Offset mapping

[Nightz]

In the SC thread there discussing ways of faking normal mapping on the PS2. I was wondering is there any chance of offset mapping (Photonic Mapping, Parallax Mapping or Virtual Displacement Mapping) on current consoles. I understand this has all the benefits of displacement mapping without the extra geometry.

According to wikipedia some other sites offset mapping has no performance hit associated with bump and normal mapping.

 

[AlNom]

I understand this has all the benefits of displacement mapping without the extra geometry.

Actually, it looks flat when you view the plane straight on. The trick only works if you're at an angle. Displacement mapping won't have that problem.

 

[Simon F]

I understand this has all the benefits of displacement mapping without the extra geometry.

Actually, it looks flat when you view the plane straight on. The trick only works if you're at an angle. Displacement mapping won't have that problem.

A bit of bump mapping would fix that. The change in shading can work wonders.

 

[cthellis42]

Simon F console sighting!

<scampers off>

 

[Simon F]

Simon F console sighting!
<scampers off>

Oh dear. /me pictures cthellis as a squirrel.

FWIW I don't browse the console forum - I only do a "view posts since last visit" and look for interesting topics. <shrug>

 

[AlNom]

A bit of bump mapping would fix that. The change in shading can work wonders.

But aren't we trying to do this without bumpmapping (i.e. on the ps2)

 

[London Geezer]

I'm not sure where people got the idea that Parallax Mapping is possible on PS2, when even simple Bump Mapping is a bitch on the platform.
SC3 isn't using Parallax Mapping.

 

[Simon F]

A bit of bump mapping would fix that. The change in shading can work wonders.

But aren't we trying to do this without bumpmapping (i.e. on the ps2)

As LB said, it may be impossible to do on PS2 because you have to perform a first texture read whichis then used to displace a 2nd, dependent texture read.

I didn't realise you were asking if it were possible at all on the PS2....

Penny drops! Are confusing offset mapping with embossing?

 

[cthellis42]

Oh dear. /me pictures cthellis as a squirrel.

FWIW I don't browse the console forum - I only do a "view posts since last visit" and look for interesting topics. <shrug>

I know. I just browsed your habits of late, and it tends to include one short posting spree in here a month, so I wanted to make sure everyone noticed for January's.

 

[AlNom]

I didn't realise you were asking if it were possible at all on the PS2....

Well, I assumed that since the original poster was talking about faking normal mapping that he meant doing all of this without normal mapping. Even though he mentions offset mapping for all consoles, why would you try to fake normal mapping if you can do normal mapping? So this led me to conclude that he was asking about the PS2.

Penny drops! Are confusing offset mapping with embossing?

Now I'm confused... when did emboss mapping enter the picture?



But anyways... questions answered ...


end of discussion!

 

[Fox5]

I understand this has all the benefits of displacement mapping without the extra geometry.

Actually, it looks flat when you view the plane straight on. The trick only works if you're at an angle. Displacement mapping won't have that problem.

Most games I've seen bump mapping in only look good when viewed straight on, and look flat from an angle.

 

[Nightz]

As LB said, it may be impossible to do on PS2 because you have to perform a first texture read whichis then used to displace a 2nd, dependent texture read.

I didn't realise you were asking if it were possible at all on the PS2....

Penny drops! Are confusing offset mapping with embossing?

What about on the GC?
And is it true about offset mapping being even less processor intense than bump mapping?

 

[London Geezer]

As LB said, it may be impossible to do on PS2 because you have to perform a first texture read whichis then used to displace a 2nd, dependent texture read.

I didn't realise you were asking if it were possible at all on the PS2....

Penny drops! Are confusing offset mapping with embossing?

What about on the GC?
And is it true about offset mapping being even less processor intense than bump mapping?

Now THAT's new. I think if that was the case, more people would have heard the news. And many games would be full of nicely Parallax Mapped surfaces by now. My take is, unlikely.

 

[AlNom]

Maybe Humus can make a normalmapping and virtual displacement mapping demo

NM or VDM... NM or VDM.. on or off... on or off...

 

[Guden Oden]

What about on the GC?

Well, parallax mapping requires DX9-level pixel shading capabilities, so I don't think it could do it... Besides, it doesn't look at its best UNLESS it is combined with dot3 bumpmapping also, which would be a real fillrate-burner for the poor lil cube. Realistically it would be 4+ textures per poly - base map, lightmap, bump, parallax.

And is it true about offset mapping being even less processor intense than bump mapping?

Neither are processor-intense at all, they're pretty much 100% GPU-centric. Some setup needs to be done on the CPU first so the GPU knows what to draw of course (track the lightsource and viewing angles, generate display list etc), but other than that it's insignificant compared to the actual rendering. Parallax mapping should be (very slightly) more intensive than straight dot3 bumps btw as it requires an additional 2 pixel shading instructions under DX9.

 

[Farid]

I was wondering is there any chance of offset mapping (Photonic Mapping, Parallax Mapping or Virtual Displacement Mapping) on current consoles.

In order to have a proper (read good looking) Offset Mapping you need SM2.0 hardware, nevertheless you can do some sort of (read not impressive, nor good looking) Offset Mapping with GF3 class of hardware, therefore the Xbox could do it.

- base map, lightmap, bump, parallax.

AFAIK, you do not need a parallax map, a simple height map suffice.

 

[Simon F]

Penny drops! Are confusing offset mapping with embossing?

Now I'm confused... when did emboss mapping enter the picture?

It was just an educated guess. You wrote "Actually, it looks flat when you view the plane straight on" which is what you get with embossing and it also involves 'offsetting' a copy of the entire 'height' texture across a polygon. <shrug>

 

[Guden Oden]

AFAIK, you do not need a parallax map, a simple height map suffice.

A rose by any other name... Whatever you want to call it (I just took a name out of thin air, hehe) you still need a texture map to define it, which was my point.

 

[AlNom]

It was just an educated guess. You wrote "Actually, it looks flat when you view the plane straight on" which is what you get with embossing and it also involves 'offsetting' a copy of the entire 'height' texture across a polygon. <shrug>

Ah... oh.

Actually, I was thinking of one of those parallax demos where looking straight on made the brick wall look flat.