Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

mhagain

Member Since 06 Jun 2010
Offline Last Active Today, 09:55 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Determine Shader Model for Compiled Shader Object

17 December 2014 - 01:11 PM

Its interesting that pixel shader is zero on the high word, and the order doesn't seem to follow a logical pattern.  I wonder how they chose the order???

 

Seems evident enough.  The first two shader stages that were available in the earliest hardware - ps and vs - are 0 and 1 (although I would have expected vs to be 0 and ps 1, but maybe there are historical reasons going back to D3D8 days for that).  gs was available next in D3D10 and that's 2.  Then the tesselation stages are 3 and 4, and finally compute is 5.

 

Since the D3D11 shader compiler can be used to compile downlevel shaders (down to SM2 IIRC) which can then be loaded by D3D9 programs, the order is obviously fixed for backward compatibility reasons.


In Topic: Minimalist Programming Environment

16 December 2014 - 06:10 PM

 

for all the talk of VS being allegedly "bloated", it's actually the one IDE where you can tuck everything away and focus on code

 
The one IDE? Are you sure about that? smile.png

 

 

Well OK, "one of the". smile.png

 

Do I still get marks for using part of the Lugaru source as my example? smile.png


In Topic: Minimalist Programming Environment

16 December 2014 - 08:04 AM

What's actually quite amazing/amusing is, for all the talk of VS being allegedly "bloated", it's actually the one IDE where you can tuck everything away and focus on code:

 

2ebzev9.jpg

 

As for the extra features allegedly slowing it down, it should be obvious how nonsensical that is.  If code or data isn't use, it will never be paged in.

 

It's OK for people to say that they prefer other tools for other reasons, but when they use false information to justify a preference (even if unintentionally) that's not so OK.


In Topic: Getting Bounding Box For Sphere on Screen

14 December 2014 - 09:41 AM

EDIT: Tried it and just remember why I decided not to use it. I rendered the geometry with additive blending and it doubled up because the back was showing through. I enabled back face culling, but when Im inside the sphere, it then culls out the sphere, so nothing is rendered. Any ideas?

 

Either flip the culling mode when the viewpoint is inside the sphere, or else just use a regular full-screen quad for that case.


In Topic: Getting Bounding Box For Sphere on Screen

14 December 2014 - 06:22 AM

Last time I did this, I just rendered a sphere biggrin.png I mean you're issuing a draw call anyway, who cares about a couple dozen extra polys...

 

And the sphere covers fewer fragments so it's potentially faster.

 

I had read that stencil testing was more expensive in the long run

 

I'm not entirely sure where your mention of stencil testing came from, so I'll leave it at this.  Light volumes don't need stencil testing - there's a lot of misleading information out there suggesting that they do, but they don't.


PARTNERS