Primal: first PS2 bump mapped game?

Always the parallel to PS2. :?

I must say that you can do great things with BM. An example is Halo where it was used and looked great in some places, we know that the Halo-engine wasn´t written with Xbox in mind.
This is the great thing after watching the Halo2 "hiRes" movie.
That you can increase the detail and at the same time "cut" geometry and it looks even better. So with halo2 we can expect more action, bigger areas, more ships etz etz and still have the same framerate.

I don´t know chap if someones "hates" esp Dot3 but it has become in my mind a "trend" instead of looking at the whole picture.

 

I doubt it's beacause of bumpmapping. RE doesn't use BM in the sense Doom 3 models do (to add extra geometry detail to low-poly characters). Characters are simply more detailed, because they *can* be. All the polys and textures are reserved just for them. Btw, characters in SH3 look fantastic as well, and don't have any BM.

If used in MGS game, bumpmapping better be super-subtle, because otherwise it would absolutely kill it's animeish look, IMO. Besides, the game is supposed to run at twice the framerate as SH3 or RE, so it's impossible to make it look as detailed. It's a simple design decision.

 

The ultimate goal of real-time graphics is to match pre-rendered graphics. Bump-mapping is a good intermediate step to the use of displacement maps, and either way shader performance will become increasingly crucial. It's true that if you can put hundreds of millions of polygons on-screen at once you can use displacement maps in place of bump maps (most of the time) but currently no available hardware can render that much in real-time (this goes for both X-Box and PS2).

 

SH3 characters don't have reflective attributes to them so BM them would be pointless. RE characters have reflective BM that make them look better than MGS characters. Same with RE4. Also I don't even know why you brought up fps as it has no relevence whatsoever. MGS2/3 running at 30fps isn't going to magically allow more geometry for characters. If PS2 could do BM you would see in the MGS game

 

I've always wondered what technique is used in Tekken TAG.
There is a steel floor with a raised texture that must be either bumpmapped or using actual polygons.
If I remember correctly, it's the level with helicopters and things, some kind of military base level.

 

YES, and also the "temple" level (the one with lighning) and the "ruins" level, the floors are really really well done, some of it is polygons and some of it is specular maps... still, it fooled everyone's eyes for months... everyone thought it was bump mapping but it was just specular maps.

the metal floor does look like emboss mapping, but some of it is actually polygons...

 

Uh, OK, but that really wasn't my point. My point was that it's not bumpmapping alone that makes RE characters better looking than those in MGS, but higer level of geometry and texturing that they could easily add because the game uses pre-rendered backgrounds and runs at 30FPS.

I'm not sure if you realize, but game running at 60FPS has to render twice as many polygons per sec compared to a game with the same level of geometry running at 30FPS. That, I though, was a common knowledge. I'm sure it's not this cut and dry, but if you have an engine capable of rendering, say 6MPPS, you can either decide to have your scene consist of 100K polys, and render it at 60FPS, or make the scene using 200K polys, and render it at 30FPS.

Also, the game running at 30FPS has 2x more time to render it's texures, calculate it's effects, etc. etc.

If it was that easy to do it, all games would be running at 60FPS -- why would anyone bother with 30FPS if that's not giving him any advantage?

 

I sincerely hope those "artists" are not spreading their views. "Bump mapping sucks" just can't be a serious opinion of any CG artist.

Oh yes, it can be overdone with too strong bumps and to much specular. It happens with most of the prerendered 3D art from newbies, too. But bump mapping is absolutely neccessary for realistic graphics, and only high quality per-pixel displacement mapping can replace it - but I don't expect that to become widespread in the near future.

Bump mapping is cool and is going to be a no-brainer effect on nextgen hardware, better get used to it. The only requirement is that game developers hire more artists with prerendered CG experience, and let them to set it up instead of coders and unexperienced people.

 

About "using more geometry instead of bumps": I'd like to know how you guys expect a 3D artist to actually model all the pores and tiny wrinkles on a human face. Not to mention scales on a lizard, tiny holes on walls, etc. etc.

There is a level of detail that cannot be modeled within rational time constrains. But it can be painted as a texture a lot faster and easier, and textures can be used either as bump or displacement.

The problem here seems to be that some people are a bit confused about possible uses of bump mapping. Carmack's approach to bake high res geometry into normal maps for low res impostor geometry is only one possible application. But even the Doom3 engine is going to use a second layer of bumps, for the smaller details, that will be hand-painted.

Doom3 requires low-res geometry because of the overhead of stencil shadows. Different engines can skip the low frequency details of the normal maps and replace them with actual geometry; but even those visuals can and should be enhanced with high frequency details, which are easier to create as bump maps. They might get replaced with displacement eventually, but I believe that bumps will still ahve their use. Offline rendering is still a good guide for the evolution of realtime 3D, and the mother of all renderers, PRMan, is still supporting bump mapping (although it has the best displacement capabilities).

 

Sure in future generation games, where the detail requirements are increased, there will be use for BM.
But in current console games, bumpmapping is used to imitate and compensate for larger detail, like in Halo2 and Doom III. This detail would not be much more difficult to model, than it is to texture, and it would look better if it were actual geometry.
When you go to microdetail, like pores in skin etc. bumpmapping would be more sensible.
It's arguable if displacement mapping is texturing or geometry modelling. The end result is geometry, if I am not completely misguided.

 

well the way i understand it, displacement maps are stored as.. well... MAPS, but are rendered in polygons. the bumps are rendered with true polygons instead of shiufting colours in a 2D bump map... so, you'd have a 10.000 polygons model with a displacement map that makes it a 100.000 polygons model when it's rendered...
it does look much better than bump mapping, but current hardware is not even thinking about doing that in real time...

 

I wasn't aware that RE4 used prerendered backgrounds too???

And uh nobody said BM alone makes it look good. MGS2/3 would look MUCH better with BM on the character models...PERIOD...get over it...too bad PS2 can't do BM huh?

What's gonna be your excuse when MGSTS uses BM and looks better than MGS2 with ZERO increase in polys for characters???

Uh..and I'm sure you realize that without knowing the limiting factor of the MGS2/3 engine, you don't magically double polygon rates when going to a lower framerate. GT4 can't run at 60 fps with voice support...why is that?

Oh btw read Laa-Yosh's post. Again if PS2 can do BM developers would use it...PERIOD!

 

I have to argue - even Doom3 uses bumps for small details as well, and Halo2 is less geared towards replacing highres geometry. Also, I -like- this application too, as IMHO it looks f****ng good.

And it would be difficult to model the detail in those games - the whole point of using normal mapping is to gain something, in Halo2's case it's larger levels and more characters, in Doom3's case it's the unified lighting model.
Every polygon pusher game out there meets a different compromise. Sure they have more detailed models - although not that much more detailed! - but they look more paper-like as well, with no dynamic shading attributes.

You usually PAINT the displacements, so it is a texturing method most of the time. A few VFX studios have started to use highres laser scans to generate the maps though, like Weta for the LOTR creatures - but it is still a TEXTURE MAP and not geometry (as vertices, edges, faces) data. It is handled differently, has different pros and cons etc.


Slightly off topic, but I got to agree that the current bump mapping haters here are most likely biased towards the PS2. I can't see any other reason for this tendency here...

 

I'd rather take a game running at a steady 60fps without bumpmapping, than a game that chugs at 30fps and below, just because the hardware is not powerful enough to render the supported effect at full speed.
I think it has to be accepted that PS2 could not run a game with bumpmapping even at 30fps, but it is not as big a deal as bumpmapping lovers make it to be.

But who knows, when xbox was unveiled, and those pictures of Malice with self-shadowing along it, everybody said PS2 could never do self-shadowing in-game. Now we see very well implemented self-shadowing in Silent Hill 3. What games in other platforms use self-shadowing?
Could self-shadowing be more important in making the game look more real than bumpmapping?

 

i dont see why PC-Engine is making such a big fuss about all this.... yes, BM can make things look better, yes, PS2 cant really do it unless u wanna sweat over lines of codes for months and then get poor performance...

the thing is, 99% of Developers know that at the end of the day PS2 games will sell ENOUGH even if u dont spend 2 years trying to get BM out of it... they rather spend their development time on "easy" effects like particles and trying to get decent textures...
i thought we all knew this, i dont see why everytime the name PS2 comes out, everyone has to go in "MUDDYTEXTUREZZ-MODE"...
i thought the point of PS2 was LOADS of vertices at the expense of textures, and i thought it was already a given on these boards. oh and we also went through the fact that at the time of release, that was pretty much the best choice Sony could make in order to have a pretty neat piece of hardware which can do awesome effects at an affordable price.
i mean, even Chap has moved on, i dont see why there's some people still bitching about it...

 

I perfectly agree with you and this is why I can't understand the current situation. Ie. bumpmapping is downplayed because of hardware specific issues. The theory is that BM is cool, it should be used and it will be used. What PS2/Xbox/GC can or can not do with it is a completely different topic.

 

I agree too, downplaying bumpmapping, with problem that is not even related to the technique is just downright wrong.

The ugly silhoutte you see in Doom 3 characters and such has nothing to do with bumpmapping.

 

You don't seem to understand this.

Doom3 is not lowpoly because of bump mapping - it is lowpoly because of the stencil shadows. Without bumps, it'd look even more uglier. They can not model more detailed characters, or the framerate would suffer.

 

There you go, you just owned yourself.