Author Topic: Parallax mapping option as an alternative for displacement  (Read 10754 times)

2019-11-06, 00:39:25

Psifinity

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
I have used the parallax feature Marmoset Toolbag 3 has and it's honestly pretty great imo for saving a lot of time compared to displacement, whilst still getting the same result when also using a normal map with it. If this isn't too much to ask, I would also to see this supported with Corona as a compromise for those who like the pros of displacement but don't want to deal with any inconvenient issues it may bring and/or just want to save more time. I remember several months back when I saw a message by Ondra 6 years ago saying that "This is too big fake suitable for games, but not for realistic renderer", and while it's true that it's usually good for games, that doesn't necessarily devalue it's efficiency in both games and high-end CG renders imo. I personally don't think that should be a reason to *not* include it, but that's just what I think. Either way, this renderer is pretty great, which is why I think (if it aint too much) it would be great to have both displacement and parallax options for the user.

2019-11-06, 18:08:36
Reply #1

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 11282
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
"This is too big fake suitable for games, but not for realistic renderer"

I am afraid this is still valid, especially with the new displacement. We may consider this if more users ask for it and present some solid use cases.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
Chaos Corona Support Team Lead | contact us

2019-11-08, 02:27:59
Reply #2

Psifinity

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
It would be pretty aight if you don't mind explaining that in more detail, as last time I checked it has something to do with the raytrace architecture which I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable in terms like that. Also, although this may or may not prove to be a solid case, two ways I'm aware of parallax being quite useful is with eyes and city building interiors; the connection here being parts of an object that don't necessarily cast shadows upon something (and usually normal maps have helped with having parallax interact properly with lighting and shadows, at least on eye textures afaik).

2019-11-08, 14:10:11
Reply #3

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 11282
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Maybe this could help?
https://www.racoon-artworks.de/?p=773
I haven't tested it with Corona yet.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
Chaos Corona Support Team Lead | contact us

2019-11-08, 15:04:58
Reply #4

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 11282
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Yep, works.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
Chaos Corona Support Team Lead | contact us

2019-11-08, 20:00:54
Reply #5

Psifinity

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Ah, so there's OSL support. Well, alright that works then. I suppose it's not exactly possible yet to integrate the parallax option into Corona yet?

2020-02-01, 16:25:53
Reply #6

PastaJackal

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Am seeing this feature coming out of fstorm recently, and can definitely think of a few cases where this would be really useful - especially for animations where displacement may not always be feasible

Attached is a recent render from the developer of fstorm showing a how a totally flat surface treats parallax mapping. Shadows included.

2020-02-02, 09:58:33
Reply #7

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Parallax is really great for realistic renders, replaces very fake bump mapping, good for everything even short grass. I really hope we can have something like this. It's huge, Fstorm has really good examples of this.

2020-02-02, 10:37:48
Reply #8

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7557
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
What map it uses as input? Height map? Normal map?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-02-02, 18:54:22
Reply #9

sprayer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 794
    • View Profile
Am seeing this feature coming out of fstorm recently, and can definitely think of a few cases where this would be really useful - especially for animations where displacement may not always be feasible

Attached is a recent render from the developer of fstorm showing a how a totally flat surface treats parallax mapping. Shadows included.
I think you mistaken and showing on image displacement with material projection - new feature in fstorm
here video

2020-02-02, 19:04:35
Reply #10

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Am seeing this feature coming out of fstorm recently, and can definitely think of a few cases where this would be really useful - especially for animations where displacement may not always be feasible

Attached is a recent render from the developer of fstorm showing a how a totally flat surface treats parallax mapping. Shadows included.
I think you mistaken and showing on image displacement with material projection - new feature in fstorm
here video
no that's parallax bump working with material projection. that's how good parallax is, you will mistake it for displacement.

2020-02-04, 01:49:23
Reply #11

PastaJackal

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
On the topic of requested features, this material projection would be super handy when applying decals to further detail up surfaces. Is this possible with corona/3ds max? Or is it just fstorm

2020-02-04, 07:58:03
Reply #12

Kyle

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
While the parallax mapping implemented into Fstorm is very impressive, I personally would find material projection much more useful. Since we now have 2.5D displacement, this already works very fast and uses very little RAM. You still need an accurate height map for parallax, you can't just use a bump map as far as I am aware so it's not like we could just start using it on all materials where we don't have an accurate height map.

Material projection on the other hand would be a great new feature for adding decals to surfaces much like what can be done in Unreal Engine.

2020-02-04, 10:13:08
Reply #13

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 7557
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I fully agree with Kyle - material/map projection feature would be much more usefull. Paralax might look impressive in demos, but somehow i think you won't find it very usefull in real world scenes, maybe except for animations, where Corona displacement still has much room to improve.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-02-07, 23:00:01
Reply #14

marchik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
I fully agree with Kyle - material/map projection feature would be much more usefull. Paralax might look impressive in demos, but somehow i think you won't find it very usefull in real world scenes, maybe except for animations, where Corona displacement still has much room to improve.
I find these functions pretty closely related to each other. Consider, for example, asphalt, on top of which we want to place a decal with a pothole. The lower coordinate of the pothole is below the level of asphalt, which means that when using displacement, you will have to use a mixture of two height maps in one and apply this material to one mesh. In fact, the absence of parallax mapping negates the flexibility of decals in this case.