Author Topic: Difference between old displacement and new displacement  (Read 2887 times)

2020-04-08, 09:46:12

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
So I'm baking this displacement map of the tiles in substance designer, but I notice quite a big visual difference between the two types of displacement when rendered in Corona (3DS Max).

Why is that? Or is this supposed to be like this?

Old disp:



New disp:



Thanks

2020-04-08, 09:53:11
Reply #1

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7239
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Did you try to lower displacement screen size and see if that would make the difference to be less pronounced?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-04-08, 10:23:38
Reply #2

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Just re-done the test as Romullus suggested and it seems that results doesn't change too much.
Main problem isn't the difference in quality though, but the fact that the shading/reflections looks totally different, like the light would come from different direction in both of these cases.

Old disp 2px:


New disp 1px:


Difference is best noticed when switching quickly between the two examples.

2020-04-08, 11:53:55
Reply #3

pokoy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1627
    • View Profile
Interesting, looks like the gradients are interpreted differently between the two modes.

2020-04-08, 17:08:57
Reply #4

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7239
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Yeah, the difference is extreme. Interesting to see if it still would be so obvious if you'd render with non-metallic material with low specularity?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-04-08, 18:45:39
Reply #5

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
New test with glossiness value of 0.5

New disp:


Old disp:


Issue still remains basically.

2020-04-08, 19:36:00
Reply #6

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7239
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Very strange indeed. Now the biggest difference is where there is shadow on the wall. I wonder if this is mainly shading issue, or the difference is in actual displaced geometry? Could you do one last comparison? Turn off autobump and render again.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-04-09, 10:28:57
Reply #7

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Okay newest version with the auto bump off (which indeed seems to be the cause).

New Disp 2px autobump off:


Old Disp 2px autobump off:


I assume it is a bug then?

Another thing I notice is that new version has considerably more shading "artifacts". And those artifacts gets worse the further you go from camera. Is this expected? Should I just decrease px size to like 1px and forget? Or there's something wrong too?

2020-04-09, 10:50:57
Reply #8

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7239
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I think both issues was discussed in daily builds topic, but they don't have dedicated report thread, so i'm moving your topic to bug reporting board. Let's pass on the baton to the support team.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-04-09, 10:56:32
Reply #9

rowmanns

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 1345
    • View Profile
Hi,

I believe this was caused by autobump and it being interpreted differently between the two displacements.

We looked into this and found that the 2.5d displacement is actually more accurate, and that it was incorrect previously with the old displacement.

I hope this helps.

Rowan
Please read this before reporting bugs:
How to report issues to us!

2020-04-09, 12:23:48
Reply #10

PROH

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
Hi. IIRC the px value for the new vs old, should be around 2/3 to 1 if you want comparable results. So setting both to 2 is not exactly the same. Try setting the new in the latest test to 1,3 and see if that helps.

2020-04-09, 15:45:28
Reply #11

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Okay so to get the most correctly shaded version should I leave autobump ON or OFF now? With 2.5D displacement I mean.

2020-04-09, 16:19:46
Reply #12

rowmanns

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 1345
    • View Profile
Hi,

With the 2.5d displacement you should get similar shading whether autobump is enabled or disabled.

Is this not the case?

I just did a quick test with one of our testing scenes for the 2.5d displacement and autobump and it rendered with the same shading with and without autobump.

Cheers,

Rowan
Please read this before reporting bugs:
How to report issues to us!

2020-04-09, 17:22:16
Reply #13

Frood

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Rakete GmbH
Is this not the case?

This has been in fact never the case for me. It has been closer to geometry with autobump activated every time and made quite a difference.


Good Luck



Never underestimate the power of a well placed level one spell.

2020-04-10, 10:26:15
Reply #14

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
So to confirm I made one last test with disp 2.5D + 1px size with autobump on and off and I can say shading is pretty much the same (correct).
In the end the conclusion is: 2.5D disp with autobump on works correctly, while the old disp with autobump on has some weird shading bug.