I'm 99% sure I've seen this problem documented already but I've done some searching and couldn't find anything so thought I'd start a thread just in case.
When working with displacement on an object that has UVs spread across a number of tiles, my current workflow is to use composite textures & the offset value to create one 'map' for the displacement. This works really well with 3D and Subdivision displacment, however when using 2D (which is usually much nicer/tighter) it will only use the tile at 0,0.




I'm sure there's a logical reason for this (my naive thoughts say it might have something to do with difficulty in gauging the resolution of the full composite map?) but it would be fantastic if it could work the same way.
When working with displacement on an object that has UVs spread across a number of tiles, my current workflow is to use composite textures & the offset value to create one 'map' for the displacement. This works really well with 3D and Subdivision displacment, however when using 2D (which is usually much nicer/tighter) it will only use the tile at 0,0.




I'm sure there's a logical reason for this (my naive thoughts say it might have something to do with difficulty in gauging the resolution of the full composite map?) but it would be fantastic if it could work the same way.
Comment