A:M’s displacement isn’t variable. It divides up each patch 4x4.
I didn’t mean to imply that it is “identical” to the method used to create the LOTR troll. I meant that the same principal of adding extra detail to the model with displacement maps is true in A:M.
argh deleted my post :-/
ok once again…
thanks for the replies
@ragtag
sure the cgi in LOTR was build with a lot of manpower. i´m not so foolish to belive i can make gollum in a week 
the trollskin was only an example. just imagine the cloud renderer in photoshop for a displacement skin. or imagine a dried out desert ground with the cracks in in it. how can you make this with d-maps in A:M? or even worse some well defined creases or a mechanical surface (typo, geometric objects,…). the result has such a high polycount… in polyprograms you get more or less used to a rather dense mesh. you have the tools to handel them with relative ease.
the first time i used d-maps in A:M was when i tried the pumpkintutorial from www.dvgarage.com (sorry no direkt link to the tutorial. i downloaded the quicktime a while ago). the steps where so easy to understand. the displacement map was quick made. then i applied it on the basic geometry. hm… something wrong. higher mesh, higer mesh, once again higer mesh… this is ridiculous now i have a mesh so dense i can model it all by hand (even with all the bumps and knots).
some basic pictures are following:
@zandoria
quote from an other website:
"Displacement/Fractal maps dynamically subdivide the patches they are applied to, limited to 16 subdivisions per patch. For more detail, large patches may have to be constructed out of many smaller patches.
Work as designed …"
sounds variable to me.
i can remember that between some versions of A:M the way d-maps are calculated was changed. but i´m not totaly shure with it…
well, how about letting the user decide about
how many subdivisions are enough or best lookin for each displacement-map?
would that be a good feature request?
That would be a great feature request, although it should definately come under the advanced features tab. You should also be able to set it for each model, so that you’re not rendering a higher poly count for the entire scene just to get that one pumpkin looking right.
Ragnar
A:M’s displacement mapping is not very usable at the moment. And yet, good displacement & normal mapping would be incredibly beneficial for A:M users who wish to do high detail modelling. Splines alone are simply not suitable for high detail.
I don’t see how you draw that conclusion…What is it that you don’t think is suitable?
The example I just showed demonstrates the extra detail (16 times!) that you can add to a mesh with a displacement map!
If someone were to recreate the LOTR troll, using A:M-- I believe that most of the people on this forum would still cry about how A:M is holding them back from creating any art.
If only A:M added the <fill-in-the-blank>, then it would be great:cry:
It is very disappointing…Time for me to take a break from this forum I guess.
zandoria: Creating 16x the amount of detail with displacement maps isn’t enough. For an example of the kind of detail I’m talking about, take a look at the recent ZBrush displacement/normal-mapping thread. Don’t get me wrong… I love A:M. I just don’t think it is currently possible to use it to create extremely high-detail models. But that’s the thing about CG apps… They all have their weaknesses, right? Hence “Feature Requests”;).
Ok Im a newbie so dont shoot me. But it looks like Zandoria showed that this was possible in AM-thanks by the way! But the past month Ive gone back and read alot of the older posts to learn as much on hash that I could. But it seems no matter what Hash does-they cant catch a break. Users said the render needs to be better-Hash did this. For me AM is stable. It shows they are listening! :> But I noticed that some people say one nice thing then say a bad thing to. Its like a weird vendetta or something. I hope you dont leave Zandoria-learned a lot from your posts. There are a lot of good people here-I hope no one leaves. 
binder3d: You will notice that zandoria’s example is inferior to the other one. It’s A:M’s fault, though, not his. As long as you don’t need extremely detailed geometry, however, A:M is great:thumbsup:.
ah come one. this thread doesn´t was started to flame A:M with the usual “seen new features in other programs -> why has A:M not this function -> it sucks…” my intention was not to rebuild LOTR, but create some easy pumpkin
my first intention was not that i was unable to create something in A:M. i wanted to use some tool in A:M and it didn´t behaved as i expected it and later on i didn´t seen the use of this tool in production at all.
ok i don´t want to start a flame war i really like the way A:M is developing and i don´t want to attack anybody.
thx for you effort to make the model.
but you can see on your model how hard the precise use of d-maps in A:M is. at the end of your punpkin the mesh gets naturaly denser. that means more detail and deeper creases (not THOSE creases compared to the middle. so to get even creases you have to crank up the mesh more and more (with the result of a much to dense mesh at the ends or a lot of hooks)
I don´t mean it´s impossible to get the result of the example by dvgarage, but it´s not really worth the effort. modelling it by hand and bumpmaps is a lot preciser and quicker.
for me i made the decision that i don´t use d-maps any more. maybe i´m wrong but the effort to get the expected result is not worth it. i take the classical way model it out.
at one point i was wrong. we now have the ability to control hight density meshes. thanks to weight mover by anzovin studio. i don´t know how good this program is but i sounds really impressive on paper.
so my rant about high complex meshes with d-maps may be outdated
How will weight mover be able to help with d-maps in AM? Are you saying that d-maps might not be needed? Thanks-
It’s not that weight mover helps with d-maps, but that it helps with higher density meshes, which allow d-maps to tesselate better. In other words a displacement map will look better on a 10,000 patch model then it would on a 1,000 patch model.
Weight mover lets you use a low patch proxy to more easily weight a complex model.
No problemo, glad to help out.
I’ve been playing with dmaps the last few months and they really are nice to add a little something and break up that normal cg look. Would be great to see sub pixel displacement and normal maps, but I have no doubt that Hash will eventually get these as well.
some small borg-sphere with displacement-maps
sphere -> 2000 patches
maps -> darktree (displace, bump, color, lamps)
15min to setup the sphere with maps
30min to find the switch for those tiny lights (:
1h rendertime with 9 passes a 6 min
& the project-file -> 072_displacements_tests.zip
to be able to decide for each model
how many subdivisions fit best
would be really coool & time-saving
although i doubt that it would decrease rendertime
any chance of writing a plugin or something?
does the sdk support projection-maps or decals to
be “manipulated” in such a way?
So I guess this forum has to shut down now?
What can we do?
The borg sphere looks pretty good. Close up Detail might be a little weak, but would be excellent for a distance shot.
NIce work.
Mike Fitz
www.3dartz.com
So I guess this forum has to shut down now?
You’re scaring me Mike- hope you don’t mean we have to go back to the AMList?
OK, back to Displacement mapping - I think if AM communicated with programs like zbrush (and I’ve read work arounds to Maxons 3d painting app) directly, this would be solved.
I’ve had good results with displacement maps in 8.5, can’t see that v10 would throw that away. Have you tried all the links in Sherwoods Forest? I think Jeff Cantin’s site had some tutorials with pretty good results.
As to AM & zbrush or deeppaint(?) it’s a case of making requests to either software vendor to show there is a market.
It does look like zbrush could become to 3dmodelling what photoshop originally became- an indespensible part of a 3d modellers toolkit…
@noOne
as i told you before nice model
@ all others
i found a useful solution for displacement maps.
water
they´re really useful for simulating waves.
on (almost) flat and sqare 4 point patches d-maps are useful and easy to control.
so d-maps are not useless in the current A:M version
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.