
Announcements

Forum Statistics

Total Topics627736

Total Posts2978856


Similar Content

By schneckerstein
Hello,
I manged so far to implement NVIDIA's NDFFiltering at a basic level (the paper can be found here). Here is my code so far:
//... // project the half vector on the normal (?) float3 hppWS = halfVector / dot(halfVector, geometricNormal) float2 hpp = float2(dot(hppWS, wTangent), dot(hppWS, wBitangent)); // compute the pixel footprint float2x2 dhduv = float2x2(ddx(hpp), ddy(hpp)); // compute the rectangular area of the pixel footprint float2 rectFp = min((abs(dhduv[0]) + abs(dhduv[1])) * 0.5, 0.3); // map the area to ggx roughness float2 covMx = rectFp * rectFp * 2; roughness = sqrt(roughness * roughness + covMx); //... Now I want combine this with LEAN mapping as state in Chapter 5.5 of the NDF paper.
But I struggle to understand what theses sections actually means in Code:
I suppose the firstorder moments are the B coefficent of the LEAN map, however things like
float3 hppWS = halfVector / dot(halfVector, float3(lean_B, 0)); doesn't bring up anything usefull.
Next theres:
This simply means:
// M and B are the coefficents from the LEAN map float2x2 sigma_mat = float2x2( M.x  B.x * B.x, M.z  B.x * B.y, M.z  B.x * B.y, M.y  B.y * B.y); does it?
Finally:
This is the part confuses me the most: how am I suppose to convolute two matrices? I know the concept of convolution in terms of functions, not matrices. Should I multiple them? That didn't make any usefully output.
I hope someone can help with this maybe too specific question, I'm really despaired to make this work and i've spend too many hours of trial & error...
Cheers,
Julian

By Baemz
Hello,
I've been working on some cullingtechniques for a project. We've built our own engine so pretty much everything is built from scratch. I've set up a frustum with the following code, assuming that the FOV is 90 degrees.
float angle = CU::ToRadians(45.f); Plane<float> nearPlane(Vector3<float>(0, 0, aNear), Vector3<float>(0, 0, 1)); Plane<float> farPlane(Vector3<float>(0, 0, aFar), Vector3<float>(0, 0, 1)); Plane<float> right(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(angle, 0, angle)); Plane<float> left(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(angle, 0, angle)); Plane<float> up(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(0, angle, angle)); Plane<float> down(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(0, angle, angle)); myVolume.AddPlane(nearPlane); myVolume.AddPlane(farPlane); myVolume.AddPlane(right); myVolume.AddPlane(left); myVolume.AddPlane(up); myVolume.AddPlane(down); When checking the intersections I am using a BoundingSphere of my models, which is calculated by taking the average position of all vertices and then choosing the furthest distance to a vertex for radius. The actual intersection test looks like this, where the "myFrustum90" is the actual frustum described above.
The orientationInverse is the viewMatrix in this case.
bool CFrustum::Intersects(const SFrustumCollider& aCollider) { CU::Vector4<float> position = CU::Vector4<float>(aCollider.myCenter.x, aCollider.myCenter.y, aCollider.myCenter.z, 1.f) * myOrientationInverse; return myFrustum90.Inside({ position.x, position.y, position.z }, aCollider.myRadius); } The Inside() function looks like this.
template <typename T> bool PlaneVolume<T>::Inside(Vector3<T> aPosition, T aRadius) const { for (unsigned short i = 0; i < myPlaneList.size(); ++i) { if (myPlaneList[i].ClassifySpherePlane(aPosition, aRadius) > 0) { return false; } } return true; } And this is the ClassifySpherePlane() function. (The plane is defined as a Vector4 called myABCD, where ABC is the normal)
template <typename T> inline int Plane<T>::ClassifySpherePlane(Vector3<T> aSpherePosition, float aSphereRadius) const { float distance = (aSpherePosition.Dot(myNormal))  myABCD.w; // completely on the front side if (distance >= aSphereRadius) { return 1; } // completely on the backside (aka "inside") if (distance <= aSphereRadius) { return 1; } //sphere intersects the plane return 0; }
Please bare in mind that this code is not optimized nor wellwritten by any means. I am just looking to get it working.
The result of this culling is that the models seem to be culled a bit "too early", so that the culling is visible and the models pops away.
How do I get the culling to work properly?
I have tried different techniques but haven't gotten any of them to work.
If you need more code or explanations feel free to ask for it.
Thanks.

By evelyn4you
hi,
i have read very much about the binding of a constantbuffer to a shader but something is still unclear to me.
e.g. when performing : vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer, slot )
is the buffer bound
a. to the VertexShaderStage
or
b. to the VertexShader that is currently set as the active VertexShader
Is it possible to bind a constantBuffer to a VertexShader e.g. VS_A and keep this binding even after the active VertexShader has changed ?
I mean i want to bind constantbuffer_A to VS_A, an Constantbuffer_B to VS_B and only use updateSubresource without using setConstantBuffer command every time.
Look at this example:
SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
updateSubresource(buffer_A)
vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_A, slot_A )
perform drawcall ( buffer_A is used )
SetVertexShader ( VS_B )
updateSubresource(buffer_B)
vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_B, slot_A )
perform drawcall ( buffer_B is used )
SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
perform drawcall (now which buffer is used ??? )
I ask this question because i have made a custom render engine an want to optimize to
the minimum updateSubresource, and setConstantbuffer calls

By noodleBowl
I got a quick question about buffers when it comes to DirectX 11. If I bind a buffer using a command like:
IASetVertexBuffers IASetIndexBuffer VSSetConstantBuffers PSSetConstantBuffers and then later on I update that bound buffer's data using commands like Map/Unmap or any of the other update commands.
Do I need to rebind the buffer again in order for my update to take effect? If I dont rebind is that really bad as in I get a performance hit? My thought process behind this is that if the buffer is already bound why do I need to rebind it? I'm using that same buffer it is just different data

By Rockmover
I am really stuck with something that should be very simple in DirectX 11.
1. I can draw lines using a PC (position, colored) vertices and a simple shader just fine.
2. I can draw 3D triangles using PCN (position, colored, normal) vertices just fine (even transparency and SpecularBlinnPhong shaders).
However, if I'm using my 3D shader, and I want to draw my PC lines in the same scene how can I do that?
If I change my lines to PCN and pass them to the 3D shader with my triangles, then the lighting screws them all up. I only want the lighting for the 3D triangles, but no SpecularBlinnPhong/Lighting for the lines (just PC).
I am sure this is because if I change the lines to PNC there is not really a correct "normal" for the lines.
I assume I somehow need to draw the 3D triangles using one shader, and then "switch" to another shader and draw the lines? But I have no clue how to use two different shaders in the same scene. And then are the lines just drawn on top of the triangles, or vice versa (maybe draw order dependent)?
I must be missing something really basic, so if anyone can just point me in the right direction (or link to an example showing the implementation of multiple shaders) that would be REALLY appreciated.
I'm also more than happy to post my simple test code if that helps as well!
THANKS SO MUCH IN ADVANCE!!!



Popular Now