Warp wrote:
>>If I may make an addition. If one DOES use heavy AA usually then the 
>>single bumps method produces, of course, a lot faster reflections. Using 
>>AA and many averaged textures slows thing down _a lot_!
> 
> 
>   Then you are using it wrong.
> 
>   If you want to use heavy antialiasing, you don't need to average so
> many textures (supposing you are scaling the normals small).
>   If eg. 100 averaged textures look good without antialiasing, but you
> are going to use heavy antialiasing for the final image, you can decrease
> that count to eg. 20 or 10 or whatever.
>   The advantage is that it will produce a better result than a single
> normal with the same antialiasing settings. Even two averaged textures will.

Of course I mean the method suggested in the FAQ: scaling the normals 
big. There is still a certain minimum amount of textures you need to 
average in order to get decent results. If you use heavy AA in addition, 
the result will be slower than if you used single bumps scaled down. 
Single normal is definitely faster than multiple normals? The point is 
that if single normal (scaled down) produces perfect results, why use 
multiple. Single up scaled normal can not result _any_ blurness in 
reflections whereas single down scaled can - IF the rest of the scene 
demands heavy AA. And this should be at least mentioned in FAQ.

But, if multiple _down_ scaled normals produce even better reflections 
with modest AA without too many averages than up scaled, then that 
should be mentioned also. Gosh, I'm now just a bit too...well...in happy 
mood...to get this straightened - it's 4.33 AM...

Severi S.

Post a reply to this message