> Question is, do those normal maps carry /absolute/ or /relative/ values?
> That is, are these coordinates in true X;Y;Z space (subject only to
> transformations applied to the whole object), or are they rather to be
> interpreted in U;V;N space?
>
> If they carry absolute values, then the whole thing should be as easy as
> eating pancakes (and should actually give better results than POV-Ray's
> current bump mapping implementation).
>
> If they carry relative values, then they should still be about as easy
> to implement as it would be to fix the major flaw of POV-Ray's bump
> mapping implementation.
>
> I wouldn't be all too surprised if both variants were in use out there.

From the softwares I use (Blender and 3DS max) The normal map can be UVN mapped.
For animated objects like characters we generally bake it from a high to a lower
polygon count mesh. There is an option to make this normal map use "tangeant
space", and I always leave it on, which allows the shaded point to be moved
from an already moved normal, like a bump on the side of another. If you want a
sample normal from blender, let me know.
Also besides normal maps, Blender 2.5 is implementing a new bump map method with
even better results but I don't know any more than that about it:
http://blenderlabrat.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-bump-mapping.html

> (The biggest obstacle might actually turn out to be that the term
> "normal map" is already occupied in POV-Ray for a totally different
> thing ;-))

I'd be glad to change that to something else for such a feature (Of course my
opinion is of one who has no POV habits yet :))

Post a reply to this message