Any visual evidence of PS2 normal mapping?

[ihamoitc2005]

Gun

Trinity's jacket might have some normalmapping.

Also look closely at gun details.

 

[Vince]

That's an unlikely example IMHO; as is Trinity's coat.

What is the purpose of making this comment?

I'm guessing it's for about the same reason he still has my out of context quote in his sig... sad really.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Trolling?

I'm guessing it's for about the same reason he still has my out of context quote in his sig... sad really.

So could his statement be considered an example of "trolling"?

 

[London Geezer]

ihamoitc, do you even know what normal mapping is? Just because something "looks bumpy" in a screenshot, it doesn't mean it's normal mapping, or even bump mapping. Good textures can look bumpy on screenshots. That's why it's bloody useless to judge graphics from screenshots. I will NEVER repeat this enough.

Path of Neo has NO evidence of normal mapping. Trinity's coat is not normal mapped, that's a specular map (if even that, but i guess it's one of those "shiny surfaces" on PS2 which are done with simple speculars), and the detail on the gun needs to be seen in motion to see if it's normal mapped. Those are all very normal textures, until i see it in motion, which i won't because i will NEVER buy this game. The game looks bloody terrible and seen their previous effort, i'm staying well clear. So much for "we did normal mapping on PS2!!" comments from developers.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Unfortunate

ihamoitc, do you even know what normal mapping is? Just because something "looks bumpy" in a screenshot, it doesn't mean it's normal mapping, or even bump mapping. Good textures can look bumpy on screenshots. That's why it's bloody useless to judge graphics from screenshots. I will NEVER repeat this enough.

Much better than getting angry about screenshot is for you to look at video instead of screenshot no? Video viewing is free on IGN, GameSpot, and other similar sites.

Path of Neo has NO evidence of normal mapping. Trinity's coat is not normal mapped, that's a specular map (if even that, but i guess it's one of those "shiny surfaces" on PS2 which are done with simple speculars), and the detail on the gun needs to be seen in motion to see if it's normal mapped. Those are all very normal textures, until i see it in motion, which i won't because i will NEVER buy this game. The game looks bloody terrible and seen their previous effort, i'm staying well clear. So much for "we did normal mapping on PS2!!" comments from developers.

Surfaces with variable shinyness AND appearance of variable curvature are either very high geometry detail or good simulated geometry and cannot be depicted by merely texture or specular map in 3D variable viewing-angle situation.

 

[London Geezer]

Surfaces with variable shinyness AND appearance of variable curvature are either very high geometry detail or good simulated geometry and cannot be depicted by merely texture or specular map in 3D variable viewing-angle situation.

Wanna bet?

Primal, the main character's red top. Same technique. Changes colour/lighting depending on angle. Specular, no normal maps.
GT3/4, the asphalt, same thing, specular, no normal.
Jak1/2/3, same thing, specular, no normal.
And many other PS2 games which have "surcaces that look bump mapped" to you and others. Some might have emboss bump mapping, i think DOA2 did, but even then it could be another specular map.

 

[London Geezer]

HUGE DISCLAIMER:

I am in no way commenting on PS2's capabilities, PS2's games looks or anything. If Specular Maps get the job done (and mostly they do!), it's FINE! The games with those surfaces look quite pretty on PS2, even if they're not "real" bump maps or normal maps or displacement bloody maps!
If something gets the job done, i don't care what it's called.
I'm just nitpicking and the above examples are just a way of me telling you that they just *aren't* Normal Maps. They're speculars. That's it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

without having played or seen chapions under any other circumstances but from the posted shots, one immediately can note two things:

1) the shots exibit not only bumpiness but also the higher bumps cast shadows - that's more than what regular bumpmapping can deliver, it takes at least parallax or more complex techniques.

2) the bumped surfaces are fairly static in terms of spatial orientation - a stone world gate and a stone altar (?) and unless the (outdoor) light source moves they'd hardly need any dynamic illumination techniques (aside from receiving casted shadows) as they are very unlikely to change their interaction with the light source. unless the game uses some unified lighting model, that is ; )

We had this discussion months back, but I can't keep away...! CON's bumps are as goos as anything I've ever seen. If you look at modern dungeon games with their normal mapped stone walls and the way light interacts as though it's a 3D surface, that's exactly what CON has. Check out the dark caves when you shoot a fireball down and the light creeps over the surface.

I think it's worth noting that this effect is only on some surfaces though. If an intensive rendering process it'd make sense that it's confined to simpler scenery. It's also worth noting that CON has every other effect including full screen AA, so why not normal mapping as well? Though in the previous discussion LondonBoy suggested it was just lots of geometry, and the developers have never confrimed what technique they used. However, their engine is available for licensing so all we need is someone to try it out and report back to us...

 

[London Geezer]

Though in the previous discussion LondonBoy suggested it was just lots of geometry, and the developers have never confrimed what technique they used. However, their engine is available for licensing so all we need is someone to try it out and report back to us...

Well i've never played CON, i think i said that BG: DA (which uses the same engine more or less) uses real geometry to get the bumpy look. Geometry and speculars. Like some floors in TekkenTag, which everyone was hailing as the "proof" of bump mapping on PS2, when it really was lotsa geometry and speculars. Looked good and bumpy, so i'm not complaining!

 

[ihamoitc2005]

No bumps.

Wanna bet?

Primal, the main character's red top. Same technique. Changes colour/lighting depending on angle. Specular, no normal maps.
GT3/4, the asphalt, same thing, specular, no normal.
Jak1/2/3, same thing, specular, no normal.
And many other PS2 games which have "surcaces that look bump mapped" to you and others. Some might have emboss bump mapping, i think DOA2 did, but even then it could be another specular map.

But primal top and GT3/4 roads are depicting texture of simple geometry surface not providing illusion of additional geometrical shapes. Texture vs shapes = big difference.

Jak3 has bump-mapping according to developer. Even Ratchet and Clank 3 looks like it has low resolution bump-map to simulate crater surface although usually surface detail is modeled with much geometry in that game as in Jak3. Although lighting model not as sophisticated as Jak3, very strong geometry performance in both games.

 

[London Geezer]

But primal top and GT3/4 roads are depicting texture of simple geometry surface not providing illusion of additional geometrical shapes. Texture vs shapes = big difference.

And what is Trinity's coat trying to achieve? It's the same effect. Besides, what the hell does the bold part really mean? You're trying to say that Primal specular is to "achieve simple geometry detail" and Trinity's coat is to "achieve additional geometrical shapes"...? They mean the same thing to me, and the effect is the same.

Jak3 has bump-mapping according to developer. Even Ratchet and Clank 3 looks like it has low resolution bump-map to simulate crater surface although usually surface detail is modeled with much geometry in that game as in Jak3. Although lighting model not as sophisticated as Jak3, very strong geometry performance in both games

Naughty Dog said the Jak engine "supported" bump mapping, but personally i haven't played much of Jak3 to tell. From experience it's the same effects they used in Jak2, which uses the same engine as Jak3. Could be bump map but i'd have to see it in motion.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Is there proof some of the bumpy floors in Tekken Tag were geometry?
One that I can't help but doubt is the metal floor that looked like this:

really made of polygons?
It didin't look jaggy at all, I think if it were polygons it would have had shimmering and jaggies all over, but it looked very clean. Or maybe time has goldened my memories....

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Texture vs Shape

And what is Trinity's coat trying to achieve? It's the same effect. Besides, what the hell does the bold part really mean? You're trying to say that Primal specular is to "achieve simple geometry detail" and Trinity's coat is to "achieve additional geometrical shapes"...? They mean the same thing to me, and the effect is the same.

Texture simulation is like simulation of wool or leather giving existing geometry certain surface quality and do not give appearance of additional vertices, only surface quality but shape simulation is like noticable ridges, bumps, other protrusions that appear to deform geometry or provide appearance of vertices when they do not. Big difference.

 

[London Geezer]

Is there proof some of the bumpy floors in Tekken Tag were geometry?
One that I can't help but doubt is the metal floor that looked like this:

really made of polygons?
It didin't look jaggy at all, I think if it were polygons it would have had shimmering and jaggies all over, but it looked very clean. Or maybe time has goldened my memories....

I did say "some floors". Like the Temple stage (rock floor) and the Aztec stage (another rocky floor). That one was using speculars, or MAYBE emboss. And geometry for some bits (not the "bits" you're showing though).



Besides PAL TTT didn't look jaggy because it had AA.

 

[London Geezer]

Texture simulation is like simulation of wool or leather giving existing geometry certain surface quality and do not give appearance of additional vertices, only surface quality but shape simulation is like noticable ridges, bumps, other protrusions that appear to deform geometry or provide appearance of vertices when they do not. Big difference.

Look no one is obviously ever going to convince you of anything, so keep on thinking what you want, and i'll keep thinking what the DEVS on this forum have said. End of the discussion.

 

[rabidrabbit]

I did say "some floors". Like the Temple stage (rock floor) and the Aztec stage (another rocky floor). That one was using speculars, or MAYBE emboss. And geometry for some bits (not the "bits" you're showing though).



Besides PAL TTT didn't look jaggy because it had AA.

Ok. That metal floor did look bumpy, so I would think it wasn't just speculars.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Stay cool

Look no one is obviously ever going to convince you of anything, so keep on thinking what you want, and i'll keep thinking what the DEVS on this forum have said. End of the discussion.

I was trying to explain to you the difference between simulating textures and simulating geometrical shapes since you yourself said that you had trouble understanding the difference. Let's keep things cool and discuss normally as long as we post no?

 

[London Geezer]

I was trying to explain to you the difference between simulating textures and simulating geometrical shapes since you yourself said that you had trouble understanding the difference. Let's keep things cool and discuss normally as long as we post no?

I know what the difference is, you just had to explain what you meant because from your posts, it's never clear.

All i'm saying (and all you keep denying for some strange reason) is that Primal was using specular maps on the girl's top to achieve a leather look, not to achieve your so called "simulated texturing" (which can very well be done with normal hi-res textures or detail textures). It's the same Leather look all games on PS2 have, and it's done with specular maps, not normal maps.
It works just fine, but it's just not normal maps. End of story.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Difference

I know what the difference is, you just had to explain what you meant because from your posts, it's never clear.

All i'm saying (and all you keep denying for some strange reason) is that Primal was using specular maps on the girl's top to achieve a leather look, not to achieve your so called "simulated texturing" (which can very well be done with normal hi-res textures or detail textures). It's the same Leather look all games on PS2 have, and it's done with specular maps, not normal maps.
It works just fine, but it's just not normal maps. End of story.

I think you misunderstand what I wrote although I felt I was quite precise but perhaps not. I said primal and GT3/4 roads are merely simulating textures, not geometry, which means they are not reliant on normal maps. That is why I explained difference between texture simulation and geometry simulation.

Also, I am not sure what leather look you refer to in other PS2 games. To be honest I cannot remember too many games with convincing appearance of leather as attained in Primal. I am happy to look if you have suggestion of such a game.

 

[London Geezer]

I said primal and GT3/4 roads are merely simulating textures, not geometry, which means they are not reliant on normal maps

And i said that's wrong. I understood, i just didn't agree.

Also, I am not sure what leather look you refer to in other PS2 games.

That's the Primal thing i was talking about. You obviously don't know what i'm talking about that's why you keep arguing.

To be honest I cannot remember too many games with convincing appearance of leather as attained in Primal.

That's what i'm saying! The coat on Trinity (T H E B L A C K S H I N Y O N E) is leather. Black leather. The top on Primal's girl is leather. Red leather. The BOTH are trying to achieve the same effect (whether you call this "simulating textures" - which makes no sense cause you don't "simulate" textures - or "simulate geometry" it doesn't matter). They BOTH use specular maps, NOT normal maps.

Can i make that any clearer?



The GT3/4 example was just that, an example. It's specular maps and it's used to simulate the little bumps on the tarmac.