• Create Account

Improving Pixel Shader Ridged Multifractal Function

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

3 replies to this topic

#1multifractal  Members

306
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:21 PM

Hello,

I recently decided to switch from creating heightmaps in openCL to a pixel shader. While this makes things easier to work with I have one major issue. For terrain I am relying primarily on this ridged multifractal function:

float RMF(in vec3 v)  {

float result, frequency, signal, weight;
float H = 1.0;
float lacunarity = 2.143212;
int octaves = 12;
float offset = 1.0;
float gain = 2.1;
int i;
bool first = true;
float exponentArray[12];
frequency =.6;
if(first){
for (i=0; i<octaves; i++) {
exponentArray[i] =  pow(frequency, -H);
frequency *= lacunarity;

}
first = false;
}

signal = inoise(v);

if (signal < 0.0) signal = -signal;

signal = offset - signal;

signal *=signal;

result = signal;
weight = 1.0;

for (i = 1; i < octaves; i++) {

v*=lacunarity;

weight = signal * gain;

if ( weight > 1.0 ) weight = 1.0;

if ( weight < 0.0 ) weight = 0.0;

signal = (inoise(v));

if ( signal < 0.0 ) signal = -signal;

signal = offset - signal;
signal *= signal;

signal *= weight;
result += signal * exponentArray[i];
}
return (result - 1.0) / 2.0;
}


Using openCl I could produce heightmap such as the following:

This resulted in "strong" terrain features and rough mountains yet smooth valleys.

Using a pixel shader I cannot reproduce such quality.

At best I can create something like below:

Which is far too rough and lacks the height features of the other implementation.

I can think of no other cause of these disparities than the actual perlin noise function being used.

For the pixel shader I am using the noise described here: http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter26.html

while in openCL I was using the following function:

float sgnoise2d(float2 position)
{
float2 p = position;
float2 pf = floor(p);
int2 ip = (int2)((int)pf.x, (int)pf.y);
float2 fp = p - pf;

const int2 I00 = (int2)(0, 0);
const int2 I01 = (int2)(0, 1);
const int2 I10 = (int2)(1, 0);
const int2 I11 = (int2)(1, 1);

const float2 F00 = (float2)(0.0f, 0.0f);
const float2 F01 = (float2)(0.0f, 1.0f);
const float2 F10 = (float2)(1.0f, 0.0f);
const float2 F11 = (float2)(1.0f, 1.0f);

float n00 = gradient2d(ip + I00, fp - F00);
float n10 = gradient2d(ip + I10, fp - F10);
float n01 = gradient2d(ip + I01, fp - F01);
float n11 = gradient2d(ip + I11, fp - F11);

const float2 n0001 = (float2)(n00, n01);
const float2 n1011 = (float2)(n10, n11);

float2 n2 = mix2d(n0001, n1011, smooth(fp.x));
float n = mix1d(n2.x, n2.y, smooth(fp.y));
return n * (1.0f / 0.7f);
}

float ugnoise2d(float2 position)
{
return (0.5f - 0.5f * sgnoise2d(position));
}



I would like to keep using the improved glsl noise that I am using but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with good ridged multifractal functions to use in a pixel shader. Thanks for any help whatsoever.

#2unbird  Members

8297
Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:53 PM

If you used that implementation I'm pretty sure you're fine. Looking at those pictures I guess you have no more than a different scaling issue. Looking at the Level stats in Paint.NET it's quote obvious actually: The second one doesn't go over 0.5. Try scaling it by 2.

#3multifractal  Members

306
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:07 PM

If you used that implementation I'm pretty sure you're fine. Looking at those pictures I guess you have no more than a different scaling issue. Looking at the Level stats in Paint.NET it's quote obvious actually: The second one doesn't go over 0.5. Try scaling it by 2.

Yea that was stupid of me:

Although that still doesn't look great, I could probably just fiddle with the variables more.

Thanks.

#4unbird  Members

8297
Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:44 PM

Yea that was stupid of me

No, I could have been wrong as well

Unless you have some automatic normalization you can get pretty far off results, especially when using low res color formats (your latest screenshot still does not use the full range). So yeah, play around and get familiar with it. GPU-noise is nice in this regard since you can get results interactively.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.