bump mapping quality and support

[EdipisReks]

which is technically superior (performance, realism, etc), and which is supported in more games: Matrox's environmental bump mapping, or nVidia's per-pixel cube envirnoment bump mapping?

thanks!
--jacob

 

[EdipisReks]

^BUMP^

 

[DaveB3D]

You've got things a bit confused.

1) Bitboys came up with EMBM
2) Cube mapping is a form of enviroment mapping
3) You are referencing dot3 bump mapping

To answer the basic question though, they both have advantages in different situations. Now I've not a lot of experiance with actually using them, but I believe dot3 is a bit easier to use (take a few textures, do a dot product op and you are all set). However, one of the key advantages of EMBM is that it can produce realistic pixel-level shadows from the bump map, which dot3 can't. So it just depends on the situation. They both look really good, if they are done properly. Which is better all depends on the situation.

 

[PointlesS]

giants uses bump mapping...not sure which kind though...I think it's dot3...don't take my word on that though...

 

[EdipisReks]

i thought that it might have been dot 3, but i remembered hearing it called cube mapping. i didn't know that bitboy's came up with the idea of EMBM, but considering that i have never heard of a bitboys product actually existing in hardware, i still feel alright calling EMBM matrox's, since the first records i ever saw regarding EMBM were when the matrox g400 came out. well, thanks for answering my question, daveB3D: that was the exact type of answer i was looking for.

--jacob

 

[BFG10K]

I lot of games use bumpmapping. However there are a lot of different kinds of bumpmapping.