Author Topic: Displacement problem  (Read 1635 times)

2022-05-23, 00:18:08
Reply #15

frv

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
I experimented with displacement this Sunday evening.
I took one of the best mappings available by Arroway for gravel.

It seems to me that displacement mapping the way I use it in archviz for masonry and gravel for instance should not be used at different settings than 100% length U & V. This is because once you reduce these material tag U&V lengths in the object manager the displacement is not proportionately adjusted as well in the displacement level in the material.

But if you do adjust the displacement settings manually you will experience artefacts. So you have to use displacement maps at their proper dimensions and not change the material tags U&V lengths to size the mappings on the geometry for cubic mapping.

Attachments:
48.23
here you see artefacts in the form of lining in the gravel at reduced to 3% U&V (100% is 1444 mm) material tag lengths at 25mm displacement.
47.04
proper displacement at 100% U&V material tag lengths (1444x1444 mm by 25 mm displacement)
49.17
artefacts remain even when displacement is reduced (in this case to 3mm) at 3% U&V.

I think the artefacts occur because of playing with the U&V lengths of the cubic projected mappings. Problem is that once you reduce the min and max levels of displacement manually to compensate for the reduced U&V lengths artefacts will appear and you loose the logic of real world dimensions.

I will check again for the masonry in a project I did. I still had artefacts although much less even when texture maps and displacement levels where all set at real world dimenions and set in C4D at 100%.
« Last Edit: 2022-05-23, 00:23:40 by frv »