (both render paths tested). Normal mapping and parallax does. |
| ||
| heh, probably going to be another year before the technique hits mainstream games. |
| ||
| Does work at all here either.... |
| ||
| Nice shader. Generous of them to give away :) Sadly, the relief mapping doesn't work though. Parallax mapping is pretty cool. |
| ||
| Very cool...everything works nice and fast on my 256MB Geforce 6800 GT :P Haven't tried full screen yet..but relief mapping rendered with a maximized window (1024 X 768), double depth/precision, perspective and shadows turned on and zooming way in on the quad (one mouse wheel click from zooming through it) results in roughly 20FPS on average (bounces around between 19 and 21)...I could post a screen shot of this if someone wants to host it... Otherwise on initial start up with everything on (basicly duplicate SpacedMans screen shot above) it's running at 59-60FPS...actualy I can't get it to run any faster...shadows and perspective correction off, just normal mapping resizeing the window down to where the onscreen text is bearly visable...can't get it to run over 60FPS (but for an occasional 61FPS reading) so it's hard to say just how fast this can be :P |
| ||
| Runs quite slowly on my system. |
| ||
| It doesn't seem to work at all (relief mapping) under ATI cards as far as i can see. Looks nice on the 6800 tho (although it gives me 250fps for one quad, which is sorta sad considering this is a Geforce 6800 UE i am running) Tracer |
| ||
| Yeah. Relief mapping doesn't work on ati cards :| Tracer - well, from what I've heard even if you had 5000 quads with this it wouldn't be much slower than the fps you posted since it would be narly the same amount of pixel draws. |
| ||
| It would run faster using polys then the shading its currently using, 30 fps on my system is pretty bad. |
   |