It looks to me like you loose some detail when the bump_map method is used.
The HF image seems more realistic.  The grain seems to be deeper and more 3D
in the HF.  The differences are subtle, though.

Cris

"Kari Kivisalo" <kki### [at] pphtvfi> wrote in message
news:3B626137.C600D2AC@pp.htv.fi...
> Warp wrote:
> >
> >   If you use a bump_mapped box instead of a heightfield, what is the
render
> > speed difference and how does the image look like?
>
> From this angle and light source position the bump_map looks quite
> good and when applied to a low polycount mesh would look just as good
> as the HF. I could propably use mesh with bump_map for most of the
> wooden board objects. I had to use bump_size 1000 which is quite odd
> since all the other times I have used bump_maps bump_size higher
> than 10 didn't do any good.
>
> http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/bump.jpg
>
> HF:                  17 min, 15 MB
> bump_map:             5 min,  5 MB
> bump_map, normal_on: 38 min,  5 MB (takes less blue color from the sky)
>
> +am2 +a0.5
>
> global_settings{
>   assumed_gamma 1.0
>   ini_option "+qr"
>   radiosity{
>     pretrace_start 0.04
>     pretrace_end 0.02
>     count 100
>     recursion_limit 2
>     nearest_count 2
>     error_bound 1
>     //normal on
>   }
> }
>
> _____________
> Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message