Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


Rhetorician

Member Since 21 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Private

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Euclideon Geoverse - Latest Video Calms More Critics

14 October 2013 - 08:31 PM

What? I completely get what he's claiming when I take him literally. Literally, he's claiming O(infinitesimal frusta) with lazy evaluation.

In Topic: Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

10 October 2013 - 11:17 PM

Thank's for the optimism.


In Topic: Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

10 October 2013 - 08:55 PM

I'm just sick of things.

In Topic: Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

10 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

Fuck all of you

 

lol


In Topic: Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

10 October 2013 - 08:08 PM

I reiterate, normal mapping is not the problem.  Lack of artistic control and physically based (not “physically-based”) shading models are a separate problem.

 

The problem I'm blaming them for is bludgeoning it without sufficient...

 

This is rediculous. I already explained my point in the original post:

 

There's a quality threshold between when an effect needs to be baked -- despite having many dynamic properties -- and when technology permits to achieve the same amount of static quality, but also properly capturing the dynamics.

 

The point of the topic is not: NORMAL MAPPING IS A PROBLEM.
The topic is: STOP BLUDGEONING NORMAL MAPPING.
 

As was correctly mentioned by Hodgman, normal maps are an “artificial increase” in polygons

 

Diffuse maps are the same thing, but regardless of dynamic lighting conditions. It's a texture map. Instead of having a point cloud, voxel volume, or trillions of solid colored triangles, we use texture mapping. What's your point?
 

—neither eliminating the normal maps while keeping the same polygons nor increasing the polygon count would create a better result.

 

There's an incredible amount of abstraction behind the idea of a diffuse map. Transmission and reflection themselves are both intransitively-distinct to the idea of diffusion, though both phenomena are part of surface diffusion's broad notion in many complex ways. Diffuse maps approximate a lot, but we subtract anything that is approximated in real time e.g. strong specularity is usually first for the boot. You can approximate any lighting effect (just as megatexturing boasts), but only as long as it's not dynamic.


PARTNERS