Parallax Occlusion Mapping


will this land on 2.92? or 2.93?
if not, is it not being worked on anymore?


Hope we can have a branch with the new DOF included in 2.93. Will be awesome to implement both effects in eevee. I not a programmer so i´m not having luck with git.

(apologies I misunderstood)

1 Like

Hadriscus, what i mean is that i wish we have this POM feature included in blender 2.93 the one that has implemented the new Unreal engine like Depth of Field. Regards!


i agree, i would also love a 2.93 build, i really need those updated eevee light/volumetric updates…! This POM build is awesome really.


+1, even this build with it’s stated limitations has already proven invaluable to me


I just forgot about other versions of blender, i only this 2.92 blender POM branch, i dont know why nobody is paying attention to this awesome feature. It has even been featured in substance designer official channel tutorials.


+1 for getting POM into Blender master!


Yeah such a feature is long overdue.

IMO the links for the diff and graphicall build should be edited into the first post- I wasn’t even aware there was a patch sitting waiting to be reviewed, so having it more visible would maybe help get some eyes on it. Additionally- the diff has “WIP” in the title- if i were a blender dev who might be in a position to review it (i am not) I might be discouraged by its “work in progress” status- what’s the point in reviewing something the author does not feel is ready to be reviewed? If it’s ready for somebody to review the WIP text should be removed to encourage reviewers to check it out. It’s hard enough to get patches approved and pushed through, lets do everything we can to grease the wheels because this is definitely something Blender needs.

1 Like

There is still a small issue in the POM code. The randomization of the surface intersection search can result in missing surface details at the very top of the displacement volume. This is something I should still fix before removing the “work in progress”.

I had been experimenting with making the number of POM samples view angle dependent, when I discovered the above issue. I’m still unsure which approach (constant or view angle dependent number of samples) would be better.

I will also have to look into porting the patch to the latest master commit. At some point we would also need input from a Blender developer whether the general principles used in the approach “Parallax Occlusion Mapping from Displacement Output” would be acceptable into an official release. There is no point in trying to polish every last detail of this patch if there are some fundamental issues that cannot be fixed.


You should probably @ Clement, Jeroen or Brecht (?) or poke in


I know that the devs have said that they want to improve displacement, but it seems that having POM and a better displacement aren’t mutually exclusive (and I gather that they’re not saying they are). I’ve been playing with Octane, and it’s displacement is super-fast and barely takes any memory - I would love to see something similar implemented in Blender, as well as POM as it’s incredibly powerful if used to it’s strengths.

I have to say this did fly under my radar. I highly encourage the “Parallax Occlusion Mapping from Displacement Output” approach for a UX perspective since it will be the same workflow as cycles.

About the implementation details I will have to take an in depth look at the patch first.


I think Eevee materials are not visible in other branches of blender after saving in this branch.

@Hypersomniac and how would you implement Parallax in Cycles, as an option together with “Bump Only”, “Bump and Displacement” and “Displacement Only”.

That could be an option :slight_smile:

1 Like

@JuanGea Not planned for cycles.

I know.

I also know that it should be planned, it’s a great alternative to displacement that is being used in other engines with great success (other path tracers).

So while I know, I also have hopes to see it in Cycles at some point in the future :slight_smile:


Can we expect this to be merged to the master before the beta of 3.0? @mmoeller

EDIT: Ok I just saw this

Does it mean there is still a possibility of this project being dropped?

Edit Again: I find my question to be stupid after reading Hypersomniac’s reply, should I delete this post? :sweat_smile:

There’s nothing wrong with asking a genuine question.