05-13-2014 01:39 AM
05-13-2014 02:27 AM
"Beta84" wrote:
I heard in a video from Michael Abrash that Bump mapping doesn't work anymore for VR. Is that right? (Can't test by myself, don't have DK1, and I'm waiting for my DK2)
"Here are his slides. (The normal mapping statement is on page 40)
Just wanted to let you know. But I guess in this early stage of development it doesn't really matter that much.
I don't yet understand how the gameplay would be like but visually it already looks amazing. You have my Greenlight. 🙂
[–]ccsander 9 points 3 months ago
I have to disagree on the normal mapping comment by Abrash, or at least agree with faith303 that there are exceptions. If you have a high-polygon model and use normal mapping to add even more details, it can look stunning in VR. You just can't get away with super low-poly models and expect normal mapping will make it look ok because it won't. It will look terrible. If you use normal maps for fine details like pores or wrinkles on skin, however, it is very effective because your eyes still perceive that as real geometry in VR at that scale.
[–]subcide 3 points 3 months ago
And as bad as normal mapping may look, no normal mapping isn't exactly better.
permalinkparent
[–]faith3034 points 3 months ago
Thanks a lot for sharing the slides. We are aware of these facts. There are some exceptions. It can look good under specific circumstances. ...
Then there’s content. For example, no one knows yet which art styles work in VR. Detailed scenes
that look great on a screen can look like cheesy stage sets in VR – and simple scenes can seem
startlingly real. Normal maps don’t look good, and textures sometimes do and sometimes don’t. So
we’re going to have to come up with a whole new visual vocabulary for VR too.
05-13-2014 03:00 AM
05-13-2014 11:56 AM
05-13-2014 02:32 PM
"cybereality" wrote:
Normal mapping looks fake in VR (or even just 3D). It's obvious you're looking at a flat quad.
...
05-13-2014 02:42 PM
05-13-2014 10:25 PM
"cybereality" wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with how big or small the polygon is. The problem is that there is no stereo parallax between the eyes. So you see the proper lighting for a higher-res mesh, but none of the stereopsis. It destroys the illusion.
05-14-2014 11:42 AM
float4 BumpMapPixelShader(PixelInputType input) : SV_Target
{
float4 textureColor;
float4 bumpMap;
float3 bumpNormal;
float3 lightDir;
float lightIntensity;
float4 color;
// Sample the texture pixel at this location.
textureColor = shaderTextures[0].Sample(SampleType, input.tex);
// Sample the pixel in the bump map.
bumpMap = shaderTextures[1].Sample(SampleType, input.tex);
// Expand the range of the normal value from (0, +1) to (-1, +1).
bumpMap = (bumpMap * 2.0f) - 1.0f;
// Calculate the normal from the data in the bump map.
bumpNormal = (bumpMap.x * input.tangent) + (bumpMap.y * input.binormal) + (bumpMap.z * input.normal);
// Normalize the resulting bump normal.
bumpNormal = normalize(bumpNormal);
// Invert the light direction for calculations.
lightDir = -lightDirection;
// Calculate the amount of light on this pixel based on the bump map normal value.
lightIntensity = saturate(dot(bumpNormal, lightDir));
// Determine the final diffuse color based on the diffuse color and the amount of light intensity.
color = saturate(diffuseColor * lightIntensity);
// Combine the final bump light color with the texture color.
color = color * textureColor;
return color;
}
05-14-2014 02:38 PM
"cybereality" wrote:
It seems you are misunderstanding what I am saying, and the point of this thread. ... Though, you are correct that at large distances this illusion will remain convincing since there is not much (if any) stereopsis after a certain point.
05-15-2014 06:27 PM