Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 22 Jul 2010
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:07 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Starfield with 3D points: ideas on how to create light effect around the star...

18 May 2016 - 04:46 AM

Some kind of bloom effect would probably help get nearer what you want.

I think if you did that coupled with a fractal noise you could be well on the way.


So use a down-sampled version of the image to blur it based on light intensity, then overlay that onto the original image. I would also use that blur texture as a alpha map for some kind of noise (such as fractal) to get that "cloudy" look. Depending on how you built the initial image you may need to think about how a noise texture might swim as the camera moves and you will need to fix that, i.e. maybe sample a cube map there, just guessing at this point :D

In Topic: Is this the most efficient way to achieve bloom?

01 April 2016 - 02:20 AM

Perhaps your blur shaders could probably be tweaked/optimized to adjust efficiently.

i.e. smaller blurs for weaker platforms.


Are you making the most of gpu texture filtering to sample at least 2 or 4 pixels per texture fetch?

How many samples per pixel are you doing in the blurs?

In Topic: instancing with multiple meshes

16 February 2016 - 07:56 AM

You can do all the VS-based custom vertex pulling trickery on the D3D9/GL2 APIs, by storing your vertex data in a floating point texture instead of a buffer ;)

Before you bother though, first make sure that you actually do need to dramatically optimise your CPU-side GL/D3D time per frame.


Ahh sneaky, and just move texture lookup locations to point to the correct "mesh".

I doubt it will make it into any sort of production, but I like to find alternatives and put them though their paces, better the devil you know ey

In Topic: instancing with multiple meshes

16 February 2016 - 05:38 AM

Thanks guys! Looks like it was as expected, possible - but requiring modern apis. Which is a shame as I am limited to older ones but at least I was along the right track :-D


Will experiment with passing in ids in a buffer and degenerating triangles. I have a feeling it might still be a faster approach than the additional draw calls.

In Topic: 3D Model Terrain Collision

28 January 2016 - 05:13 AM

While imoogiBG is right that most opt for using libraries, if you are only interested in collision detection not including correct collision handling then it is a bit easier.


In my experience detecting collisions is the easy bit... resolving them is hard.


By "easy" though take that with a pinch of salt... it takes time and a decent knowledge of math helps.


You can write a sphere vs triangle mesh routine that returns a boolean easy enough - less than a days fiddling.

Box vs mesh, probably a bit more work, you have corners and edges to consider - getting tricky now.


Now to to do those things in realtime and in a highly optimised fashion will take even more time.

Even more time still to resolve those collisions in a suitable way (and things can get very tricky here)


So depending on your use case, simple detection and resolution may be enough, but if you want robust and fast results then I recommend using a library.


(still trying these things is fun if you have the time)