normal map, still worth it this way?

[miguel93041 0]

Hello today i´m here to talk about the way we do the normal map on Terrain Builder.

 

I´ve checked this post a long time ago

 

But in Terrain Builder there is already an option called "Export Normal Image" and it creates the rvmats too with the mask and sat.

 

So after thinking how they do it, the first method just renames the RVMATs of the SAT and MASK images to Normal ones.

And the second method (TB) is the same as the first but without renaming it.

 

Let me explain it for you.

 

First method:

Spoiler

ambient[]={1,1,1,1};
diffuse[]={0.69999999,0.69999999,0.69999999,1};
forcedDiffuse[]={0,0,0,0};
emmisive[]={0,0,0,0};
specular[]={0,0,0,0};
specularPower=0;
class Stage0
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\n_000_000_nohq.png";
	texGen=3;
};
class Stage1
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\n_000_000_nohq.png";
	texGen=4;
};
class TexGen3
{
	uvSource="worldPos";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={0.001953125,0,0};
		up[]={0,0,0.001953125};
		dir[]={0,-0.001953125,0};
		pos[]={0.125,24.125,0};
	};
};
class TexGen4
{
	uvSource="worldPos";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={0.001953125,0,0};
		up[]={0,0,0.001953125};
		dir[]={0,-0.001953125,0};
		pos[]={0.125,24.125,0};
	};
};
class TexGen0
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={1,0,0};
		up[]={0,1,0};
		dir[]={0,0,1};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
class TexGen1
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={5,0,0};
		up[]={0,5,0};
		dir[]={0,0,0};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
class TexGen2
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={5,0,0};
		up[]={0,5,0};
		dir[]={0,0,0};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
PixelShaderID="TerrainSNX";
VertexShaderID="Terrain";
class Stage2
{
	texture="#(rgb,1,1,1)color(0.5,0.5,0.5,1,cdt)";
	texGen=0;
};
class Stage3
{
	texture="Spain\data\textures\vegetacion_nopx.paa";
	texGen=1;
};
class Stage4
{
	texture="Spain\data\textures\vegetacion_co.paa";
	texGen=2;
};
class Stage14
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\n_000_000_nohq.png";
	texGen=3;
};

 

 

Second method:

Spoiler

ambient[]={1,1,1,1};
diffuse[]={0.69999999,0.69999999,0.69999999,1};
forcedDiffuse[]={0,0,0,0};
emmisive[]={0,0,0,0};
specular[]={0,0,0,0};
specularPower=0;
class Stage0
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\s_000_000_lco.png";
	texGen=3;
};
class Stage1
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\m_000_000_lca.png";
	texGen=4;
};
class TexGen3
{
	uvSource="worldPos";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={0.001953125,0,0};
		up[]={0,0,0.001953125};
		dir[]={0,-0.001953125,0};
		pos[]={0.125,24.125,0};
	};
};
class TexGen4
{
	uvSource="worldPos";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={0.001953125,0,0};
		up[]={0,0,0.001953125};
		dir[]={0,-0.001953125,0};
		pos[]={0.125,24.125,0};
	};
};
class TexGen0
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={1,0,0};
		up[]={0,1,0};
		dir[]={0,0,1};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
class TexGen1
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={5,0,0};
		up[]={0,5,0};
		dir[]={0,0,0};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
class TexGen2
{
	uvSource="tex";
	class uvTransform
	{
		aside[]={5,0,0};
		up[]={0,5,0};
		dir[]={0,0,0};
		pos[]={0,0,0};
	};
};
PixelShaderID="TerrainSNX";
VertexShaderID="Terrain";
class Stage2
{
	texture="#(rgb,1,1,1)color(0.5,0.5,0.5,1,cdt)";
	texGen=0;
};
class Stage3
{
	texture="Spain\data\textures\vegetacion_nopx.paa";
	texGen=1;
};
class Stage4
{
	texture="Spain\data\textures\vegetacion_co.paa";
	texGen=2;
};
class Stage14
{
	texture="spain\data\layers\n_000_000_nohq.png";
	texGen=3;
};

 

 

 

That´s what i´m guessing. So does someone here have experience enough to say if it is better the first method or the second one?

 

(Forget about the .png files instead of .paa it is a testing :P)

 

Thank you in advantage.

[m1lkm8n 411]

Use the method within terrain builder now. That method was before terrain builder was ever released