Originally Posted by Spoudazo
WRONG, the displacement/parallax mapping it has isn't parallax occlusion mapping, which I was referring to as "true parallax mapping" because you hardly can use parallax mapping if it's not parallax occlusion mapping, otherwise when you look at things at an angle it looks like garbage.
Wow, you really like to think you know more than you actually do don't you? First off, just because you've named something 'true' doesn't make any such thing as 'fake parallax mapping'. The original definition of parallax mapping WHICH IS TRUE does NOT include occlusion.
However, you're still wrong on ALL POINTS. 'Steep' parallax mapping, as listed in the link before, INCLUDES OCCLUSION BY DEFINITION.
So basically stop talking about **** you don't know.
parallax mapping without occlusion looks fine as long as you don't do something stupid like put it on a model. Also, occlusion won't fix parallax mapping from not looking right at certain angles anyways.