Medler

Thanks, this gives me a better understanding. So if you want to output a low res mesh with a displacement map, it's better to use this option. I also have a better understanding of layer 0 now, Carlosan. In mantis you wrote: So for me layer 0 is kind off a representation of the base mesh as a basis from where the final displacement in the higher layers will be calculated in the paintroom. Choosing the option "don't snap subdivision vertices to surface" will put all the displacement of the high res mesh in the higher layers and from there the optimal displacement map can be baked from layer 0 as a low resh mesh start point.

When I merge to the paintroom through PPP with displacement there is an option called "Don't snap subdivision vertices to surface". The explanation says that it makes layer 0 very smooth and puts all displacement on higher layers. This option is recommended if you want to export your low res mesh and a displacement map. It makes me wonder where layer 0 stands for? Is layer 0 in this case kind of a equivalent of the low poly mesh it self? If so: is this the reason it is best to have all your displacement on higher layers on order to bake it in the displacement map?

Now it makes sense :-) Thank you very much

My goal is to export a low poly mesh out of the paint room, with the best possible displacement. I do not understand correctly what this means. Does it mean: Option 1: 1. I choose a higher initial subdivision, which creates more polygons and because of that, also creates better displacement when I merge into the paintroom. 2. I export the original low res without initial subdivision out of the paint room with the difference I now have a better quality displacement map? Option 2: 1. I choose a higher initial subdivision, which creates more polygons and because of that, also creates better displacement when I merge into the paintroom. 2. I can only export the original low res with extra initial subdivision out of the paint room, which now has become a mid res mesh because of the initial subdivision?

The official 3D coat video on You Tube about "Merge to PPP with Displacement" (created at februari the 18th, 2014) mentions that there is a caveat about initial subdivision (at 1 minute, 33 seconds). The person in the video says that if you leave the initial subdivision at "no subdivision" the low polygon mesh has some roughness to it when you merge. You need at least one level of subdivision to solve this problem. He also states that Andrew has been made aware of this and he mentioned that he has not come up with a solution for it yet. Is this problem still the case, or is it solved? If so: does choosing more subdivision levels (in stead of one) result in more displacement quality? The more, the better? Or is choosing one subdivision level enough to solve this problem? Another question: is this initial subdivision the same as "adjust subpatching" in the view menu, once you are in the paint room? As far as I understand, subpatching is ment to mimic sub polygon displacement in Cinema 4d or for mimicking subdivided meshes with displacement in other 3D applications. Is this correct?

Thank Tony, you give me new insights. Interesting technique, keeping displacement on their own islands in the UV map. But to be honest: I don't know what you mean. I 'm a newbie :-) Can you give some more detailed hints? In the mean time I found some specific information (keep searching Google does pay off :-) ), I am looking for about displacement maps. For the people who are reading along and also want to know more about diplacement maps: http://www.cggallery.com/tutorials/displacement/ Here I learned a.o. about a accurate displacement workflow and how to make 'spot on' precise displacement maps with very high details. Also the format of the displacement map is important. Use a floating-point format (.exr or .tif) instead of a integer format (.jpg or .bmp). http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/displacement Here, I learned a.o. that displacement mapping does require a slight different retopo than retopo with pure normal mapping. Not only have the polygons to be as even as possible, they also have to be as square (triangular) as possible (avoiding artifacts). Furthermore you should avoid steep angles, your retopo has to have a soft flow, in order to avoid displacement stretching. Also use as little as seams as possible (or hide them) because bit depth accuracy is a limitation. Anyway, let me know if 3d Coat has overcome some of this issues.

Thank you so far. For me it's a start in the good direction. I'll will first get more experience with displacement and normal maps in practice, before I start to ask any further :-)

Thank you very much for all your efforts. I am getting a better idea of how displacement maps can be used in combination of normal and bump maps. Grasping retopo techniques with displacement maps better, makes me thinking, which creates new questions again :-) F.e., is it best practice to use displacement maps in combination of bump maps and also normal maps? Bump maps for the embossing effect (little depth, fine details). And in addition to that, normal maps for a detailed look of depth (medium depth, fine details) for looking at it in a straight angle? I also learn from your knowledge, that if one should decide to go with displacement maps, you rule out gaming and therefor are not restricted to the boundry of aprrox. 15.000 polys anymore. Because of the high details of my landscape, it's going to be for stills and animation anyway :-). At this moment my low res mesh is about 30.000 polys. To be sure: is this a normal amount of polys (for stills / animations) to start with and subdivide them with displacement maps from there on? Or is it a better thought, to start from around 15.000 polys anyways (if possible) and let the subdividing of te the displacement map do all the work? Displacement maps have another advantage, I assume: you can lower the subdivision of displacement, f.e. if your camera angle is optimal for normal mapping and you can increase the subdivision of displacement when you want a closeup and thus saving a lot of render time while keeping the optimal details that gives a realistic look as possible. if that's the way, it is better I think, to have as few as possible polys in you retopo mesh. Is there a difference between retopo for displacement maps (stills / animation) and retopo for normal maps (gaming)? If you want the best results out of a displacement retopo map, is it better for displacement maps, not only to have as much as possible even divided polys, but also soft edges while avoiding sharp silhouettes and getting a unrealistic render? I think this is what 3d coat already does huh? 3D Coat is already softening the mesh, if you select this option, while texture baking from the paint room. So am I nitpicking? Does 3d Coat all the work here, or is better already creating soft edges in your retopo mesh in advance anyway? Doing it yourself gives you also more control. And what about the option "Coarse (sharpen) mesh", if you decide to export (in stead of baking) from the paint room? What's that all about?

Ok, than I am on the right course of understanding displacement maps in combination with normal and/or bump maps :-) At this moment I am into very detailed landscapes / terrains, so displacement maps would be a huge benefit for me. By the way is the difference (apart from technical differences) between a normal map and a bump map, that a normal map is for fine details and a bump map for super fine details? Or are they for the same level of details and are they just complementing each other? And how does this insight affect the regular workflow of 3d coat? Does 3d Coat bake mid level details to the displacement map and the fine details to the normal map automatically? If so, are there functions/buttons to activate (select / push)? Is "merge for per pixel painting with displacement" the best workflow for a optimal combined displacement and normal map, or does it require a special approach?

I have an additional question: Is it best, for an optimal use of the displacement map, to make a retopo mesh with as much of regular divided polygons as possible? Is it correct that if the retopo mesh is even divided, the displacement map can be optimal subdivided with minimal los of details in other 3D packages?

If I understand it correctly, using the normal map and displacement map combined, the displacement map does the heavy lifting of adding in mid level details and the normal map does add in the real fine details, that otherwise would add retarded amounts of render time with the displacement map alone? What I mean to say is that anything that doesn't effect the overall silhouette of the model should be stuffed onto the normal map (as its great for this), and any major shape changing of the model should be left to the displacement map. This way you have the ideal situation. Am I correct? If so: what would the workflow in 3d coat be?