normal mapping

[blackjack-VS- 0]

everytime i see a new arma screenshot i try to found any "evidence" of normal mapping on there, but so far only that shiny tank made me have some suspicious of it.

only recently (3 months ago) i started making some experiences with normal maps and realize the power of such technology.

to be honest i really dont bother to test/try other games(yes i'im a nostalgic) but after watching some titles (like FEAR) i was impressed with the quality of those textures. many other titles are using normal mapping, so from what i was told , so i guess this is becoming a standard on new games.

from one of the 1st bis interviews i'm almost sure i remember them saying that arma uses bump mapping. well...bump mapping isnt that bad at all, but it hasnt the same power of normal mapping.

for the tech guys here, that look to screenies with diferent eyes from the common player, is there any suspicious about this?

another tech feature is culling (almost sure its called this). i recently saw a demo of a 3d engine that uses this technology. its basicly a feature that allows a 3d engine to ONLY render what is visible on the camera view. it has some controlable parameters, and fov (field of view) is the most important one. it works combined with lod feature, so it's really friendly to the fps of a game. i remember someone skilled from ofp forums telling that ofp renders ALL the visible/invisible objects loaded in a map. that's why we lag like hell on maps with hundreds of models.

i can only wish that arma engine has something similar to this. make our missions less laggy with a similar technology.

i'm not sure if this features are only possible to use in small scenarios games like fps. really hope their not.

hope i'm not asking anything taboo here, so plz coment if u have any info about this.

cya soon!

[codarl 1]

OFP already renders only what's "in view", place 500 objects, start looking away frmo it, then turn towards them .

Also, ArmA will have streaming terrain, IE only the stuff within (example) 7 KM is loaded into the memory (not thesame as being "rendered").

Long story short: Rejoice!

[Kegetys 2]

- ArmA most propably uses "normal mapping", as OFP elite does. I would say that normal mapping is just a form bump mapping, but some people use the terms a bit differently...

- OFP already does backface- and occlusion culling (Thats what the view geometries are for)

[benreeper 0]

I'm not a modeller or developer but OFP must do some of this stuff because it still has the largest playing area with the most units on screen at once (with competent AI) of any other game since the beginning of gaming.

--Ben

[Raptor 10]

normalmaps bring more realism to texturemaps on addons as bump maps do.

[metalchris 0]

Normalmapping is a form of bumpmapping , BUT it uses RBG insted of greyscale maps . normalmaps can do better transitions between high and lower heightvalues and you can bake polys on a lower poly model. look at farcry and polybump.

the technique is nothing else then normalmapping in a sophisticated way.

[surpher 1]

Normal mapping can be used for basic bump mapping or for faking high poly detail.

Creating and using normal maps

[max power 20]

If the screenshots we've seen that are associated with ArmA are a measure of the technology we will see in the final product, I can tell you for certain that it uses normal map technology.

edit: I was sort of getting confused between game 2 and ArmA. I just looked at a bunch of screenies here to help distinguish them (I was only been exposed to a few from each game until now). Looking at the ArmA shots, it does not look like there are normal maps- at least not in most shots. Most of the lighting in those pics is not really great conditions to judge, though. There looks like some normal-map action happening in the newer shots.

Normal mapping doesn't guarantee realism- just as any other graphical technology doesn't guarantee it- but it does allow for greater lighting detail. The best normal maps I've seen in a game are in the Lost Coast demo for half-life 2. That game combined photorealistic textures with some very subtle normal mapping to achieve a result to blended that your eye accepted it as one composition, rather than a model with a texture and a normal map.

Careful implimentation can achieve realism, and like so many other graphic technologies, this is rarely done. Mostly, normal maps are used to add detail and punch to the images, adding to the overall eyecandy. Either would be alright for ArmA, but I think that you can tell by the tone of my text which I prefer.

[berghoff 11]

Lets qoute a developer from BIS once again:

Quote[/b] ]Armed Assault models have (in average) about 2x - 3x times higher polycount than Resistance ones. Used textures are usually 1024x1024 and 2048x2048. There should be as few textures on model as possible. Is better use one big texture instead of two smaller ones. Models can be textured with normalmaps and specularmaps or detailtexture. You should also prepare ShadowVolume geometry for casting shadows on objects. Even on itself. It means it shouldn't be sticking out of the model at any place and should be under 300 poly. There is not necessary for ShadowVolume to be convex.

[blackjack-VS- 0]

thanks for answering my question BergHoff! i missed that part of the interview where they mentioned without any doubt the use of normal mapping.

to the other posts...i know what's normal mapping, otherwise i wouldnt mentioned it. and also know the difference between the traditional bump mapping (greyscale textures) and the normal mapping (uvw colored map). i made some simple tutorials related to normal mapping and yes the results are awsome. that's exactly why i was so interested to know if arma is gona use it. but hey! i can be tottaly wrong and normal mapping can be just an eye candy for the kids and smokes the 3d engine just to process it.

by the way...is there any reports on that? since its solid that we gona have normal maps on arma, could it be a rock in our foot relating gameplay? really hope not, and i think i'm gona start to learn how to make a decent model with normal maps and custom shaders.

and FYI..i'm really not an "eye candy" games customer. it's down on my priority list...but hey who doesnt like good graphics anyway!?

ok now i'll go back for arma countdown...

Good luck bis crew!

[metalchris 0]

I am very interested in how to make costum grass ... as it is a shader technology and must be programmed in some manner ...

[berghoff 11]

=) Most games use it but I guess in a wrong way or its just that bumpmapping is a strange technique, as everything looks like it has a plastic wrap around it which is very weird.

[metalchris 0]

not nessecarily ... i will post an example of my work in time

[max power 20]

Berghoff:

Yeah, up until now they really go heavy on the lighting with specular and normal maps. Once the initial excitement wears off, I'm sure people with start to make a serious effort at making models look more real.

Metalchris:

I think how most people do grass is just produce a series of criss-crossing polygons with alpha blended textures of grass on them.

[metalchris 0]

Sure thing , but i doubt they all placed them as objects ...

[thrush213 0]

aren't the player models using normal map? i could sort of see the bumps and grooves on their pants and helmets

[max power 20]

This can be accomplished with bump maps. The OFP elite characters seem to have normal maps, tho. We know that it is possible for the characters to have normal maps, and I think that we know that the elite characters do- so it's likely that the ArmA ones wil if they don't already.

[blackjack-VS- 0]

i just picked this "old" thread to talk again about normal maps textures. after today's screenshots i really am tempted to start working on a new addon that can be used in arma someday.

i wonder if there's someone already doing that around here...? get a couple of good ofp addons, and give them normal maps instead of the old difuse maps. we wont have a preview of the addons like in o2, but we can have a decent preview in some good free sdk 3dengines or renderers (max,maya,whatever u want to use).

the purpose of this idea is just to warm up some techiniques we will need for sure,not making arma addons.

by the time bis releases some new editing tool for us, we will know how to implement 3d files in the game .

for those who never created a normal map from an existing texture, it is very easy. u can find a free plugin for photoshop in nvida website. it works really well.

so what u guys think about a thread on this subject? will bis alound us? if not let me know plz.

[max power 20]

Normal maps are hard work.. like really hard work. They're such stupid hard work that it will literally take you an extra couple of days to complete a model.

Oh, and it's not really a good idea to try to use max to fashion an high poly model to get normal map information. You'll need some other tool, like zbrush, I think. I'm working on an amateur game project in my spare time here, and we'll eventually have Normal Maps on everything.. but for now we've decided to drop it because it's too time consuming and will require me to learn all kinds of new tools.

[Delirium 0]

You always could use normal map, displacement map or bump for texture.

You just had to bake it into the texture.

The question is if Arma can use normal maps. Cause "using" means generating engine real-time shading based on surface bumps created by Normal maps and lighting.

[Gux 0]

Oh, and it's not really a good idea to try to use max to fashion an high poly model to get normal map information. You'll need some other tool, like zbrush, I think.

Creating normal maps in Max is really easy actually. Zbrush is an awesome modeling tool for organic stuff, perfect for normal maps. But you don't need it to make normal maps in Max. What you need is a high detailed copy of your model which you then bake on to the mapping of the model.

[Dynamax 0]

what i would love to know is if normal/polybump-maps are being used in ArmA, and if not i hope they add it.

the polybump can be used to give the terrain more detal, as well as giving the ability for ground deforming due to bombs and such.

like when an explosion happens, the model for the ground doesnt change, but the polybumb can, and that'll give the effect of a creater.. at least thats what i think can be done.

[Gux 0]

what i would love to know is if normal/polybump-maps are being used in ArmA, and if not i hope they add it.

the polybump can be used to give the terrain more detal, as well as giving the ability for ground deforming due to bombs and such.

like when an explosion happens, the model for the ground doesnt change, but the polybumb can, and that'll give the effect of a creater.. at least thats what i think can be done.

They're in the game. You can easily spot them in the screenies. They use them in Ofp:Elite too.

FYI "Polybump" is actually Crytek's own word for their implementation. For holes and things like that parallax mapping gives a better effect. Even if you used that technique for craters you'd still walk on the same flat ground since it's just a map.

[thrush213 0]

umm, it's everywhere in the new shots. how could you miss it? look at the straps on the armor, the clothing...

[NeMeSiS 11]

like when an explosion happens, the model for the ground doesnt change, but the polybumb can, and that'll give the effect of a creater.. at least thats what i think can be done.

No, it will give the illusion of a crater, but when you try to lay down in it it will still be as flat as a pancake, so it might turn out to be worse then what we have now