Matt,
QuoteWe could export a vector displacement map of an area, perhaps similar to the way we can already generate a heightfield from shaders and then save that heightfield to an image, but we should be able to do it with vector information (RGB) instead of height information (greyscale).
^^This is the way to go!
Mudbox and Zbrush are not the same as you may know. I have Chris' TG to Z-brush workflow, it does not work in Mudbox. The things I mentioned in my other post were about trying to find a way to adapt Chris' workflow for Mud. As I said I found a way. But the problem was that the result was not exact. That was a big problem for me, because in my workflow I had spent a lot of time in TG building a scene that was exactly like my source location as possible. What I found was that I could not keep flat areas flat, and I could not make my heights the right height in mudbox using height maps... So when I got to Mudbox, I lost everything that TG made easy and accurate, things that are not easy or exact in any sculptor.
TG, in a few very important ways, allows a user to be very exact with a scenes in some important ways very quickly. For example, I was recreating a location from Iceland and I was able to make my scene the exact size (2000 meters long), I was able to make all the major heights within the scene as they were in the real world (no more than 100 meters high). I was also able to quickly get important visual detail and landmarks set up in TG (like how the entrance to a canyon looked, and how the height of the canyon was tallest in a certain location). Then I added a bunch of detail that helped to visually define scale in TG relative to the over all scale of the scene.
My hope was to get all of this to Mudbox as an
Exact representation. But you cannot do that using brushes on a height map... It is different in Z.
*About your original response to me: I was looking for a way to displace a mudbox object much like the example in the OP link, that did not require me to use brushes to apply displacement. This would leave me with the same problems as the example in the link (stretching) But would be better than what I got using the normal Mudbox way.
Your option 2 may have use for some. But I cannot see a more direct time saving way that also reduces workflow and pipeline steps. ZBrush and mudbox both output every kind of map anyone can need today. If we can get an EXACT representation of a TG scene directly from TG to Mudbox/zbrush, this removes steps from both the mudbox and Zbrush workflows. Option1, does all the most efficiently.
I have Chris' TG to Z workflow in his own words. I want to publish it here because I think it would really shed some light for people. But He gave it to me in private so I don't know if it would be good of me to post it. I should PM him and ask.
...
T-U,
QuotePlease shoot if you have any questions.
I can write a short'ish how to on the work I did for Unity.
Did you mean Matt or anyone (especially me!
) If you meant including me, than I would want this!
QuoteI don't know which of the 2 options you propose is the fastest in terms of performance in TG?
As for me, this is not a good question. It can take a long time for Mudbox to save out a high res Vector map. So I don't even care how long it takes from TG. It is better to have than not have! I just say this because your post made me think maybe people would think it would take to long in TG, and thus not be implemented... Yes, better to have than not have, at any price.
QuoteSo if the problems with micro exporter are not easy to fix and thus still require these adjustments in render settings etc., then performance wise the first option would be the easiest and fastest way?
YES! I agree with you 100%! Option 2 only sounds like a more complex and time consuming way of doing option one. When option 1 is already ideal for how people already work in Z and Mud.
...
Paq,
Quote(any hint about the famous 3D erosion plugin ? 
)
Look in announcements!
...
QuoteIn the end an experienced ZBrusher could have done similar things much faster and with more artistic control.
Again, Chris's workflow. But you end up with the same problems of stretching. Though you get to where you end up much faster than what has been described here.
QuoteHaving ZBrush/Mudbox like tools in TG would be a dream, allowing to model basic shapes with brushes and then add PF's, but I'm afraid that's not realistic to ask to develop.
Even if it did have them, you would still want a fast easy accurate way to get to other industry standard soft. So you are still right.
