This seems to be working but wanted to ask if there is a better wy or if this the correct way to do this. The nodes and materials in question are the highlighted ones in the attached pic, image map 2, 4 and the math functions.
What I'm trying to do is combine both of those maps to the bump channel but still being able to adjust each map indepentantly .

Is this the correct setup?

Thanks

I'm no expert, but what kind of adjustments are you looking to do?  I know I may be able to tell from just what kind of Math Funcion you've got going there but...Maye you could repost that screenshot, but this time open up the thumbnail preview of Math Function 3. 

I would guess not, unless the only adjustment you're looking for could be created with Value_1, and Value_2, of Math Function 3. 

I was expecting to see; each Map connected to some Math node(To do the adjustment,) and then each Math Function connected to a Blender node, then the Blender being what's plugged into the Bump node; but I think it would really just depend on what it is you want to adjust for each image.

*"...how much they are being inputted independently..."

*A Blender node, going into the Bump node, will do that.  If you were to plug the Map into a Blender's Input_, and the Bump into Input_2, then you could use the Blander Node's Blending Value to determine how much of either Map is used.  A value of .5, is an even split between the two images.  A value of 0 will use %100 one Map, and then block the other.  Conversely a Blending value of 1 will use %100 of the other Map, and then not the other Input.  So the Blending value will always be between 0 and 1(I just forget which end of the spectrum will only allow which Input_)

With the blender node !

Well the only problem with that is I am needing to control the normal map with numbers such as: .03451
so .5 or 1 is not going to do it.
This is why I'm asking...I really need to have full control over these maps, as much control over their input values as I would have if I just plugged them straight into the bump channel.

So this is what I need:
I need a setup that would allow me to blend 2 maps but have full control over their input values (such as .03451) and have those two maps blend into 1 going into the bump channel.

You can use any value beteween 0 and 1, including .03451.  

I'm not saying you need to use any value, even .5;  I just mentioned, for example, that .5 is an even split between the two images.  A Blending value of.5 means that each image would be %50% present after the Blend.

Did you try to adjust the Blending value?  I'm not sure where you got .0345, but it would mean that one map would be very dominant, while the other would only have a very small part of it mixed into the blend.  Something like one map would be 97% present, while the other onl;y 3% present, after the Blend.

If this still wo'nt work, then there must be something else you're after, rather than just mixing the two images; so what kind of adjutments did you want to make, seperately?

No, I haven't tried it yet. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off like your suggestion wasn't good...I just misunderstood the input numbers. I'll give it a go in the morning and let you know.

I need to control the input values as such because this is all based off of a 16 bit displacement map, when working with such a map the values are critical. I get these values from within Zbrush. So if I use the Zbrush displacement/normal map and the Zbrush values...the map is as it should be strength/bump wise. It might seem quite picky but I am doing very detailed work, so it's important to keep everything in line to obtain a high quality standard.

Thanks again for your help and suggestions, I'll try tommorrow morning with a fresh cup of coffee as opposed the the 12 oz. curls I'm indulging now.

Unless I'm mistaken (a distinct possibility) normal maps go into displacement, not bump.

Actually, displacements go into the displacement channel and normals work in the bump channel. In reality the normals don't add a whole lot to the mix, but they can really fine tune a displacement.

It's hard for me to explain, sort of have to see it in real time.

Hope this helps

Quote - Unless I'm mistaken (a distinct possibility) normal maps go into displacement, not bump.

They can go in either one. The effects you get out of plugging them in each are slightly different.
If you are thinking normal maps are used for displacement more ofthen then for bumps, that is true.

Unless you have a displacement map.

If you use an add node, you can control the quantity of each by adjusting the value inputs. If you use a multiply the values effect the output not the ratio of the inputs.

What would the difference, between the Add and Blender nodes, be?

The blender node blends the two inputs by the ratio of the blending input. The add will add the two values if value 1 plus value 2 equals 1 then you could get the same result with a blender. A blender also uses more resources.

Thanks.

gmadone,
Excellent, thank you.

*"... if value 1 plus value 2 equals 1 then you could get the same result with a blender."

*What value would the Blending be set at, for the Blender node, at that point?

You would set the blending  the same as value 2. You would also need to plug the result into a value input, to grey the output.

I always thought Poser can't use normal maps. Happy to see it can. ^^

Depends on which version Vince

put the normal map in the gradient bump channel,consider also that Poser doesn't display normal maps in real time so your probably better off using a grayscale bump map(which will also translate easier to other apps making your market broader)

looks like it's a world space normal map instead of tangent space(*i've only experience in using tangent space maps)..how did you make it?

Just in Zbrush. I didn't even use Zmapper, just hit the ol' normal map button.
I can't figure Zmapper out. All of my cavity, normal maps from there go wacky.

What's the difference between world space and tangent space, when and why would you use one over the other?

in a game environment tangent space is used on objects that move or deform,world space is used on static objects...one benefit of doing tangent space is you can reuse texture coordinates,which is good if your uv's are overlaid.you can also more easily use detail textures..if you stick with world space you might find it only looks good under certain lighting conditions(similar to having bake in highlights)
most of the reasons for which one to use are real-time related..so for poser I'd just stick with tangent space.
if your having a hard time getting to grips with zmapper you might look into using xnormal,a free app that makes normal generation from hi-res models a breeze(also does cavity maps & can convert maps from object to tangent space & vice versa)
http://www.xnormal.net/

Cool, thanks stoney for the info!