PDA

View Full Version : Octane surface displacement and shapeships hull detail?



prometheus
11-12-2015, 09:22 AM
Hi folks!

Just curious how effective and how good it looks...
Has anyone been testing hull detailing of spaceships or scifi corridors? and environments with the surface displacement tech in octane and can show some samples?

Any problems with it..uv mapping etc ?

Michael

Lewis
11-12-2015, 09:43 AM
Octane displacements (at rendertime) are just awesome.

Here is two examples:
One is Bump map, other is Displacement map (guess which one is which ;))
BTW, In Both cases it's SINGLE polygon in GUI/model.

alexos
11-12-2015, 10:58 AM
Lewis, is that Arroway gravel? I've been wondering whether to buy it or not, but if it's the one in your image it's an easy decision...

ADP.

prometheus
11-12-2015, 11:39 AM
Octane displacements (at rendertime) are just awesome.

Here is two examples:
One is Bump map, other is Displacement map (guess which one is which ;))
BTW, In Both cases it's SINGLE polygon in GUI/model.

looking good for ground textures, though I thought it would....but I would like to see some spaceship hull detail:D a compare against bump, normal maps would be sweet too if possible.

Lewis
11-12-2015, 11:58 AM
Alexos yes it's gravel form their collection, displacement texture of gravel.

Prometheus - sorry i don't follow, what's not clear here from my example ? I mean displacement works you just have to have proper texture and projection or UV.

Heck You can create complete mountain (see attachment) from single texture and 1 polygon in Octane so no reason to not bee able to create spaceship hull :).

prometheus
11-12-2015, 12:48 PM
Alexos yes it's gravel form their collection, displacement texture of gravel.

Prometheus - sorry i don't follow, what's not clear here from my example ? I mean displacement works you just have to have proper texture and projection or UV.

Heck You can create complete mountain (see attachment) from single texture and 1 polygon in Octane so no reason to not bee able to create spaceship hull :).

yes...and no..I know what it can do..but that means guessing based on other "terrain examples" I just wanted to see a good ship hull example...not a terrain example.
so itīs not a question about wether or not it is capable..I just wanted to see it.

could download and try perphaps if that feature isnīt limited, but then again I would need to install new drivers...which I am a bit reluctant about right now.

tyrot
11-12-2015, 01:03 PM
Hi folks!

Just curious how effective and how good it looks...
Has anyone been testing hull detailing of spaceships or scifi corridors? and environments with the surface displacement tech in octane and can show some samples?

Any problems with it..uv mapping etc ?

Michael
can you share texture ..i really wonder displacement map..it looks crazy good

aaa arroway ... wow

hdace
11-12-2015, 01:54 PM
Half the scenes of our film are in, or showing exteriors of, space ships. Unfortunately too busy to show examples right now. Been using displacement very successfully for asteroids to get craters and stuff. Hulls look nice with line bumps going across them. At first bump didn't seem to work very well in Octane, but it is now. It's better to use displacement if you can.

Portals are dodgy. If you use Specular materials they look invisible in space, so I mix it with an emission texture at a ratio of 99.5/.5. That adds just a tad of glare so you can see the glass.

Space scenes in Octane can get dodgy if the spaceships are really huge but you're also down to the level of a character's eyelash because of the epsilon ray problem. Octane doesn't use floating point calculations to keep it compatible with cheaper GPU's. This means the scale of the scene has to be worked out carefully. This can also affect rendering stars. I can get you more info on this if you need it.

Oh, and don't forget only one UV map per layer. Juanjo said he fixed this but I can't figure out how to use his fix so I just keep following that rule.

I could write a book on this subject. Will have more time in a couple of weeks...

hdace
11-12-2015, 02:00 PM
If you're still keen say so and I'll take some time off tonight and upload 2 or 3 hull shots. They look pretty cool in Octane.

prometheus
11-12-2015, 04:02 PM
can you share texture ..i really wonder displacement map..it looks crazy good

aaa arroway ... wow

I have nothing to do with that texture..so donīt quote me :)


If you're still keen say so and I'll take some time off tonight and upload 2 or 3 hull shots. They look pretty cool in Octane.

would be nice..but donīt sacrife to much time just for me. :9

thanks for the heads up on uv and scaling etc...that could of course be an issue, Im not sending a 2cm spaceship to space. :)

djwaterman
11-12-2015, 04:32 PM
Yes I've used the micropoly displacement to get hull details on a spaceship I can't show at the moment. It looks awesome and I really want this feature in LW asap. Any odd lighting problems that a bump or normal map might give you are not present with displacement, they light perfectly and add proper detail to the surface. I only have the trial of Octane.

hdace
11-12-2015, 11:19 PM
Displacement. This is our asteroid spaceship. The ability to displace a single poly to ultimate detail (micropoly) is truly amazing. When the camera gets up close you can really see the depth of the displacement clearly.

130957

With Octane normal maps can look terrific too. The ship in the foreground is the Diligence, which is really a space tow truck and plumber's van. She's seen better days. I made the big gashes with normal maps.

130959

The Thomas Aquinas is a cruise liner. The cabins have glass ceilings. The inspiration is Star Trek IV, when Scotty talks about transparent aluminum. So it's not really glass, but it looks like it. These shots show regular bump mapping on the hull. It's subtle but nice. I couldn't get this to work when I was rendering this ship a year ago, but I worked on it again recently and suddenly it was working. I don't know if Otoy fixed bump mapping at some point or whether I just got better at it.

130963
130962
130961
130960

Then there's Archangel. She's huge. Giant spindles with glass cabins. I didn't fix the glass texture for the cabins and the huge rods leading to them, so the glass is invisible. But the hull the astronaut is walking on did get the 1/2 a percent of white emission which gives the illusion of glare from the glass. Yes, look carefully, there really is an astronaut out there. The shot tracks over to her. One of the nice things about Octane is playing with the spectral material. Transmission is supposed to be the natural color of the glass. If it's black it's transparent. But you can give it a color and it becomes solid and then give the reflection a different color. That's how I made the giant rocket in the upper right corner of frame.

130964

hdace
11-12-2015, 11:30 PM
Here's the info on "Epsilon Ray":

Octane Simple Epsilon Math

All figures in meters. The ratio is the smallest polygon versus the full scene size (distance of the farthest objects from one another).


Scene ratio : Recommended epsilon value

1/1,000,000 : 0.1

0.001/1,000 : 0.0001

0.001/1,000,000 : Not possible because the difference in size is too great. One can still try to render a scene in two or more passes.

“The simple precision math means that your scene geometry can have about six or seven significant decimal digits between the full scene size and the smallest polygon.” —Juanjo


There are several situations where this might be problematic. Like our asteroid ship. It's hollow inside. When rendering the interior we get GI flashing which is a big surprise. It happened because the epsilon value was set to 0.0001 (100 um) because the characters have eyelashes that are a millimeter in depth. But the ship is over 20 kilometers long and you can see the whole thing all at once. With Octane, if you've got normally modeled characters with small polys here and there, then your maximum distance for any other object is one kilometer. Frankly, this sucks. I've complained about it bitterly on the Otoy forum. Hope they fix it for version 3. They ought to have two versions of the plugin, floating point and non-floating point. Or a switch that turns it on or off depending on whether the GPU supports it.

Then there's the problem of stars. If the stars are too near, and the camera's moving around, the perspective shift isn't natural. So you have to use Environment or something like that...

alexos
11-13-2015, 03:31 AM
So here's a very quick and very dirty test I just did; I didn't bother to create proper UVMaps, relying instead on Juanjo's "fake UV" hack (which basically creates a cubic projection) and I exaggerated the displacement, so you can see (in red) seams and disconnections. This took literally five minutes to set-up and seconds of rendering time. First image is the bumpmap, second the displacement. I believe you can judge for yourself :)

ADP.

130971
130972

hdace
11-13-2015, 08:58 AM
There are restrictions on the use of displacement which lead to the use of bump & normal maps in complicated setups. If bump looks okay then you don't need displacement. It may appear simple but when you're knee deep in the mud you realize sometimes displacement is too much trouble and also may be overkill. But it sure looks great when you get it right.

11-13-2015, 04:11 PM
So here's a very quick and very dirty test I just did; I didn't bother to create proper UVMaps, relying instead on Juanjo's "fake UV" hack (which basically creates a cubic projection) and I exaggerated the displacement, so you can see (in red) seams and disconnections. This took literally five minutes to set-up and seconds of rendering time. First image is the bumpmap, second the displacement. I believe you can judge for yourself :)

ADP.

130971
130972

Um...
That's cool.
That's something I want to show my students.
Um... Umm







Need the crap they are showing on the BLOG so I don't waste my time.

Exasperated,
Me.

prometheus
11-13-2015, 08:22 PM
So here's a very quick and very dirty test I just did; I didn't bother to create proper UVMaps, relying instead on Juanjo's "fake UV" hack (which basically creates a cubic projection) and I exaggerated the displacement, so you can see (in red) seams and disconnections. This took literally five minutes to set-up and seconds of rendering time. First image is the bumpmap, second the displacement. I believe you can judge for yourself :)

ADP.



130971
130972

That is exactly what I wanted to see..compared and all, thanks a lot alexos, looks sweet.

prometheus
11-13-2015, 08:26 PM
There are restrictions on the use of displacement which lead to the use of bump & normal maps in complicated setups. If bump looks okay then you don't need displacement. It may appear simple but when you're knee deep in the mud you realize sometimes displacement is too much trouble and also may be overkill. But it sure looks great when you get it right.

now that is what is needed to be identified more clearly, in what ways would displacement be too much trouble and overkill?, standard displacement I understand, but I need to understand the limits and downside of employinc octane surface displacement, and under which conditions it would fail etc.

squarewulf
11-13-2015, 08:54 PM
I use displacement to make grass a lot

130981

Edit: also remembered i once did rebar with it as well. Came out okayish, could use tweaking.
130982

prometheus
11-13-2015, 10:07 PM
I use displacement to make grass a lot

130981

Edit: also remembered i once did rebar with it as well. Came out okayish, could use tweaking.
130982

very interesting samples, it shows promising method use of surface displacement, in way you really wouldnīt try with standard displacements.
Both looks good, I wonder..can you animate the grass displacement in a believable way with fractals to achieve wind effect on the grass? I donīt think you will be able to do that ..at least not getting grass to bend realisticly.

squarewulf
11-13-2015, 11:21 PM
very interesting samples, it shows promising method use of surface displacement, in way you really wouldnīt try with standard displacements.
Both looks good, I wonder..can you animate the grass displacement in a believable way with fractals to achieve wind effect on the grass? I donīt think you will be able to do that ..at least not getting grass to bend realisticly.

Yeah it unfortunately doesn't look too good when you try to animate it. Maybe if i did a better displacement animation but it still looks like creepy grass water.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd2jksc00t25vxk/creepygrass.mp4?dl=0

Lewis
11-14-2015, 01:21 AM
Check this one. It's not LW but it's Octane and it'll work same way in LW once it's released (Real Textures)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CYwHccQPMQ

djwaterman
11-14-2015, 03:10 AM
What is it, a library of scanned texture maps of real textures? The website isn't up yet.

Lewis
11-14-2015, 03:26 AM
What is it, a library of scanned texture maps of real textures? The website isn't up yet.

Yes, website is going to be live in about week

hdace
11-14-2015, 08:14 AM
now that is what is needed to be identified more clearly, in what ways would displacement be too much trouble and overkill?, standard displacement I understand, but I need to understand the limits and downside of employinc octane surface displacement, and under which conditions it would fail etc.

https://docs.otoy.com/Lightwave3D/?page_id=131

This is the UV hack alexos was talking about.

https://docs.otoy.com/Lightwave3D/?page_id=510

This explains a little about Octane displacement but doesn't mention the main limitation, which is here:

https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=48389&p=241054&hilit=displacement+node#p241054

"The displacement mapping in Octane only supports the texture image node over an object with an UV map. No other nodes are supported."

The problem with not being able to "live update" the gamma in the IPR is a nuisance because it means you can't fine tune it. Requires a lot of trial and error in an image editor. Also, it is very difficult to merge it with other maps on large objects or to repeat it. Finally, if the UV hack doesn't work well, and it often doesn't, creating UV maps for a large object can be quite painful too. I still think it's a great resource, but it definitely does not make bump & normal mapping obsolete.

hdace
11-14-2015, 08:34 AM
131007

Almost forgot, the corrugated roof on this shack used Octane displacement. Each half of the roof is only one polygon. The curvy edge of the roof's shadow is a nice detail.

djwaterman
11-14-2015, 08:03 PM
What is it, a library of scanned texture maps of real textures? The website isn't up yet.

Lewis, is there anywhere I can look to see some information about this set, how do you know about it?

prometheus
11-14-2015, 09:01 PM
Yes, website is going to be live in about week

Whatīs with the textures..ordinary photage of terrain? processed to work nicely and tilable? or some new tech within the textures?
looks darn good anyway..but what factor governs that? the octane surface tech? or the excellence of the textures? maybe just both?

djwaterman
11-15-2015, 12:06 AM
I think it's just the maps themselves, independent from any particular software, and they would be taken from real sources going by the example. They can scan real surfaces and pull all the different types of maps needed from them.

prometheus
11-15-2015, 12:20 AM
I think it's just the maps themselves, independent from any particular software, and they would be taken from real sources going by the example. They can scan real surfaces and pull all the different types of maps needed from them.

does that imply not actual photo, but 3d scanned surface by some method, then processed to have normal, displacement maps etc?
But independent? it is applied through octane..in which I believe is the surface displacement mode..so it must be a combination..or?

djwaterman
11-15-2015, 01:16 AM
Well any app that can do displacement. They are photos, but you can take photos in such a way as to get all the necessary information. I don't know the particulars of this one but I'm just talking about the available technology for this kind of thing.

Lewis
11-15-2015, 03:08 AM
Lewis, is there anywhere I can look to see some information about this set, how do you know about it?

That web site is going to be soon live, Guy who is creating this just recently posted that in octane forums. I guess it'll be purchase for texture set since he said it's 2k, 4k, ad 8k texture sets with diffuse, bump, displacement, reflection and normal maps (as visible in his video).

jwiede
11-15-2015, 07:40 PM
Lewis, is that Arroway gravel? I've been wondering whether to buy it or not, but if it's the one in your image it's an easy decision...

Yeah, I was wondering that as well, as I've also been eyeing their Gravel pkg.

jwiede
11-15-2015, 07:45 PM
Space scenes in Octane can get dodgy if the spaceships are really huge but you're also down to the level of a character's eyelash because of the epsilon ray problem.

Crud, that's disappointing. Those kinds of "immense-vs-tiny" shots are among the most visually-interesting, IMO.

prometheus
11-15-2015, 07:59 PM
Crud, that's disappointing. Those kinds of "immense-vs-tiny" shots are among the most visually-interesting, IMO.

+1

Lewis
11-16-2015, 03:48 AM
More of those displacement textures info
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDrB_5UmSI
http://www.3dvisual.at/RDT-collection-one.jpg

Chernoby
11-16-2015, 11:34 AM
Whoa! Unbelievable.

prometheus
11-16-2015, 12:02 PM
More of those displacement textures info
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDrB_5UmSI
http://www.3dvisual.at/RDT-collection-one.jpg

Thanks..that verifies what I originally thought, not just photographic maps, but actual 3d scanned surface to a mesh, then extracted maps..this is wonderful, and with octane surface displacement it will be a gamechanger for terrain and ground work I would think, I need to analyze and read up more on octane and pitfalls etc and what more enhancements there will be..but octane will probably be ranked higher in my priority list of things to get along with 3rd power tools...as well as getting these textures I reckon.

m.d.
11-16-2015, 12:45 PM
Just saw this thread....as far as octane displacements for spaceship interiors and corridors, the major limiting factor is that it is standard greyscale up/down displacements....not vector displacements. So no overhangs etc

AFAIK this is coming in octane 3

m.d.
11-16-2015, 01:08 PM
Crud, that's disappointing. Those kinds of "immense-vs-tiny" shots are among the most visually-interesting, IMO.

Ray epsilon can be animated

jwiede
11-16-2015, 01:34 PM
More of those displacement textures info
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GDrB_5UmSI
http://www.3dvisual.at/RDT-collection-one.jpg

Looks pretty sweet, esp. for viz. folks.

jwiede
11-16-2015, 01:52 PM
Ray epsilon can be animated

As long as confined to single-precision FP math, it'll remain a problem because there simply aren't enough digits of precision available. "Space-scale" shots just about require double-precision FP math end-to-end, because human-detail-scale relative to giant-spaceship-scale is basically guaranteed to exceed digits of precision available in single-precision FP representations. It also happens in modern viz. shots of current megastructures, for similar reasons (typically, due to foliage detail vs megastructure).

C4D switched to full end-to-end double-precision FP support (on CPU, but same benefits), and the results have been extremely positive. Once engine/kernel is double-based end-to-end, you have to create what are essentially "unworkable" shot scale differences before you run into problems -- as in, you'll hit surface roughness issues or light diffusion problems before you run out of digits of precision. After spending time working with double-precision-based engines/kernels, I find switching back to single-precision-based engines feels very limiting.

Do you know if Otoy are moving to offer a double-precision FP option for Octane v3 by any chance? While it is true that not all gfx cards will run a double-precision-based kernel as efficiently, better to have the option and not always need it. If needed now, from the sounds of your descriptions, the user is just plain stuck.

m.d.
11-16-2015, 02:11 PM
I see....
Just googled to brush up and octane is limited to 7 digits

AFAIK from what I've googled it seems the developers are not keen to implement it as of a few years ago because of increased ram usage and render slowdown.....but that was a few years ago, so not sure about octane 3

Lewis
11-16-2015, 02:17 PM
And from what i remember new GPUs aren't Duble precision anymore, even TitanX is nut full DP anymore (older Titan was full DP). So even if they do it in the engine you'd have to use Quadro GPUs which are not profitable for GPU rendering at all and usualyl slower than "gamer" GPUs :(.

hdace
11-16-2015, 11:32 PM
Yes it is very limiting. I complained bitterly about this problem on the Otoy website and received no real answer. Since they're not replying one can only assume they're doing nothing about it for version 3. And if Lewis is right about lack of hardware support I'm losing hope for the future. However, Octane is going to start supporting AMD GPUs. Do any of theirs have double precision FP?

https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=48567
(see the last post)

There are several scenes in our current project that have been very difficult to composite. Octane doesn't lend itself to easy compositing. If they don't fix this we may dump Octane and find a different renderer. Or even go with LW's new one. This is a sci-fi movie. Animating the epsilon ray only fixed one out of about ten shots in the last few months. We NEED big & small in the same shot, preferably without resorting to compositing (except for stars).

Octane has also turned out to be noisy & slow. We thought Octane would be fast but the average render time for our shots has been 20 minutes per frame. That's for 2k video with two Titan Blacks. It just doesn't seem to be as magical as we first thought.

m.d.
11-16-2015, 11:56 PM
Seems like a legitimate issue you have there. Haven't run into giant scene scale issues myself yet.....

On a side note, not only is Octane going to support AMD, but AMD will very soon be CUDA compatible with their own CUDA compilers

hdace
11-17-2015, 12:08 AM
131049

AMD's DP FP support isn't as good as Titan Black but is miles better than the Titan X:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2896411/the-brutal-graphics-war-continues-as-nvidia-reveals-the-geforce-gtx-titan-x.html

jwiede
11-17-2015, 11:45 AM
Yes it is very limiting. I complained bitterly about this problem on the Otoy website and received no real answer. Since they're not replying one can only assume they're doing nothing about it for version 3. And if Lewis is right about lack of hardware support I'm losing hope for the future. However, Octane is going to start supporting AMD GPUs. Do any of theirs have double precision FP?

https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=48567
(see the last post)

There are several scenes in our current project that have been very difficult to composite. Octane doesn't lend itself to easy compositing. If they don't fix this we may dump Octane and find a different renderer. Or even go with LW's new one. This is a sci-fi movie. Animating the epsilon ray only fixed one out of about ten shots in the last few months. We NEED big & small in the same shot, preferably without resorting to compositing (except for stars).

Octane has also turned out to be noisy & slow. We thought Octane would be fast but the average render time for our shots has been 20 minutes per frame. That's for 2k video with two Titan Blacks. It just doesn't seem to be as magical as we first thought.

I've been hoping to hear the new LW renderer is FP64 (double-precision FP) end-to-end, but so far they haven't made any comments on that, guess it is time to ask explicitly.

hdace
11-24-2015, 08:30 AM
jwiede, did you ask this "explicitly" somewhere? I thought I saw you post it but now I can't find it. Did they ever answer?

Lewis
11-24-2015, 08:59 AM
here is Few more Octane displacements ;).

m.d.
11-24-2015, 09:13 AM
nice...

might grab those displacement textures today for a project.

Been looking at them for a while, but the price is a little high

lightscape
11-24-2015, 09:20 AM
here is Few more Octane displacements ;).


What's your rendertime with displacement plugged in and out for that scene?

Lewis
11-24-2015, 09:27 AM
What's your rendertime with displacement plugged in and out for that scene?

2 minutes with on FulHD and 1000 samples, I've not rendered without but since it's single FLAT polygon in openGL it should be like 30-40 seconds with no displacement and only color/bump.

Here is animation test. First frames when all is flat it's 8-9 sec frame, last frames when all is displaced high are 20 sec/frame
https://www.dropbox.com/s/33xkaufdbg0dkeu/Rocky_Anim_OCT.rar?dl=0

lightscape
11-24-2015, 09:56 AM
So nearly 4x render hit with micropoly displacements. A bit slow.
I have to see how Redshift copes.

Lewis
11-24-2015, 10:01 AM
So nearly 4x render hit with micropoly displacements. A bit slow.
I have to see how Redshift copes.

Like i said i've NOT rendered without Displace in FullHD but In animation it's more like 2.2x (8sec vs 20sec).

also how would Redshift help you with LW ?

m.d.
11-24-2015, 10:53 AM
Comparing rendering a single flat polygon with a highly detailed displacement and calling it slow?

Renderer still needs to render the virtual polygons and bounce lighting samples off each of the faces, which I am guessed by this scene would be millions of polys

So ya, it should be a little slower then a single flat polygon.....

lightscape
11-25-2015, 03:44 AM
Like i said i've NOT rendered without Displace in FullHD but In animation it's more like 2.2x (8sec vs 20sec).

also how would Redshift help you with LW ?

Didn't say it would.





Comparing rendering a single flat polygon with a highly detailed displacement and calling it slow?

Renderer still needs to render the virtual polygons and bounce lighting samples off each of the faces, which I am guessed by this scene would be millions of polys

So ya, it should be a little slower then a single flat polygon.....

Its slow. Have you tried comparing a single poly with grass displacement againts instanced grass method in octane renderer? You might be surprised.

Lewis
11-25-2015, 03:49 AM
Its slow. Have you tried comparing a single poly with grass displacement againts instanced grass method in octane renderer? You might be surprised.

Sure but can you show me how would you instance let's say many rocks/gravel and get them look soo god without intersecting each other :)? Especially with fact when LW instancing don't have particularly good interesection/relax function. Even at MAX relax settings (40) it's still intersecting and layout is getting into 10x slower than snail speed in complete gui with 1 million instances (which would be probably too small amount anyway for a gravel terrain).

lightscape
11-25-2015, 03:52 AM
Sure but can you show me how would you instance let's say many rocks/gravel and get them look soo god without intersecting each other :)?

Haha. You just reminded me how someone would notice the bullets are passing through the propeller of a ww2 plane when it fires. Good for that person that notices :D

Lewis
11-25-2015, 03:58 AM
Haha. You just reminded me how someone would notice the bullets are passing through the propeller of a ww2 plane when it fires. Good for that person that notices :D

Well yo can laugh as much as you want but unless you can show how you can do this with instancing (see attachment) without tons of intersecting your point is moot. Try it and see for yourself how insanely slow layout will become with relax 40 and even that settings will still have tons of rocks/gravel passing through each other, very easy visible (unlike your improper analogy this is actually visible to anyone with 2 healthy eyes).

m.d.
11-25-2015, 08:01 AM
Its slow. Have you tried comparing a single poly with grass displacement againts instanced grass method in octane renderer? You might be surprised.

you were comparing a single poly to a displaced one.....which will always be slower in every render out there.

and no I wouldnt be surprised that instances are faster than displacements, instances can be very low poly...where displacements will be high rendertime poly's to make a grass contour.

But you're missing the point of this thread which is octane displacements....let's not change the subject.

Time to show us how slow it is compared to redshift and all other renders.

m.d.
11-25-2015, 08:08 AM
broke down and bought the textures

131195


and yes it was at least 3 times slower than a single flat poly, and 150x slower than a scene with no objects or lights

prometheus
11-25-2015, 12:14 PM
broke down and bought the textures

131195


and yes it was at least 3 times slower than a single flat poly, and 150x slower than a scene with no objects or lights

looking fantastic, though I donīt see the reflections of the stones in the sphere, might that be an issue with surface displacement in this particular case with reflection?

m.d.
11-25-2015, 12:25 PM
looking fantastic, though I donīt see the reflections of the stones in the sphere, might that be an issue with surface displacement in this particular case with reflection?

this is a glass sphere, not chrome remember
here is a better version...
131199

The reflections are very slight because most of the effect is refraction with subtle reflections on the edges. I am following real world photography of these glass orbs and surprisingly they will exhibit the same counterintuitive reflection refraction behaviour.

check some of these real world photos out

http://lightscameradad.com/more-of-the-orbalicious-orbs-i-have-many-orb-photos/

jwiede
12-16-2015, 01:15 PM
jwiede, did you ask this "explicitly" somewhere? I thought I saw you post it but now I can't find it. Did they ever answer?

Yep, asked here (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?148301-Lightwave-3D-BLOG-is-now-up-online!&p=1455448&viewfull=1#post1455448), and no, they never gave an answer.

I really, really hope the new PBR renderer, etc. provide a double-based (FP64) end-to-end pipeline -- the amelioration of the precision-vs-scale problem alone is ample justification, IMO. I believe their failure to do so would represent a serious misstep, so here's hoping they did and just don't want to tell us yet.

erikals
12-16-2015, 04:13 PM
Well yo can laugh as much as you want but unless you can show how you can do this with instancing (see attachment) without tons of intersecting your point is moot. Try it and see for yourself how insanely slow layout will become with relax 40 and even that settings will still have tons of rocks/gravel passing through each other, very easy visible (unlike your improper analogy this is actually visible to anyone with 2 healthy eyes).

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=131194&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1448449024

what puzzles me about this is that it looks like vector displacement... but it's not, right... ?