Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


solenoidz

Member Since 07 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Jul 22 2014 04:28 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Intel HD 3000, the assimp library and this example

11 April 2014 - 08:38 AM

Maybe your are facing a similar issue :

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?cc=us&lc=en&docname=c02948560

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16823372/forcing-machine-to-use-dedicated-graphics-card


In Topic: Direct X 11 really worth it?

18 January 2014 - 09:45 AM

 

How many devices and platforms I can target, if I invest time in learning OpenGL-like APIs. PlayStation 3/PS4, WebGL, Android, iOS, Linux, Mac and of course all versions of Windows ?

Not to disagree with your other points (tying D3D to Windows upgrades *is* stupid) -- but I would not call GCM/GCX OpenGL-like in the slightest. If you're porting to PS4, you're learning a new/different API, that's probably closest to Mantle, then D3D11, then GL4.

 

I meant using PSGL which is OpenGL ES 1(.1) compilant + support for vertex array objects and nVidia Cg shaders. So for example, if I decide to use OpenGL ES 1.0, I cant target Windows all versions, Web browsers all versions(WebGL) ( even IE maybe), iOS, Android, Linux, Mac and PlayStation 3(throught PSGL, though I heard of it's terible performance). 

 

APIs -- even if that just means the GLES2, WebGL, GL2.1, GL3, and GL4 ways of doing things! ;-)

 

DX9, DX10, DX11 also have differences in implemenation.

 

@

mark ds

Yep, I'm trying to make such a framework too, but then it comes the language difference... For example, for some of the platforms you use Java, some use C++, some Objective C etc..


In Topic: Direct X 11 really worth it?

17 January 2014 - 07:02 AM

I'm in a pretty similar dilemma or even trilemma. I have a DX9.0 engine and when I see where Microsoft is going with DX 11+ I don't like it. They made that thing in the past - DX10 was exclusive to Vista and Win7, now DX11.2 is exclusive to Win8.1 and so on. I had a WinXP box and I was stuck to develop with DX9. Than I started to look in OpenGL direction, where I could use the latest version on WinXP. 

I'm thinking about these things lately :

 

1. Is OpenGL in general(including OpenGL ES) is worth learning more than DX in the long run.

2. Is OpenGL game "market share" is growing ? How many devices and platforms I can target, if I invest time in learning OpenGL-like APIs. PlayStation 3/PS4, WebGL, Android, iOS, Linux, Mac and of course all versions of Windows ?

3. Is SteamOS and SteamBox, really going to affect the PC game market in favour to Linux and OpenGL ?

 

As a small indie developer, I need to know what is worth learning and what is going to fade in the future. I don't know exactly what platform I'm going to target in the long run.

Now I'm making a Windows game, tomorrow I could be making an iOS or Android game, or even a PS4 game. If I'm proficient in OpenGL style of programming can I be more competitive and flexible to jump between platforms.

 

Is sticking to DX11 ( and Win7/8 and eventually XBOX) is going to give me more than sticking to OpenGL 4+ and other OpenGL's to cover all the other platforms ? 


In Topic: Global illumination techniques

30 September 2013 - 01:05 PM

Thank you, people. The floating point texture that stores color and number of time a pixel has beed lit + selecting closest pixels to each probe by this kind of rendering were interesting things to know.


In Topic: Global illumination techniques

29 September 2013 - 02:07 PM

If you're using deferred shading, you can render a sphere volume in the location of your probes and pass the data in and shade the volume using the g-buffer. You can even merge the closer ones together and pass them in groups into the shader to save on fill rate if it's a problem.

 

Thank you, but I still have some uncertainties. 

Yes, i'm using a deferred renderer, so do Crytek, but their method is much more complex after generating SH harmonics data for every light probe in space. The finally end up with 3 volume textures and sample from those per pixel.

 

In my case, i'm not sure how big this sphere volume should be. In case of my point light, I make it as big, as the light radius, but here the light probe do not store distance from the surface, just the incomming radiance. Also, as far as I get it, I need to shade every pixel with it's the closest probe. If I simply draw shpere volumes as you suggested, I caould shade pixels that are far behind that current probe I'm rendering (in screen space) that should be rendered with a different probe behind the current one. Should I pass all the probes positions and other data, that fall in the view frustum, and in the shader, for every pixel, get it's world space position, find the closest probe and shade it with that ?

That seems a bit limiting and slow also..

 

Thanks.


PARTNERS