Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#Actualtheagentd

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

I understand that the GPU performance would be roughly the same considering that only a very small fraction of all objects need to be duplicated to multiple sides/paraboloids, so I guess the biggest win comes from the reduced number of draw calls and culling costs, so CPU performance should at least slightly better.

 

Ugh, it seems like there's no perfect solution here. The more I look it up the less attractive dual paraboloid shadow mapping looks. I have no way of guaranteeing that my objects are sufficiently tessellated, and the seam between the paraboloids seems hard to avoid. Sadly emulating cube maps also has its fair share of problems too, like worse performance and texture size limits, though the size issue is only a problem on older hardware that are so slow they won't be able to use any larger shadow maps at realtime framerates.

 

For now I've decided to just create an OGL2 compatible emulated cube map shadow mapper and keep my current solution for OGL3 hardware. I intend to check out dual paraboloid shadow mapping in the future but for now I just need to get this working with the least amount of work, and it sounds like tweaking dual paraboloid shadow mapping to minimize the artifacts will require more time than just rewriting an existing working solution.

 

Thanks for your input, AgentC! Our usernames is a funny coincidence... =D

 

 

EDIT:

 - How do I determine if a graphics card supports hardware shadow mapping? Is it safe to assume that sampler2DShadow is available on OGL2 hardware (Intel, Nvidia and Radeon)?

 - I understand how to select a face from a direction vector in a cube map, but how do I calculate texture coordinates after that?


#1theagentd

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:36 PM

I understand that the GPU performance would be roughly the same considering that only a very small fraction of all objects need to be duplicated to multiple sides/paraboloids, so I guess the biggest win comes from the reduced number of draw calls and culling costs, so CPU performance should at least slightly better.

 

Ugh, it seems like there's no perfect solution here. The more I look it up the less attractive dual paraboloid shadow mapping looks. I have no way of guaranteeing that my objects are sufficiently tessellated, and the seam between the paraboloids seems hard to avoid. Sadly emulating cube maps also has its fair share of problems too, like worse performance and texture size limits, though the size issue is only a problem on older hardware that are so slow they won't be able to use any larger shadow maps at realtime framerates.

 

For now I've decided to just create an OGL2 compatible emulated cube map shadow mapper and keep my current solution for OGL3 hardware. I intend to check out dual paraboloid shadow mapping in the future but for now I just need to get this working with the least amount of work, and it sounds like tweaking dual paraboloid shadow mapping to minimize the artifacts will require more time than just rewriting an existing working solution.

 

Thanks for your input, AgentC! Our usernames is a funny coincidence... =D


PARTNERS