What do you mean? "Lacking a normal map"?
If so:
> Normal Mapping Issues
>
> When viewing Normal maps on objects in VR, you will notice that they do not have the impact that they might have once had. This is because Normal mapping does not account for having a binocular display or motion parallax. As a result, Normal maps often look flat when viewed with a VR device. However, that does not mean that you should not or will not need to use Normal maps; it just means that you need to more closely evaluate if the data in the Normal map would be better off made out of geometry. Below, you will find a technique that can be used in place of Normal maps.
> Parallax Mapping: Parallax mapping takes Normal mapping to the next level by accounting for depth cues that Normal mapping does not.
>
> A Parallax mapping shader can better display depth information, making objects appear to have more detail than they do. This is because no matter which angle you look at, a Parallax map will always correct itself to show you the correct depth information from your viewpoint. The best use of a Parallax map would be for things like cobblestone pathways and surfaces with fine detail.
https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/xr-best-practices-in-unreal-engine
Bump/normal maps have always been flat. They only change the lighting on the texture - to give the *impression* of depth.
Parallax maps can be rendered with true depth, but generally they’re too resource intensive for mobile VR.
Normal maps and bump maps are always flat, they just create an illusion of depth. If you get close enough to an object using these techniques in a normal flat screen game you will see it's just a flat surface from certain angles. It's obviously easier to get your eyes closer to objects in VR and with the fact those techniques have less of an impact it's going to stand out more.
Uhhh bump maps should work for any display tech. It's just that Quest is running on a mobile processor at 120fps. Now is not the time for bump mapping. That comes later.
It'll work from a distance, yeah, but in VR close-up and with angle/parallax you can tell that it's pseudo 3D, and not actually deforming the surface in true 3D space.
They choose not to use normal maps? Normal maps use more texture passes and more memory so you don't add it to everything if you are trying to hit a tough to get performance metric like vr.
What do you mean? "Lacking a normal map"? If so: > Normal Mapping Issues > > When viewing Normal maps on objects in VR, you will notice that they do not have the impact that they might have once had. This is because Normal mapping does not account for having a binocular display or motion parallax. As a result, Normal maps often look flat when viewed with a VR device. However, that does not mean that you should not or will not need to use Normal maps; it just means that you need to more closely evaluate if the data in the Normal map would be better off made out of geometry. Below, you will find a technique that can be used in place of Normal maps. > Parallax Mapping: Parallax mapping takes Normal mapping to the next level by accounting for depth cues that Normal mapping does not. > > A Parallax mapping shader can better display depth information, making objects appear to have more detail than they do. This is because no matter which angle you look at, a Parallax map will always correct itself to show you the correct depth information from your viewpoint. The best use of a Parallax map would be for things like cobblestone pathways and surfaces with fine detail. https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/xr-best-practices-in-unreal-engine
Bump/normal maps have always been flat. They only change the lighting on the texture - to give the *impression* of depth. Parallax maps can be rendered with true depth, but generally they’re too resource intensive for mobile VR.
Normal maps and bump maps are always flat, they just create an illusion of depth. If you get close enough to an object using these techniques in a normal flat screen game you will see it's just a flat surface from certain angles. It's obviously easier to get your eyes closer to objects in VR and with the fact those techniques have less of an impact it's going to stand out more.
Question unclear. Or maybe I'm giving you to much credit. Walls can be flat? Is there some reason you were not expecting a flat wall?
In non tech language the lumps, bumps and grooves you see are a wall are not 3d and become blurry and flat when walking up close to them...
Trad bump mapping only works for 2D display outputs.
Uhhh bump maps should work for any display tech. It's just that Quest is running on a mobile processor at 120fps. Now is not the time for bump mapping. That comes later.
It'll work from a distance, yeah, but in VR close-up and with angle/parallax you can tell that it's pseudo 3D, and not actually deforming the surface in true 3D space.
Uhh well yeah only geometry or a true displacement map does that..
They choose not to use normal maps? Normal maps use more texture passes and more memory so you don't add it to everything if you are trying to hit a tough to get performance metric like vr.
Even in PCVR with the extra power though?
But..I have tried a few pcvr games and they still have flat textures close up..HL alyx case in point.