Vray Bump Type Maps explanation Extensions

[manelet]

Hello,

I am using Vray 2.0 and I am trying to understand what the different Bump Type maps mean and when you have to use one or another.

I understand the difference between “gray scale Bump maps” and “Normal Bump maps”, but not sure when to use one or another and why.

I have been doing some tests with a “Brick wall” texture. I want to use a “Bump effect” just to give some detail to the texture. In all this cases I am not using displacement. Also in all the cases, I am using a Normal Map created from the texture with Crazy Bump and with 1,0 on the Bump texture multiplier.

1_The first image is the plain texture, no Bump effect:

2_This is with “Bump”: Here I understand that Vray is using my “Normal Bump Map” as a simple “Gray scale Bump map”. The results are what I would expect and desire for this case:

3_This is with “Normal Map (tangent space)”. Here I understand that Vray is reading my Normal Map. The probem here is that, as you can see in the image in the intersection of the two perpendicular faces, it looks like the map is readed in different deppending of the orientation of the face. They are like contrary between each other:

4_This is with “Normal Map (Object space)”. Here the problem is that it changes the intesity of the light in the whole wall, but it looks like the map is readed the same in both faces:

5_Thi is with “Normal Map (Camera space)”. Here the problem is that the intensity of the light is diferent in both faces, and also it looks like the intensity of the Bump effect is also different in both faces:

6_This is with “Normal Map (World space)”. Here it looks like almost the same that in case 4:

7_This is with “Bump Map (Local Space)”. Here really do not know what is happening. The light looks the same in both faces, but not the bump effect intensity, and also is giving something like a “blur” effect:

8_ this is with “Explicit Normals”. Here it looks like the first case with no Bump. Tryed to increase to 100 and 1000 on the texture multiplier but the image is allways the same:

So if someone could explain me a bit what is going on here would be really great.

My goal, is to get a result like case number 3, but without the problem that I have on the meeting of the perpendicular faces. Or like the case number 4 without the light problem…

THANK YOU!!