Latest on SP3?

[beestee]

So, what are the benefits or vector displacement over normal displacement?

Check out this thorough explanation of the differences between bump/displacement/normal/vector displacement.

That link came from this thread.

[stevesideas]

Thanks for the link. I see now. I guess then it would be impossible to create a vector based displacement image in say, photoshop, from scratch like you can with a 2d displacement map. Looks to me like you need to have modelled the geometry first anyway before using the shapes vector displacement map to displace other geometry.

[duke2]

You know, i'd also chip in and say how the fog is really awesome and renders in a flash even with it working with volume lighting and textures to create - well whatever you want, nor will I say i want VRay's babies, because Vlado would break my legs.

[vlado]

Check out this thorough explanation of the differences between bump/displacement/normal/vector displacement.

It seems very odd that the guy used ambient occlusion to create bump maps. If he used a z-buffer, he would have gotten the nearly the same result as with the normal map.

Best regards,
Vlado

[stevesideas]

But if you use zbuffer isnt the zbuffer distance calculated from the centre of the camera to a radius rather than a flat plane which the ambient occlusion would do...

[percydaman]

no you can specify the distance from the camera where the zdepth starts.

[vlado]

But if you use zbuffer isnt the zbuffer distance calculated from the centre of the camera to a radius rather than a flat plane which the ambient occlusion would do...

Yes, but you can use an orthographic camera...

Best regards,
Vlado

[stevesideas]

Ah, i see

[vlado]

Thanks for the link. I see now. I guess then it would be impossible to create a vector based displacement image in say, photoshop, from scratch like you can with a 2d displacement map. Looks to me like you need to have modelled the geometry first anyway before using the shapes vector displacement map to displace other geometry.

Well, not impossible (they are RGB images anyways), but perhaps very very difficult. In any case, SP3 will have some tools to help bake the required displacement and normal maps.

Best regards,
Vlado

[stilgarna]

Hello Vlado,

Just few questions about displacement in general with sp3...

Lele said that vector displacement is very fast... but does the classic displacement became faster as well or it's a very different technology, so it's not possible to get the same speed for different kind of displace ?

If 2D displacement is not faster in SP3... Is-it possible to use vector displacement for simple 2d Displacement ?

Best regards...

[vlado]

Vector displacement works only with 3d displacement mode. There is no significant difference in render speeds from previous versions of V-Ray, although RAM usage is somewhat more efficient, both for vector and normal displacement.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Morne]

I hope we'll see some screenshots for this. A picture says so much more.

[stilgarna]

Vector displacement works only with 3d displacement mode. There is no significant difference in render speeds from previous versions of V-Ray, although RAM usage is somewhat more efficient, both for vector and normal displacement.

Best regards,
Vlado

Thanks,

I was hoping that vray displacement became faster than renderman...

Maybe next time...

SP3 looks great... hope it will be out soon


Best regards

[jujubee]

Awesome changes.

All we asked for was a circular light and we get all this instead. =)

=)

[^Lele^]

I was hoping that vray displacement became faster than renderman...

But that's exactly what the tests @ Frantic showed
Of course, with screen-space edge length, and a similar look.
That is, not making edge length sub-pixel in VRay too, just comparing production-grade renders.
In fact the speed advantage becomes greater the more water we had to displace (ie. a far horizon would have Renderman displacement die there, while vray would fly through).