Chaos, look into this!
cheers
Video not available.
Could you describe it in words?
I think he might be referring to texture displacement. Isn’t that similar to the 2D displacement we already have in Vray?
Take a look here:
Grigio, thank you yes, that is the one.
Is it really the same?
cheers
The video looks sped up a bit, but it looks FAST! I cant see anything else thats new about it from the video. Are they saying its a new way to calculate it and therefore its super fast and accurate?
They shared this link: Adobe Research » Tessellation-Free Displacement Mapping for Ray Tracing
And this is a comment from the devs:
“There is no need for subdivison like you would classical vertex based displacement. You do not need to subdivide a mesh for it to displace micro-polygon detail with this new technology. You can subdivide the mesh if you want, but the mesh doesn’t need to be subdivided like vertex displacement in order to displace detailed surfaces. The displacement is done at render time per-texel with the raytracer itself.”
ah!
I suspected as much, yes.
Yes, it’s one and the same approach, and we had it for 25 years or so. XD
Slight difference: having had it for so long, our defaults for size are puny, by comparison: we set resolution to 512, they showcase 16k.
Set our displacement to 16k, wait while it builds the first time, and then you’ll have about the same kind of performance with it.
To be precise, if I manipulate the displacement value, the update is not instantaneous in V-Ray, but it recalculates everything from scratch each time.
If only 2d displacement was compatible with uvw randomizer I would use it more often..
I’ll make sure to ask devs if there could be room to modernise it a bit.
Not a given, though: no promises.
For 2D displacement, we can optimize this quite a bit for sure. Other than that, Adobe’s method doesn’t really have advantages compared to V-Ray’s 2D displacement.
Best regards,
Vlado
Thank you guys! Hope to see some improvements. Thanks for your time.
This is a value I have to touch every single time…
Biggest drawback for me, too.
Just use 3D displacement, I find it faster than 2D sometimes.
I am not intrested in triplanar compatibility with 2d displacement, I would rather make it compatible with uvw randomizer, that would be essential to avoid repetition on big areas.
3D displacement is very heavy on memory for high-res work.
UVW randomizer is interesting for us, too. Not so much the triplanar map
I thought one thing, wrote another, i am sorry.
I did mean UVWRandomizer.
Reviving this discussion because RS has finally released a “Texture Displacement” for Cinema 4D and it really seems like 2D displacement, plus marketing. I even went as far as to watch the Maxon demo for Texture Displacement and beside the presenter calling vertex based displacement(normal, 3D displacement) “legacy” it also seems to have many of the same limitations as VRays 2D displacement(best for clean uvs and or broad flat surfaces). Ultimately I don’t know if Redshift is just late to the party(bc it is a gpu based render so there might be some special innovation there) or if they really are doing something new.
I would add that they are calling it “Tessellation-Free Displacement Mapping for Ray Tracing” which to me is just the same as VRay 2D where the ray tracing is happening at the UV level. Maxon also seems to be posting this Adobe paper in all the comment sections of youtube. The whole thing is odd to me. Anyhow, would appreciate any further feedback.
https://research.adobe.com/publicati…or-ray-tracing