JLV. Whats your setup

[Shadow]

Parallax occlusion mapping? They must pay people a lot to come up with new names for displacement mapping! It's not as hard as you might think although it will eat a lot of GPU cycles. I'll probably give it a try next summer. Luckily I wound up with an extra byte in the specular map that I could put the depth values in.

My bad. Always known it as POM instead of displacement mapping.
In my defence though, the term has been coined in 2005.

Hmm.. A quick googling and they seem to be two alternative techniques to achieve similar results, though displacement mapping results in actual geometry unlike POM. At least according to wikipedia, and as we know, wikipedia never lies.

[Shadow]

But yeah, I can settle for displacement mapping and tesselation instead of POM.

[squirrelboy86]

I got your backs. That site is impossible to find anything on.

126fps

[DJ99X]

Hey JLV, is that just showing the specular reflection, and only using static ambient lighting?

[Kawasakis]

Mother of all gods, MXS will look so awesome with it, cannot wait.
JLV when do you think you'll finish these and release them? Before Christmas maybe?

[barrington314]

SHADOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO SHADOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

can you have shadows without the displacement mapping?

[jlv]

My bad. Always known it as POM instead of displacement mapping. :oops:
In my defence though, the term has been coined in 2005.

Hmm.. A quick googling and they seem to be two alternative techniques to achieve similar results, though displacement mapping results in actual geometry unlike POM. At least according to wikipedia, and as we know, wikipedia never lies.

GPU Gems calls it per pixel displacement mapping, which seems correct to me. I'm not a fan of unnecessary jargon.

Hey JLV, is that just showing the specular reflection, and only using static ambient lighting?

Not exactly sure what you mean. It does recalculate the diffuse and ambient lighting in the fragment shader, but since the ground and light source don't move it will be the same answer every time. The specular component has to be dynamic since it's view dependent.

SHADOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO SHADOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

can you have shadows without the displacement mapping?

Yes.

[DJ99X]

Sorry, I meant static diffuse lighting. It still looked like it was using the shadingx2 to shade the terrain, only with specularity over the top. I guess the bumps aren't quite big enough to notice the difference with the diffuse shading (although, when looking closer, I can see it working).

I can see that you've still got the shadows.pgm on there. Is shadingx2 still working, only without the terrain shading?

[jlv]

It ignores the shadingx2.ppm file but uses shadows.pgm. With a smooth normal map and no specular it looks pretty close to the fixed function renderer. Without specular it's pretty hard to tell the difference even with normal maps.

[Shadow]

I'm not a fan of unnecessary jargon.

True enough. Thanks for the link btw, interesting read.

[Joe]

Thanks for posting on teh site Josh Phat I am going to work on the site today make it easier to navigate

[DJ99X]

It ignores the shadingx2.ppm file but uses shadows.pgm. With a smooth normal map and no specular it looks pretty close to the fixed function renderer. Without specular it's pretty hard to tell the difference even with normal maps.

Have you tried making the normal maps deeper?

[jlv]

I thought I had it too deep already. I would like to have the low frequency stuff stand out better though. If I just make it deeper I get too much high frequency noise.

[Paulo#33]

uuuuu niceeee topic