Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualSteve_Segreto

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:29 AM

I've done a ton of research since I first posted this question. Articles, PDF's, white papers, tech demos etc. have all helped me
get a better understanding of what the domain shader actually see's and what I have to work with in it.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to do this in the domain shader. (cracks are a fix-later problem) If I can't, that's fine too. I
have an excellent plan to use the geometry shader instead.

What I'd like to be sure of is the performance difference though. If I were to mimic the tessellation shader in the geometry
shader, would the geometry shader method operate slow-er enough to call it a big deal?


Have you inspected this PDF?

http://developer.dow...essellation.pdf http://developer.dow...essellation.pdf

You could get what you want (terrain height) if you use displacement mapping and keep the equilateral tessellation.

EDIT: Also check out this video --- are these the kinds of triangles you want to end up with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m73UVyKkyGQ

http://recreationstudios.blogspot.com/2010/03/simple-tessellation-example.html

#4Steve_Segreto

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:23 AM

I've done a ton of research since I first posted this question. Articles, PDF's, white papers, tech demos etc. have all helped me
get a better understanding of what the domain shader actually see's and what I have to work with in it.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to do this in the domain shader. (cracks are a fix-later problem) If I can't, that's fine too. I
have an excellent plan to use the geometry shader instead.

What I'd like to be sure of is the performance difference though. If I were to mimic the tessellation shader in the geometry
shader, would the geometry shader method operate slow-er enough to call it a big deal?


Have you inspected this PDF?

http://developer.dow...essellation.pdf http://developer.dow...essellation.pdf

You could get what you want (terrain height) if you use displacement mapping and keep the equilateral tessellation.

EDIT: Also check out this video --- are these the kinds of triangles you want to end up with?

#3Steve_Segreto

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:15 AM

I've done a ton of research since I first posted this question. Articles, PDF's, white papers, tech demos etc. have all helped me
get a better understanding of what the domain shader actually see's and what I have to work with in it.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to do this in the domain shader. (cracks are a fix-later problem) If I can't, that's fine too. I
have an excellent plan to use the geometry shader instead.

What I'd like to be sure of is the performance difference though. If I were to mimic the tessellation shader in the geometry
shader, would the geometry shader method operate slow-er enough to call it a big deal?


Have you inspected this PDF?

http://developer.dow...essellation.pdf http://developer.download.nvidia.com/presentations/2009/GDC/GDC09_D3D11Tessellation.pdf

You could get what you want (terrain height) if you use displacement mapping and keep the equilateral tessellation.

#2Steve_Segreto

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:12 AM


I've done a ton of research since I first posted this question. Articles, PDF's, white papers, tech demos etc. have all helped me
get a better understanding of what the domain shader actually see's and what I have to work with in it.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to do this in the domain shader. (cracks are a fix-later problem) If I can't, that's fine too. I
have an excellent plan to use the geometry shader instead.

What I'd like to be sure of is the performance difference though. If I were to mimic the tessellation shader in the geometry
shader, would the geometry shader method operate slow-er enough to call it a big deal?


Have you inspected this PDF?

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/presentations/2009/GDC/GDC09_D3D11Tessellation.pdf

#1Steve_Segreto

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:11 AM


I think I speak in the name of some of the other nearly 249 people when I say that I don't have a good answer to your question. Posted Image


Ah okay that's fine. I was hoping someone else had come across a similar problem with the default tessellation pattern in DX11.

I've done a ton of research since I first posted this question. Articles, PDF's, white papers, tech demos etc. have all helped me
get a better understanding of what the domain shader actually see's and what I have to work with in it.

I'm going to see if I can find a way to do this in the domain shader. (cracks are a fix-later problem) If I can't, that's fine too. I
have an excellent plan to use the geometry shader instead.

What I'd like to be sure of is the performance difference though. If I were to mimic the tessellation shader in the geometry
shader, would the geometry shader method operate slow-er enough to call it a big deal?

My thought was why do you require equilateral triangles to be generated?


If I was to subdivide a cube into more and more quads then map that to a radius, the result has an ugly distortion around
the corners. Using equilateral triangles from an icosahedron base nearly solves this problem because it is the highest
order platonic solid you can make. I.E: it is the best "base" to start from if you want to avoid that corner distortion side
effect of the cube method.


Have you inspected this PDF?

PARTNERS