Parallax mapping is also referred to as Virtual Displacement Mapping sometimes. The big difference between it and actual displacement mapping is that in displacement mapping, the silouhette of the object changes, whereas in parallax mapping the silouhette stays the same.
What that means is with displacement mapping a 230 poly mesh could look like 2,000,000 poly one, even at it's edges, but in parallax mapping the 230 poly mesh would look high poly everywhere but it's edges.
Irrlicht Screenshot Thread
Thank you very much for clarifying...Indeed, that I thought was so for normal maps vs displacement. That is, one of the first things to be said when normal maps appeared was that it was still low poly edges in silouhette...
So, then which is the difference between parallax mapping and normal maps? I already new displacement maps is the way to go, as I knew that from my high res render knowledge as an artist (is indeed a render possibility in Max and any other advanced package ) I suppose this calculation is made totally by the 3d card, or almost.
I was hoping normal maps would be simply deprecated by true displacement mapping...but then came parallax mapping...the truth is that I saw a pair of examples comparing parallax and normal maps, and the first look certainly better...dunno...as if it is doing something else more in the interior volumes than normal maps...
The logical and best path of things should end in displacement mapping replacing all the previous, (and that the transfer of UVs would be really easy between low an dhi poly versions, but that's another story, very artist-centric)
So, then which is the difference between parallax mapping and normal maps? I already new displacement maps is the way to go, as I knew that from my high res render knowledge as an artist (is indeed a render possibility in Max and any other advanced package ) I suppose this calculation is made totally by the 3d card, or almost.
I was hoping normal maps would be simply deprecated by true displacement mapping...but then came parallax mapping...the truth is that I saw a pair of examples comparing parallax and normal maps, and the first look certainly better...dunno...as if it is doing something else more in the interior volumes than normal maps...
The logical and best path of things should end in displacement mapping replacing all the previous, (and that the transfer of UVs would be really easy between low an dhi poly versions, but that's another story, very artist-centric)
Finally making games again!
http://www.konekogames.com
http://www.konekogames.com
@toopz, saw you posting that you thing Ogre's parallax mapping is better because Irrlicht's has artifacts. I think they are only there because you supplied a wrong MaterialParam value (http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/docu/st ... l.html#o10). Try a smaller one and you'll be happy.
Some screenshots of my game. The first playable release will be out this month.
[It has no sky because in debug mode I don't want to wait until the skybox is loaded ]
In game:
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... uego_1.jpg
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... uego_3.jpg
Track editor:
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... itor_1.jpg
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... itor_2.jpg
[It has no sky because in debug mode I don't want to wait until the skybox is loaded ]
In game:
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... uego_1.jpg
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... uego_3.jpg
Track editor:
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... itor_1.jpg
http://gamelab.uniovi.es/stuntchallenge ... itor_2.jpg