Is Vrays displacement that bad?

[RErender]

Check out Tim's tutorial at http://www.seraph3d.com/bricktut.htm

[Syclone1]

hmmm, cant attatch here...

i was joing to upload you a map, but you can use the checker map to see a similar result. take a box such as that, and add a checker map displacement. give it a good height... like 6" on a 200" box

your image looks fine, but the displacement is fairly "safe" no tall sharp edges. one thing that i do notice is the edges of the box are intact. on mine they tear apart. what settings did you use?

later

To keep the edges from "tearing" apart with the 3d mapping go down to the "3D mapping params" in the displacement rollout and turn on "Keep continuity" then if the problem persists just adjust the "Edge thresh" spinner to a smaller # and that should work for you.

-dave

[RErender]

I think the 3D method is a bit more expensive, the example I posted uses 2D displacement and renders quite quickly. The artifacts are due to low GI settings not the displacement.

[ihavenofish]

well, ok, hmmmm
first, if i use 3d mode i get a bunch of normal errors at the corners. so until i can figure out how not to, thats not an option.

second, if i do like in that tutorial, one of 2 things happen:
either a, the edges tear anyway (yours didnt, so i assume i can fix that)
or b, the surface of the mesh curves toward the edges making the box not flat. anymore. yours looks like you might have a tiny bit of rounding, but the one in the tutorial has none, thats great.

there is 1 thing in your image that will make that method unusable for me though. the projecttion of the displacement is not 90 degrees from the surface but you have given me hope .i got a suggestion to use both a positive and negative displacement map so that the zero mark will actually stay at zero and the corners simply wont move... as long as i leave a border with no displacing. the offset is difficult to get precisely with 1 map

could you clean up the lighting in that image? just a point light if fine if you want. i get artifacts on the sharp corners, might be aa, might be in the displacement, i'd like to see if yours has them too.. does not look bad though, but its procedural and that might help it... (is there a vector illustrator map out there?) i'll have to try all these suggestions on monday at work


thanks,
later

[peter008]

if your not going to offer any constructive input on my issues with vray displacement, please do not respond to this thread...
you are the textbook definition of a troll

Are you coming from Russias Ihavenofish?

Let me tell you something new, in others countrys there is a long tradition of FREE SPEECH.

This is my thread not yours, i don´t know who you are that you say to other people to be quiet?

Your name calling show what behind your "professionality" but this kind of behavior is well known at the Splutterfish forum, if you do not agree with the big Fishes.

[Zeddicus]

He's from Canada I think, and while maybe slightly rude (he was responding to an attack after all) I think his intentions are good in that he wants to keep this thread from going off topic or filling up with useless posts. Am I right "ihavenofish"?

Today I've been playing with moving meshes from Max to Zbrush and back again, and occasionally encounter strange anomolies with Vray displacement in 2D mode. For example today I had what looked like faces that had been torn away in various spots on my mesh. Sometimes I could see through to the background, sometimes it looked like a black void. The really wierd thing is that it stopped doing that all by itself when I switched to Mental Ray for a bit to do some testing and then switched back to Vray again.

Vray, of course, isn't perfect (yet, hehe) but it's definitely on the right track I think. So far even when it glitches I still get better results than all the other methods I've experimented with in the past. For anyone who cares, I found a post recently by someone affiliated with Cebas fr (I think anyways) that back in February posted on their official forum that Vray's displacement was better than their MTD, lol. Love seeing that kind of honesty.

[ihavenofish]

i am indeed from the land of maple syrup. yummy

the point of this thread as stated by peter008 was to find out whether vray's diplacement was really as bad as i had made it out to be. a legitimate question from a user who has no(?) expeience with it. i stepped in only to make sure that the question posed actually got answered by the right knowledgable people rather than degrading into a flame fest. hopefully i succeeded, because i want to know the answer too. if not, i'll just have to start another thread, because i really cant waste the time reading the written equivelant of two 6 year olds telling each other how much cooler each of their dads are.

anyway... back to tha task at hand. it seems i have a fair bit of confirmation on the bugs i am seeing. what i am waiting for, and experimenting to find are workarounds for them, or better yet bug fixes
/me nudges vlado

i really would like to get vray working as a viable solution for my work, because the more workable solutions i have, the better, and because so far, while vray has its issues, so does everything else
the question is, can i get vray past the showstopper issues i currently have. hopefully ill have some time on monday to get some test files made that i can post here.

thanks again,
later

[f97ao]

I have mostly used Vrays displacement for things like concrete and earth and have then recieved good results. I can't see any errors generally. But I have not used it for similar things like the checker box you have above.
Vray team are working very hard on the 1.5 now, so I would imagine that either 1.5 has better displacement map, or if it doesn't it will probably take a while before they can adress displacement imperfections, as I'm sure it's a very complex process.

/Andreas