Hi
Progressive Light mapper is available in 5.6b6
I want to compare two light mappers in screenshots and videos.
My first test is in a simple scene ( Bake time is same, Indirect light quality is awesome in the new light mapper)
Gif:
3 Likes
I did some quick tests and it beats up Enlighten totally moreover at high resolution
new
Progressive Lightmapping helps me to make best lighting setups for my scenes
This is a test thats impossible with enlighten in 10-30 minutes:
Screenshots
3 Likes
Nice improvement.
1 Like
First baked with Progressive Lightmapper with 1000 resolution and High settings, Then switched to Enlighten.Bake time 2-3 min
5 Likes
I am so happy about the Progressive Lightmapper - just speechless - thanks Unity 
Have you guys had any luck with dynamic objects with the progressive light mapper?
Hi guys,
Cool progressive lightmapper, indeed.
Now we identified a bug on scaled -1 objects (often used in ArchViz for couch or curtains for example) : black texels !
See attached images.
(Pure static lightmapping, with non overlapped UVs etc…)
Thanks !
SMaX
…right.
The native light map resolution for my model is 230.
Ambient Occlusion value is now changed from 10 to 1. You need to use something around 0.1 for AO for similar to UE4 AO.
I don’t know about your problem
He is talking about scaling the objects.
That makes the normals all wrong and makes the lightmapper think it is looking at back faces and rejects the texels.
Either play with back face tolerance, or stop using negative scale for your models.
This problem occurs when the scale of the model is less than 1.0 in transform component
Hi Acid,
Yeah well, i also need to say that enlighten handled these negative scale correctly (in static baked mode at least) !
It did? That’s bizarre, it should behave the same.
Yes, look
Bug reported this negative scale behaviour : Case 877021 !
Lightmap scale should be a positive value.
What is mean a negative value?
He means the object (the transform.localScale) is scaled negatively, not lm scale.
2 Likes
