Quote - I'm trying to learn about maps.  Does every texture need or benefit from a map? 

Which type of map is better, a normal or a bump?  Are there any other types of maps that improve the way an object looks when you render it?

So much to learn.

 

For me, I base it off of distance, the closer the view, the more detailed I want the texture, so I use maps more for closer views. I tend to stay clear of specular maps as the whole point of using an unbiased renderer is for realism and to reflect the environment, not trick the surface.

 

As for bump or normal, they basically do the same thing, but a normal is usually more advanced. here is a good quote i got from CGSociety on the subject

 

Normal maps are just bump maps that allow for the appearance of a bump in any normal direction, not just at the normal. That's the problem with bump maps - everything appears to come "out" of the bump at exactly 90 degrees to the surface of the poly. That's why normal maps are full colour - the three colour channels correspond to the local XYZ space, as opposed to the single channel for bumps. I think they're only known as "game" things because whilst CG can jump from bumps to displacement maps when it needs to, games can't, so they're need for normals are greater than ours.

Regards, Michael

My DeviantArt page