Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We need your feedback on a survey! Each completed response supports our community and gives you a chance to win a $25 Amazon gift card!


Rhetorician

Member Since 21 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Private

#5100444 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 11:17 PM

Thank's for the optimism.




#5100421 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 08:55 PM

I'm just sick of things.


#5100411 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 08:26 PM

Fuck all of you

 

lol




#5100404 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 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.




#5100397 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 07:58 PM

 

No, it’s their fault for using a classic (and deprecated) lighting system. Some of them are using Phong shading instead of a physically based model. This in itself will cause non-realistic transitions between the main surface into the “shadows” of the normal map.

There is nothing wrong with normal mapping itself. It’s their lighting model that is to blame, and it would not look any better if it was just polygons and no normal mapping.

 

I'd just like to note that I find many "modern" games unappealing due to the excessive amounts of normal mapping they use without sufficient artistic control or physically-based accuracy.


Baked => physically-based accuracy can be simulated statically even without the hardware to "update it" every frame. This is primarily about diffuse.




#5100374 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 06:45 PM

And yes, I perfectly well understand why the normal mapping looks bad in these screenshots (and many many many more), but here's the lesson:

It's their mistake of putting it into the game without having it up to par with "baked" approximations which are at least bearable to the eye.

Despite it being a 2004 game, Halo 2 is the first time I noticed this problem. Yes. They had technical limitations, but so do many modern games. Halo 1 had normal mapping (and even more technical limitations), but it was always subtle and looked great everywhere they used it.

Halo 2

H2_mp_waterworks_sniper-GI.jpg

1466_halo-2-vista-shots-2007051201250682

I can't find any screenshots of Halo 1 that demonstrate its application of normal mapping, but I might take some of my own. Don't worry, I'll try to pick the ugliest.




#5100373 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 06:43 PM

skyrim-dunmer-dark-elf-screenshot-2.jpg

elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-20110118072241693

skyrim-scenery-screenshot.jpg?w=900

Skyrim-screenshots-39.jpg

0dd68f1e.jpg




#5100371 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 10 October 2013 - 06:30 PM

Give us some concrete examples to discuss and dissect

 

I don't even know where to start.

1637wolfhound.jpg

 

sneak-attack.jpg

dishonored1.jpg

nuove-immagini-per-call-of-duty-black-op

Call+of+Duty+Black+Ops+II+-+Pyrrhic+Vict

codbocutscene.png

call_of_duty_black_ops_ed043.jpg




#5098850 Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

Posted by Rhetorician on 04 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

I'd just like to note that I find many "modern" games unappealing due to the excessive amounts of normal mapping they use without sufficient artistic control or physically-based accuracy.

If you can "bake in" physically-based effects into a diffuse map and make them look better than real-time approximations for the most part, then do it! 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.

I often find myself appreciating the 3D graphics and artwork of older 1998-2007 games more than many modern games for reasons like this.

Edit, other bludgeoned 'modern' effects:

  • SSAO.
  • Low-res "Megatexturing"
  • Terrible yellow-ish color graded fog which oddly seems to have transmission disproportionate to absorption. For instance: "Given the amount of over saturation the fog has caused, wouldn't the camera would be blind after only about 5 meters of depth? ... Yet it can see far beyond that."
  • Over-exaggerated depth of field with a ridiculously horrid blur kernel
  • And yet we still see INSANE amounts of bloom, though slightly (yes, I said slightly) more accurate than it was several years ago. Your increase in familiarity with color theory justifies little.



#5065660 A Daft Statement

Posted by Rhetorician on 28 May 2013 - 05:55 PM

2's complement style operations don't require base 2 representation. There is 10's complement in base 10... it's just a way to represent negative numbers in an unsigned number system... think about what happens when you wind a mileometer back below 0... it goes to 99999 (or however many digits it has)... so 99999 is the (5 digit) representation of -1 in 10's complement.

 

That was my point... Yeah, I know. Sometimes I'm a terribly ineffective writer.

 

benefits which are not exclusive to working with 2 symbols but are more obvious and more familiarly practiced in 2-symbol representations. We've thought of some awesome things which have been developed for binary systems, e.g. two's-complement representation. These solutions were designed to emulate operation which doesn't necessarily depend on how many symbols there are.

 

I should have used the word: 'techniques', instead of "benefits". smile.png




#5065340 A Daft Statement

Posted by Rhetorician on 27 May 2013 - 03:08 PM

Im annoyed




#5065333 A Daft Statement

Posted by Rhetorician on 27 May 2013 - 02:26 PM

Edit history button lol




#5064934 Better Debugging Tools; C++/MinGW/Dwarf

Posted by Rhetorician on 26 May 2013 - 03:30 AM

Bump:

 

Tips

  • In Visual Studio, you can double click a watch expression to modify it and append ",n" to view n elements of an array.
  • Integrate auxiliary debugging utility (like console output or log files) into your program in a way that may be completely disabled by some method of configuration.



#5064924 Physically Correct "Bloom"

Posted by Rhetorician on 26 May 2013 - 02:46 AM

You completely nailed it. I'm very new to this field of study, but I just looked up dispersion and now I'm absolutely sure you're correct for both situations. Thin film interference seems to be the cause for the oiled wood, and dispersion for the vases. I feel stupid because I've completely failed to associate any phenomena with their proper terms (slaughtered it), but I think this topic is completely solved now. The vases do have an interesting gloss coating, so I think thin film interference is also playing a role.  Thanks smile.png

 

 

By the way, what happens when the coating is thicker than allowed by the model in your article, and cos0 is very near to zero (don't think absorption, but dispersion)?




#5064902 Physically Correct "Bloom"

Posted by Rhetorician on 25 May 2013 - 11:12 PM

The only thing I can think of that comes close to what you describe is multicolored noise on various objects due to interference of light at the surface, like oil film reflections but on a much smaller scale.

 

Interesting. By looking around my house, I actually discovered this when observing bright specular highlights on oiled woodwork, but something comparable also seemed to occur when I looked at the bright highlights produced by elaborate glass vases which were constructed like mosaics with many discrete glass sub-faces glued together (lot of caustic effects). I'm still trying to reproduce images. I just need to find the right time of day to take pictures, but I'm usually busy/distracted with programming.






PARTNERS