Relief mapping: It is not yet common in video games, as it is a rather slow technique due to the need for a large amount of per-pixel processing. Crysis, Oblivion, and Unreal Tournament 3 have a similar feature called Parallax mapping. EDIT: I dont found a glitch, I just point out that POM isnt the messias of shaders that will lead us into a bright future. Its just a shader with the same limitations as any other shader.
I didn't say it was useless, I said it was pretty useless on models, it's very useful on world textures because you don't have as many edges on those and they are by neccesity, low poly. I'd use it often if it was for world textures, the king cliffs would look frigging awesome if I could make them actually recessed and there's loads of rock textures which would benefit from it, not to mention the possibility of adding some spice to some of the ground textures by adding a few random lumps of stone into them.
I repeat that like a mantra for like a month now but everyone around me thinks of POM like the holy grail to fix every problem with ingame models.
It could have a use for building models, because buildings are on the same sort of scale as the scenery, but for players and tanks, I don't think it is really needed. You could use it, but if we're prioritising, the world needs it a lot more than the models do.
Yeah I pretty much just put 3 shades of grey in the heightmap without any gradations, so at the edges it looks a bit warped
To be accurate, it's usefulness is on models or geometry where the edges of the polygon are mapped to regions of the texture that are at full height in the parallax shader. That way you don't encounter silhouette issues. This is great for BE tanks, for example, whose design makes large use of flat armor plates with no few silhouettes. Not so much for the NF light tank which is mostly rounded. Likewise, you can't add a few random lumps of stone to the ground without sinking the rest of the texture and encountering silhouette issues where the ground meets a cliff or other object.
Good Example of why I'm against Parallax mapping http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=75&topic=6823.0
You don't demonstrate angle-dependent effects on static images. Artifacts are not that easy to see when using enough samples. And Trickster is a stupid troll.
Most of those arguments could be made against bumpmaps too. Also, that post is from a space-shooty-fly-ey game. Where your view won't be close to the ground or the ship or anything. Even if it isn't used on regular world textures, it could look really good on other things. (bullet holes/explosion scorch marks come to mind)
I was talking more about cost vs reward, but if it really isn't much, then I'll retract my statement.
Actually, the terrain images in that example looked great. Probably would be good for a flight simulator. The spaceship examples were balls, though. (I'm not sure if these were parallax or parallax with occlusion.) Rendering cost for parallax occlusion maps is pretty high. FEAR got away with it for decals, though that was parallax only and not parallax occlusion like the shader m00tant made. Besides... DirectX 11 is out, and we've got honest to goodness displacement mapping! Not in Source, of course.
HSM: yes, cost is high but it's like with bump mapping. On old hardware I got 60 fps with bump mapping off and 30 fps with it on. If you don't want it, then you can switch to usual crappy looking bump mapping with cvar. I still have to write shader for brushes and check the performance. Performance hit wasn't noticeable when using POM on models. Demented: not only we don't have code access to DX11 interfaces but it also requires DX11 compliant hardware Radeon 5xxx. Ati always had support for tesselation so they released new hardware much earlier than Nvidia. It's also quite limited displacement mapping.
What does "Not in Source, of course." mean to you? Aside from sex with butterflies covered in hot tamale sauce (yes, yes, I know that's what everyone thinks of).
Actually I think about sci-fi mechs fighting in WWI killing lots and lots and lots of Turks at Gallipoli... Cool......
I was surprised when my X850 XT (from 2005) was outperformed by my 8500 LE (from 2002) with active tesselation in Half-Life 1. Then I read on the internet that the chip on the 8500 was the only one with hardware tesselation (TRUFORM). By the way, if you want to give it a try use the following commands in Half-Life 1 / Counter-Strike / Natural Selection in OpenGL mode with an ATi card: ati_npatch 1 // activates TRUFORM ati_subdiv 7 // creates 64 triangles from one Examples with the default ati_subdiv of 2: On topic, I would like to see this shader in areas that usually render at high frame rates. For example canals or corridors in a building. The sewers in district may work out great. On the other hand look at picture 4 in the galery: http://www.pcgames.de/Crysis-PC-119...ion-Sensationelles-Textur-Pack-Update-763054/ ... just rocks!
