Author Topic: Corona 5 - 2.5D Displacement on Curves  (Read 5396 times)

2019-11-19, 11:49:23
Reply #45

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 6739
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Displacement is at 1px in both cases.

You need to set lower screen size in 2.5D displacement, or higher in classic one, to get comparable results. If i'm not mistaken, the ratio is about 1:1,5 So 1px classic displacement, should have about the same quality as 0,67px 2.5D displacement.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2019-11-19, 14:00:00
Reply #46

matsu

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Hey Matsu, what is the topology of your plane? Is it equally subdivided, can you please provide a wireframe?

It's a plane primitive 3x3m, 30x30 division (+Noise modifier Scale=20 Strength Z=60mm) - so 100x100mm squares. Adding wireframe.

Quote from: romullus
You need to set lower screen size in 2.5D displacement, or higher in classic one, to get comparable results. If i'm not mistaken, the ratio is about 1:1,5 So 1px classic displacement, should have about the same quality as 0,67px 2.5D displacement.

Adding comparison on 0.5px. The artifact is still there, but not as pronounced.

2019-11-19, 14:16:05
Reply #47

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • George
    • View Profile
Hey Matsu, what is the topology of your plane? Is it equally subdivided, can you please provide a wireframe?

It's a plane primitive 3x3m, 30x30 division (+Noise modifier Scale=20 Strength Z=60mm) - so 100x100mm squares. Adding wireframe.

Quote from: romullus
You need to set lower screen size in 2.5D displacement, or higher in classic one, to get comparable results. If i'm not mistaken, the ratio is about 1:1,5 So 1px classic displacement, should have about the same quality as 0,67px 2.5D displacement.

Adding comparison on 0.5px. The artifact is still there, but not as pronounced.

So yeah everything seems fine I suspect the usage of noise modifier with 2.5D, I will test this a bit further to see bad it can get, thanks.
“Every artist was first an amateur”

2019-11-19, 15:20:39
Reply #48

matsu

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
I've tried with and without noise mod; with different textures; RWS and not - it persists. Even tried world size displacement.

But I think it's strange you get this obvious repeating/tiling pattern. With the old displacement you could just lower the quality - sure, you'd lose detail, but you wouldn't get artifacts like this. If you can reproduce it, I hope you can sort it out.

2019-11-27, 23:30:36
Reply #49

dj_buckley

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
Just wondered if there was any progress with this.

I think my biggest question is which displacement is correct in terms of depth.

Tesselated geometry seems to give more definition to the displacement - when you look at my tests and can see untesselated next to tesselated.  It makes the untesselated surface look quote flat.

So is untesselated correct in terms of depth.

Or

Is tesselated correct in terms of depth, but incorrect with regards artifacts?

2020-09-08, 11:10:48
Reply #50

dj_buckley

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
Just bumping this back up to see if anything was addressed on this for Corona 6.  I'm testing at the minute and it still seems to be an issue.  Would be good to get an update

2020-09-08, 11:34:48
Reply #51

PROH

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
Agree. I often need to go back to the "old" displacement method, because 2.5D gives to many artifacts. Sometimes tesselation before displacement helps, but not always.

Would be great to see a fix for this.

Regards

2020-09-08, 11:58:37
Reply #52

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
Agree. I often need to go back to the "old" displacement method, because 2.5D gives to many artifacts. Sometimes tesselation before displacement helps, but not always.

Would be great to see a fix for this.

Regards

I ran into this issue the other day, it occurred on a curved wall that had a fine ribbed wavy displacement map applied to it. 2.5D displacement produced massive "spiky" black artefacts so had to go back to the old method with 1px displacement resolution...needless to say RAM usage and pre-computation time went through the roof. Increasing the tessellation of the curved wall didn't help in removing the artefacts.
Vray who?

2020-09-08, 12:19:04
Reply #53

dj_buckley

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
I think you guys have answered my question :)

Still stuck with old displacement and no progress has been made.


2020-09-08, 12:49:57
Reply #54

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • George
    • View Profile
Just bumping this back up to see if anything was addressed on this for Corona 6.  I'm testing at the minute and it still seems to be an issue.  Would be good to get an update

Further optimization and bug fixing for 2.5D Displacement will be looked into for the Corona version 7.0 release. Please rest assured that we will inform you of any further developments.

Thanks.
“Every artist was first an amateur”

2020-09-08, 20:30:25
Reply #55

Alexandre Besson

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • http://www.alexandre-besson.com
    • View Profile
    • Alexandre Besson portfolio
Same thing here, edge's atefacts present with classic displacement and heavier with 2.5D.
Chamfer and some centimeters dispacement per exemple create massive edge's atefacts. no usable with chamfer edges, annoying.

Regards