Thanks. Yeah, I agree, it’s what to try at this point. Everyone who ever used Tessellation+ Displacement and WPO knows WPO is lower-cost but gives way less detailed deformation, it’s not even close. To those who don’t know, this is because mesh deformation on WPO exists on the mesh poly level, whereas Displacement worked off of a texture map, which could be animated in a multitude of forms mind you, so you can see how much more detailed it could be, especially if you used a HD texture and tiled the map.
But anyway, reviewing more broadly, I now crossed the threshold of understanding, where I glean that if they could have given us Tess & Displacement, they would have. There must have been some serious issues that prevented them from doing it (ie conflicts with Lumen or Nanite), and it was cleaner just to axe them from UE5.
Because why is WPO even there anymore, or why is POM there anymore; they shouldn’t be, because just like Tessellation and Displacement, they are older more obsolete material mechanisms that can be replaced by Nanite, as far as mesh rendering goes. What puzzled me latest was that Tessellation and Displacement were able to be animated as a material BP component in so many ways, unlike Nanite, which is solely a rendering compute enhancement and not a material animation component. And so why would they have eliminated that material animation component, but then not POM and WPO, or Bump Offset even. And it has just dawned on me - they likely didn’t want to eliminate Tessellation and Displacement; as conflicts arose they probably had to.