Have you tried other solutions? Try it with xNormal to check your results. In my opinion Ultimapper is quite useless without cage. Since we left Ultimapper out of the formula, we have no issues at all.
Back to your problem. As far as I know, there are three normal mapping type, world, object and tangent space normal maps. World space is the best for static object, that have no transformation at all. Object space normal maps allows object transformation, while tangent space normal maps allow deformation as well. If tangent normal map changes when you transform the object, it might be a bug. I'm not into the math of tangent space normal maping, but as I mentioned, without cage Ultimapper is aquite useless, so we dropped it. Consider moving onto xNormal it's quite reliable tool Cheers Szabolcs -----Original Message----- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:13 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps It's not a normalization issue as the normal vectors are normalized in Euler space before being converted to RGB color space. If it were a post process problem, there would be differences in all cases. So far I only see the difference when one or both meshes are transformed indicating it's a coordinate space computation issue. There is no issue with a cage either. See my previous reply to the this thread with example scene. The cage is only relevant when there are many layers of overlapping surfaces. In my example it's a simple cube and sphere, so no need for a cage. Matt -----Original Message----- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:11 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps Hi Matt, A shift in the final intensity could come from a per channel normalisation. You´d get different results if you don´t have such normalisation/levels operation as a postprocess of your saving calculations to file. But it should be easy enough to test if suc a normalisation would give you similar results to XSI. In the dirtiest&cheapest way, in Photoshop>Auto Levels. Since Szabolcs already pointed out that there is no cage option in Ultimapper, e.g. no manual control of a min and max searchdistance for calculations, I´d guess the min and max is fixedly determined by the maximum distance between highrez and lowrez mesh and the results are "smoothed out" by remapping to 0-1 per channel for best use of the file´s available intensity steps. I could be completely wrong, thought. In general, I will most likely use ZBrush and CrazyBump to create and modify Normals in a let´s say, artsy partsy mashed potato kind of way that gives me the look I want without knowing much more than Green>light from Ground, Red>light from Right to work in Cryengine/UDK/3DSMax. Cheers, tim On 03.01.2014 07:51, Szabolcs Matefy wrote: > Hey Matt, > > Your result might be different because of the tangent space > calculation. I suppose that the normal map calculation might be done in > object space, then Ultimapper converts it into tangent space. Ultimapper > could be quite good, but lacks a very important feature, the cage. So finally > we dropped in favor of xNormal. > > You might check few things (I'm not a programmer, so I may be wrong). > Check the transforms. In my experience transforms has effect how vertex > normals are calculated. Certain distance from the origin might result > imprecision (is this the right word?), and the farther the object is from the > origin, the bigger this imprecision is. > > There are discrepancies, for sure, because these tools have different > approach to derive tangent space. For example, Softimage uses the > vertex color to store the tangents, and binormal is calculated from > this. But, if your smoothing on the geo and on the tangent space > property differs, you won't get any usable normal map. For example the > smoothing on tangents made Ultimapper quite useless for us, so I wrote an > exporter for xNormal, and since then we have no issue at all. As our > technical chief explained, a normal is correct only if the normal baking and > displayer use the same tangent calculation. He wrote a tangent space > calculator for xNormal, that uses the same algorithm CryEngine uses. So, > unless your game engine approached tangent space differently than Softimage, > you won't get good result. > > I think the whole game pipeline should be redesigned in Softimage. > > *From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt > Lind > *Sent:* Friday, January 03, 2014 5:17 AM > *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > *Subject:* ultimapper issues - tangent space normal maps > > I am writing a modified ultimapper to convert tangent space normal > maps from one mesh to another. The tool is needed because our tangent > space normal maps are not encoded in the standard way and softimage's tools > cannot be modified to support our proprietary tangent space. For prototyping > I'm using the softimage tangent space and tangents property to do the > transfer so I can check my math against ultimapper. Once I get a 1:1 match, > I'll modify the logistics to support our proprietary stuff. > > So far when the hi and low res meshes are untransformed I get a 1:1 > match with ultimapper, but when I transform one or both meshes a wide > discrepancy appears between my result and the softimage ultimapper > result. The softimage result tends to be significantly brighter on the red > and green channels, mostly on the green. In some cases, the colors are not > even close to the same. The odd part is when I trace through the process > step by step to debug, my numbers look correct both visually and > mathematically. I'm in a weird situation in that I do not know who's result > is more correct, mine or Softimage. > > Some of our artists have mentioned there have been some discrepancies > compared to other commercial normal mapping tools (beyond flipping the Y > axis). Has anybody had issues getting correct results from ultimapper when > transferring tangent space normal maps between meshes? > > Matt >
