We (LR) can't force anyone to turn down their models rendering cost (without making a horribly unscalable platform, which is a non-starter) so having rendering options that can be turned on and off strikes me as the best compromise of performance and visual quality. I also don't quite buy the argument about too many triangles.OBJ-tri capacity on even not-so-modern computers is just very large.if I had to take a wild stab, I'd say it's some other quantity holding up performance. those with old computers can just turn PPL off. We're better off with fewer tris and per-pixel lighting. I have seen some v9 OBJs where an engine nacel is cut into 360 pieces around the circumference to get a nice "shiny" look without per-pixel lighting. Performance: I like the idea of visuals through shaders because they can be turned off - we gain scalability with bump mapping because you can run without it - just turn per pixel lighting off - no penalty! In fact, if anything I would say that PPL and normal maps make things faster by reducing the pressure on artists to over-tesselate geometry. All of our rendering tech evolves and unfolds slowly in steps.
(Geeks: extra goo = basis vectors attached to the mesh.) They were actually sort of ready at the end of the 930 beta run, but 930 had been in beta for approximately forever, so they got kicked out. What's new that made bump maps possible now is being able to run them on a model like an OBJ without the extra goo. We've had a bump map shader for a long time (bump mapped planet came out in 9.0) but the bump mapped shader required some, um, extra goo (that's a technical term) to work.
Normal maps came out when they did because, as AJ points out, without PPL they can't exist. First, it's really cool to SEE some of the pics.I tested the normal map shader with that goofy "face" sample normal map from the Blender website - the pics posted here are much better!
0 kommentar(er)
