Spherical Harmonics In Games
Who says you can't move anything with SH ?
You can't move (except for rotation) the SH coefficients in their own frame of reference. But you can move them in relation to another frame of reference. This allows eg. for moving objects to be correctly lit and shadowed by the environment, depending on their position.
You can't move (except for rotation) the SH coefficients in their own frame of reference. But you can move them in relation to another frame of reference. This allows eg. for moving objects to be correctly lit and shadowed by the environment, depending on their position.
Well, then say so. You asked about SH "In Games". Games do not only consist of skinned characters. If you want a relevant answer, then ask precise questions.
Oh and btw, there are ways to use SH on vertex skinned meshes. They're much more complex, quite memory intensive, and usually not worth the trouble.
Oh and btw, there are ways to use SH on vertex skinned meshes. They're much more complex, quite memory intensive, and usually not worth the trouble.
Author
Ok one more question.
How odd would it look to use it on static stuff in the environment while dynamic doesn't use it?
How odd would it look to use it on static stuff in the environment while dynamic doesn't use it?
Quote:Original post by jstrohConsidering that your average game environment has several orders of magnitude more static geometry than dynamic, I would guess it to be fine. You can also help alleviate the lack of it for moving characters with the judicious use of motion blur, etc.
How odd would it look to use it on static stuff in the environment while dynamic doesn't use it?
Quote:Original post by jstroh
How odd would it look to use it on static stuff in the environment while dynamic doesn't use it?
Pretty good actually. Most (if not all) 3D engines use different methods for static and dynamic lighting, were static lighting is almost always more realistic in one way or another. The human brain is extremely good at extracting visual clues from shading for static or slow moving objects. So this realism is important. However, the brain usually makes abstraction of shading details for fast moving or shape-changing objects (except for projected shadows) to reduce the amount of data to process. This makes incorrect lighting less noticeable on such objects. The extreme are refractive objects, were you can essentially get away with using completely fake lighting (and refraction !) without noticing it one single bit.
Quote:
I fail at life :(
[wink]
Author
Quote:Original post by Yann LQuote:Original post by jstroh
How odd would it look to use it on static stuff in the environment while dynamic doesn't use it?
Pretty good actually. Most (if not all) 3D engines use different methods for static and dynamic lighting, were static lighting is almost always more realistic in one way or another. The human brain is extremely good at extracting visual clues from shading for static or slow moving objects. So this realism is important. However, the brain usually makes abstraction of shading details for fast moving or shape-changing objects (except for projected shadows) to reduce the amount of data to process. This makes incorrect lighting less noticeable on such objects. The extreme are refractive objects, were you can essentially get away with using completely fake lighting (and refraction !) without noticing it one single bit.Quote:
I fail at life :(
[wink]
Interesting. I guess this is why Bioshock's completely fake caustics look nearly as good as Crysis' largely computed caustics.
For skinned meshes, why can't you just transform the vert's normal into whatever space used when you apply SH on a static mesh?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
