Have you ever tried using the workbench render engine?
It will even do displacement via a Displace modifier, and add in your Texture Height Map…
Note: In the Material, you can ignore the MMD Texture, it is there just because I have the MMD import/export active…
No…don´t think that will work with surface procedural noise for surface displacement, you are using a modifier here, that is what I said was not an option.
Checking now, but I really don´t think workbench works with surface displace through nodal control and the displacement input there.
maybye in the latest 4.2 version, but I am still just having 4.2 alpha installed.
Checked…
Nope…workbench and nodal displacement isn´t working in any preview mode here on blender 4.2 alpha, switching to cycles full viewport render and it is working.
Solid display…not working.
material preview, working.
Render preview, working.
And again, modifier wasn´t an option here, but nodal surface displacement was the issue.
Another thing,
I don´t understand why the open
Gl can´t show the displacements in wire mode, in Any preview mode or render engine?
and not wireframe along with the solid shade either, I can have this in lightwave for an example, both wire, displacement in solid mode.
I have no problems at all with this in lightwave for instance, or modo…and other software.
Here´s a sample of How I would like to be able to work, actually being able to see the wire of displacement single, as well as on top the material or solid shading of the mesh in blender.
But this is what I get in blender, using surface displacement…which is what we should use here, not the modifier.
Both blender and lightwave here is using surface displacement, though the lightwave surface displacement is through a surface displace modifier, yet the surface editor is used to feed it to the displacement input, while this could have been equal to a surface displace modifier, if it had acess to surface displacement the same way.
Just surface displacemen in material mode, cycles, no wire overlay, and no options therefore to have the wire showing on top of the displaced mesh.
overlay with wire activated, and it do not recognize the mesh …but instead results in the wireframe representation of the None displaced original mesh? as overlay…this is weird.
lightwave displace nodally, with wire only, as I can set it to if I want.
lightwave displace nodally with wire, And the mesh in openGL solid mode, if set as such in the display options.
I am not demanding it to work the same, but it would just be nice if it could have these options to actually displace with wire representation as well, and just the wire, within the surface displacer.
Please do not make it in to a but blender can do this and that so much better, let´s focus on wether or not it actually is possible to do this in blender, or if I have missed something, thus the samples from lightwave to show what I mean.
use the wireframe node, it should show you the wireframe with displacement in rendered mode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L4NPbfJzd0&pp=ygUWd2lyZWZyYW1lIG5vZGUgYmxlbmRlcg%3D%3D
Thanks, it´s a shader workaround, but …this should be in the wireframe display.
And…it´s seems to be showing just the wire in
front, no the whole full wire.
You would have to make the surface transparent.
here you can see a setup to make it transparent to overlay it into the material shading. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJk3KRcnl0w
Yes, I´ve done similar in lightwave, but that is more optimised for rendering.
Ok displacement with the displacement modifier is different because you have to use the old “texture” things.
But with geometry nodes you can do the same displacement as with shader nodes.
This is using object cords (geometry nodes texture mapping default to object cords) but you can get UV and reproduce Generated cords too.
On the left the cloud displaced in geometry nodes, on the right the same displacement (noise texture and float curve) using shader nodes.
The geometry node one can bee seen in wire-frame in edit mode (and solid view-with or without matcaps)
And wire overlays in all modes (inc cycles)
It sounds like Lightwave is also actually displacing the geometry with a modifier the same way Blender can with geometry nodes.
Obviously the main problem with the geonodes approach is that there is no UDIM support in geonodes atm.
Moving the goal posts? The OP did not mention UDIMs 
Not really, it was for those future visitors who might need UDIM for such use cases. Hopefully this will be implemented in the far future.
Yes, there has been talk about it and requests on Dev Talk but it is one of those “to do sometime in the future” things. I agree that it is needed.
I know we can do that, but this should be a thing working by default, not having to set nodes up, sure you may save the node to use in some asset, but this is all so unecessary tedious, from my point of view…if you do not agree, lets agree to disagree and not go in to it any deeper.
Thanks for the tip though.
Not exactly geometry nodes, it is just a displacer, but some principles are there, and you can do mograph displace of vertices, polys, segments, parts etc, animate similar to geonodes, though I think blenders Geonodes are more advanced here, bryphi77 on youtube have a lot demonstrated on what you can do, but…again, blender much more advanced, until the new team have improved their new protools, or geonodes, which may be more closer to geometry nodes in blender, with animated tendrils, growing wines etc…
Lightwave have these options…
displacement map, only z,x,z…now stacked in a modifier class.
normal displacement, nowstacked as a modifier, these where pre-2019 versions of lightwave directly applied and not as modifiers.
now these are added within a modifier stack.
So its…
Displacement is saved by scene, not per object.
Displacement is saved by object, not per scene.
Displacement is saved by Scene, not object.
Displacement is saved by scene, not object.
All these displacement options, are directly seen in the open gl…
wireframe
front face wireframe
shaded solid
Textured shaded solid
Textured shaded solid wireframe
And VPR the interactive renderer.
Going geonodes for simple normal displacement, is ridiculous unecessary tedious.
In lw…I just add the modifer, set distance, plug the texture in the surface editor to the displacement slot, Done.
See above image, you just set the distance in the modifer, add the texture, plug it in…and done, the actual distance can further be controlle with the opacity values of the texture itself, coordinates are allready built in, scaling, rotation, offset, referencing any other item such empty/mull for animated or scaling control per null or empty object.
And as requested, should be working in openGL, wire, solid wire, material wire.
Sounds like you’d be happier using Lightwave, so why not do that instead? If Blender isn’t meeting your needs, you should use what does 
Oh not again, I have several times said I am focusing on blender.
And because of I wanted to know if the same approach of displaying displacements in blender could be achieved and demonstrating how well that works, by no means make lightwave render faster does it?
If blender can not provide me with this, it is not the biggest wall I have encountered that would provide me with …oh…I can be happier using lightwave…why this urge of …stick with lightwave and don´t come here and complain?
or is this displacement thing in lightwave somehow boosting up the other flaws magicly that Lightwave have?
And…blender have so many things Lightwave don´t , including serving me better economicly since I can´t afford upgrading Lightwave for a while.
For some things like this I may actually use lightwave initially, save to alembic or bake out mdd and similar, send to blender and use in there…why impose any concept that " I should be happier using Lightwave"
So in that sense, I am using what is meeting my needs to some degree, that by no means suggest it has to be that way, and can work better in One app only, if the features are there.
is this displacement thing I am requesting or should I say ,questioning if it would be possible in blender?.. so offensive that such response is needed from you?
Of course I have to mention how it works in Lightwave, it would be pointless to bring it up otherwise.
Lightwave costs a lot, blender doesn´t…until you have to add up plugins you may need, then the gap closes in.
Lightwave renders slowly, unless using octane.
Blenders geometric nodes are so much more interesting, for mograph and other things, not necessarely the easiest smoothest implementation to displace though.
So much more I could say about why I work more with blender than lightwave now, but I shouldn´t have to…in order to explain why I write these questions, and describe how it works elsehwere.
Blender and Lightwave are excellent in their own specific fields, and I am not gonna go in depth on that, but discussing how one software is handling something, could be useful if analysed properly without engaging in speculating in what makes one happier.
Every app handles things differently. If all apps performed their functions in exactly the same way, there would be no need for so many of them. I used LW for a long time, it was a great app. I would still use it if I need too, but comparing apps to eachother this way is pointless.
