Pic comparison: textures and ps2.0 (beware 56k)
- Thread starter mito
- Start date
christoph said:
Not unless they're procedural.
Speaking of, any of the resident experts think procedural texturing will one day completely replace traditional texturing?
mito said:
Are you mad or what ? they just look flat and they are just retouched photographs (probably what you mean by "real")..
Doesn't mean the game doesn't look great (it does without any big technicalities) just that you are seeing things a bit differently than what they are.
John Reynolds said:
I'm by no means an expert; but no way in hell! There is just too many places where the quality of an semi-photographic or handcrafted texture will be superior to a procedural semi-random texture.
I remember fooling around in 3ds max and thinking: Procedural Textures: cool, nice and easy... But in a lot of cases it is just not good enough if you moving towards photo semi-realistic quality IMHO. But don't really know how good they can be made today, but I don't like the idea much.
Johnny Watson
Newcomer
mito:
Those two images aren't even of the same scene (where did the light go in the second one?) What is it that they are comparing there? Textures are arrays of memory that represent images (kinda like a bitmap) which are "pasted" onto geometry (simplest terms). ps2.0 is version 2.0 of Direct3D's pixel shader model. Pixel shaders allow graphics programmers to write little programs called shaders which are executed at the first stage of rasterization (iterate colors, texture coordinates; sample textures; texture/color blending, etc.) This gives us a lot of flexibility for specifying things like advanced per pixel lighting models and complex per-fragment programmable material systems. In those screenshots I can't really see anything that would require anything more than diffuse texture mapping
What are you trying to ask us?
Those two images aren't even of the same scene (where did the light go in the second one?) What is it that they are comparing there? Textures are arrays of memory that represent images (kinda like a bitmap) which are "pasted" onto geometry (simplest terms). ps2.0 is version 2.0 of Direct3D's pixel shader model. Pixel shaders allow graphics programmers to write little programs called shaders which are executed at the first stage of rasterization (iterate colors, texture coordinates; sample textures; texture/color blending, etc.) This gives us a lot of flexibility for specifying things like advanced per pixel lighting models and complex per-fragment programmable material systems. In those screenshots I can't really see anything that would require anything more than diffuse texture mapping
What are you trying to ask us?Sir Random
Newcomer
Basically, he's asking which parts of those images are plain textures, and which parts are using pixel shading.
The answer is that it's all just plain textures with flat shadows from the torch. The shadows around the stones are part of the texture, so they won't change if the torch is moved. The swamp guy is the only PS2.0 I can remember from the whole game, and the only PS1.4 I noticed was the water. It still looked great though, every level was awesome.
The answer is that it's all just plain textures with flat shadows from the torch. The shadows around the stones are part of the texture, so they won't change if the torch is moved. The swamp guy is the only PS2.0 I can remember from the whole game, and the only PS1.4 I noticed was the water. It still looked great though, every level was awesome
.JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
John Reynolds said:
Not an expert either but I recall JC saying procedual texturing, no matter how good, can't get exactly what the artists want. He thinks the future may lie in using procedure techniques on traditional textures so you end up with kind of "inspired" procedure textures.
I suppose you might see more "texture synthesis" where you have some texture pieces taken from an existing image which then have a procedural aspects applied to manufacture more data. Wang tiles for Image and Texture Synthesis might be one possibility. <shrug>John Reynolds said:
