parallax rendering? is it a viable rendering technique for wii games?

#1venusePosted 4/20/2010 7:28:18 PM
i remembered some article that came out several years ago and thought about most modern wii games. frankly i dont remember ever hearing of any modern wii games using this technique although ive read it isnt very taxing on the system and is actually more efficient then bump mapping or normal mapping. of coarse you probably couldnt use all of them together but maybe it could be used on the non-normal mapped objects. anyone elses thoughts on this? your opinion tony would be appreciated.

some old article about it, im sure their are others.
http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-parallax-mapping-last-secret.html
---
playing red steel 2, if you want a good game on the wii buy this.
#2HVSTony(VIP)Posted 4/20/2010 7:47:35 PM
Yes parallex mapping is VERY expensive on the Wii. Early non-steep parallax mapping (like that seen in the fist Rachet and Clank Ps3 game and in the caves of Oblivion to name a few), gives a thicker effect then a regular normal or bump map but has the tendency to swim edges very badly due to it altering the UV information rather then lighting.

As games progressed, steep-parallax became available fixing the swimming but at a pretty harsh cost. Games like Crysis and Stalker 2 used steep parallax very well if you have a GFX powerful enough to run it.

Yes, the wii can do a parallax shader pretty easily but it would indeed swim and the processing cost of it is very high compared to the payoff you get in the end compared to a normal map like the quantum 3 engine uses. (don't even mention steep-parallax on the wii because your talking 1 wall and 1 texture and that's it. Forget about a game built around that wall if you want it to render faster then 2fps)

Parallax mapping is also under debate of getting phased out only because these new wave of DX10 and DX11 cards are very efficient at using geometry shaders and DX11 cards can even do hardware tessellation which is worlds better looking then parallax shaders.

So all in all, parallax mapping on the Wii, not worth it.

-Tony
#3HVSTony(VIP)Posted 4/20/2010 7:52:05 PM
Also, that last sentence in the conclusion of that article you linked in 100% false.

It reads: "It almost has the visual quality of displacement mapping while requiring next to no more calculations."

It should read "It has no where near the visual quality of real displacement mapping due to UV swimming while requiring about 25% more power then a normal map"


-Tony
#4venuse(Topic Creator)Posted 4/20/2010 7:57:19 PM
oh well i guess that answers that question hahaha. thanks tony, i guess that is what i get for looking at articles on the net, 25% true 50% semi true and the rest just bs .
---
playing red steel 2, if you want a good game on the wii buy this.
#5DarkZV2BetaPosted 4/20/2010 8:56:47 PM
Most articles boasting about the Wii and it's amazing abilities that put it ahead of supercomputers are total bull. I've seen ones that tote it as being 500-1000% more powerful, textured/shaded poly for textured/shaded poly, than the original Xbox, going on about how it's CPU is all super-advanced and the XB CPU was crappy stone-age crap.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#6IMA1337_FearMePosted 4/20/2010 9:10:01 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#7IMA1337_FearMePosted 4/20/2010 9:12:18 PM
ohhh now i see it after maximizing it several times. but still, quite ugly.
---
I can cook the best lasagna in the "galaxy" <lol
#8CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 4/20/2010 9:13:30 PM
"Most articles boasting about the Wii and it's amazing abilities that put it ahead of supercomputers are total bull."

Most?
You mean there are some articles boasting about the Wii and it's amazing abilities that put it ahead of supercomputers that are legit? :o
#9DarkZV2BetaPosted 4/20/2010 9:14:44 PM
Yes, but those ones put it ahead of supercomputers from before the NES.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#10IMA1337_FearMePosted 4/20/2010 9:15:38 PM
he said most, just so he wouldnt have to correct himself if there was one. most=none (in some situations)
---
I can cook the best lasagna in the "galaxy" <lol