[Mihai]

If the roughness is a problem why not use a 16bit greyscale then instead of an 8 bit? I don't know if that's supported by most renderers though....

I am still not pushing for normalmaps as much as I am for instanced geometry

[Kabe]

If the roughness is a problem why not use a 16bit greyscale then instead of an 8 bit? I don't know if that's supported by most renderers though....

Well, 16-bit are better than 8-bit of course, see my posting here:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... 4388#41539

However, this just pushes the envelope a bit farther - you still do not have an exact definition for your normals - so, if you know that you have a certain structure with defind normal angles, there's no way to encode that into a relief map.

Kabe

[Maximus3D]

It gotta have normalmapping, that i think is a given. And if Maxwell were only for archi type renderings then i'd be sad since it's such a powerful renderer now already in it's early beta stage. It'll kick ass with normalmapping in it, that opens up many possibilities for everything from gamedevelopers to all us Zbrush artists

/ Max

[morbid angel]

dont forget that normal mapping is a procedure used for video games...to not affect realtime rendering but give the illusion of displaced surface.
In a case of 3d renderer I think mental ray and render man win here as they support normal mapping as a map to drive displacement's direction.

[iandavis]

Normal mapping is THE way to simulate geometry. Bump maps are TERRIBLE. They are great for simple things, but anything complex is better to do with something which simulates geometry deformation.

I don't know of ANY rendering engine that supports 16 bit bump maps. the bump channel is a greyscale modifier and thus is limited to 256 levels, AND it's relative. Thus if you have only black and white you will get terrible results... the simulated normals are generated based on sampling the surrounding pixels, thus hard edges and accurate control over bump behaviour is a CRAPSHOOT. Also, in any subtle graduation you get banding.

If Mihai is convinced that bumpmaps are the way to go... that's ok, but for the rest of us the power of normalmapping should be present in maxwell, and I'm betting it will show up eventually.

The proof they say, is in the pudding. There is a very good reason the next generation of games and film SFX is done with normals not bump, it can actually simulate geometry and does so with some predictability and control.

so one more vote for normals mapping

Ian

[Mihai]

If Mihai is convinced that bumpmaps are the way to go...

I am not "convinced" that bumpmaps are the way to go, but I wouldn't normally use normal maps for something that is suitable for a bumpmap. For example: tiny scratches, pores, small scars, untreated wood, small grooves in floors......how would you do this with normalmaps, or as PiledotNET asked, how would you create them?

Normalmaps are great for when you need pretty large illusion of displacement, something bumpmaps aren't very good at, so each thing has it's place.

But in practice, I *think* I would use real displacement when it comes to Maxwell. Like I said, things like grass, fuzzy carpets....I wouldn't use normal maps for those.

[iandavis]

Mihai, the only reason I mention that is it seemed to me that you were pretty intent on arguing against the validity of having normalmaps in Maxwell.

I agree that there is a place for bumpmaps; the examples you mentioned are valid.

I still maintain that bump maps are somewhat limited for anything like the raised sphere example... the 8 bit nature of it is quite evident.

[Micha]

....
But in practice, I *think* I would use real displacement when it comes to Maxwell. Like I said, things like grass, fuzzy carpets....I wouldn't use normal maps for those.

Do somebody know a renderer without bucket rendering, that can handle so complex meshes? I use the renderman renderer AIR and AIR use buckets and need much more memory with real displacement. I can not imagine that a renderer can hold a whole complex displacement mesh in the memory.

[morbid angel]

micha vray can...vray also uses progressive path tracing and can account for the whole displacement in the frame at one time.

[Hervé]

we need projective rendering... really cool....

all infos....

http://www.evasion3d.com/mw_mr_prodinfo.html

[Hervé]

he he... nope I run my oldy LW here....

[piem]

Hey la !
I've just unearthed this precious thread

Well, now that the normalmap feature is "ON" (think we can say thanks to some people over here ) I have one question to ask, if you please.

The User manual doesn't talk much about normalmapping;
On the web site , in the "features" page, I can see

• Normal mapping
  --> Flip X,Y and Wide Range Z support

So my question is quite simple: What do you really mean by Wide range Z support ?

Is it something in relation with HDR datas?

Thank you to all of you

EDIT
Forget it, now it's obvious to me..It's just that the normal mapping can obey to 16 or 32 bits floatting values. ..So to HDR datas

correct me if I'm wrong