Sign in to follow this  

DX11 DX11 - DX9.3 feature level with SM3?

This topic is 2376 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I am trying to get some shaders to work in DX11 with the DX9.3 feature level, which I assumed was DX9 with ShaderModel 3.
However, I get the following errors compiling the shader:

error X5608: Compiled shader code uses too many arithmetic instruction slots (712). Max. allowed by the target (ps_2_x) is 512.
(1,1): error X5609: Compiled shader code uses too many instruction slots (816). Max. allowed by the target (ps_2_x) is 512.

So I guess it's compiling to an SM2 pixelshader instead of SM3?

I use .fx files with technique11 techniques, ps_4_0_level_9_3 as profile, fx_5_0 for the effect compile profile, and I double checked the device's feature level.

Has anynone got an idea of what's going wrong here?

Edit: It was also complaining about a texture having mipmaps while not being a power of 2 in size, which is supported for the 9.3 feature level, according to msdn.. Is there any way that DX might be telling me the feature level is 9.3 while it is actually 9.2 or 9.1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you tried to compile it with FXC.exe in the two different shader models, and then compare the assembly listings produced by both of them? That might indicate to you if your shader is ok with SM4 or not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tree Penguin' timestamp='1306859235' post='4817923']
I am trying to get some shaders to work in DX11 with the DX9.3 feature level, which I assumed was DX9 with ShaderModel 3.
However, I get the following errors compiling the shader:

error X5608: Compiled shader code uses too many arithmetic instruction slots (712). Max. allowed by the target (ps_2_x) is 512.
(1,1): error X5609: Compiled shader code uses too many instruction slots (816). Max. allowed by the target (ps_2_x) is 512.

So I guess it's compiling to an SM2 pixelshader instead of SM3?

I use .fx files with technique11 techniques, ps_4_0_level_9_3 as profile, fx_5_0 for the effect compile profile, and I double checked the device's feature level.

Has anynone got an idea of what's going wrong here?

Edit: It was also complaining about a texture having mipmaps while not being a power of 2 in size, which is supported for the 9.3 feature level, according to msdn.. Is there any way that DX might be telling me the feature level is 9.3 while it is actually 9.2 or 9.1?
[/quote]



D3D11 sadly does not support SM3.0 shaders, feature level 9_3 is SM2. check out the documentation on supported features for feature levels "Overview for each feature level".


David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tree Penguin' timestamp='1306927278' post='4818235']
Oops I see, thanks. That kind of makes the feature levels useless for me though :(.
[/quote]

You could target D3D10, I imagine a lot of people who would have bought the mostly high end cards which supported SM3 well would have upgraded to DX10+ or will do soon...

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dblack' timestamp='1306946896' post='4818325']
You could target D3D10, I imagine a lot of people who would have bought the mostly high end cards which supported SM3 well would have upgraded to DX10+ or will do soon...

David
[/quote]

Yeah I'm thinking about that, but I've had requests for DX9 hw support, I guess those people will just have to be happy with less fancyness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The goal is to make feature groupings that cover a reasonable amount of hardware. That's a hard task given that there is such a wide variety of dx9 hardware and given that most of the dx9 features are optional. So yes, there could be a classification of cards that are sm3, but that group of cards would be so small as to be useless to anyone. So instead the feature scope was scaled back so that the classification would cover enough hardware to be meaningful. Of course that means some things like instruction counts didn't get the sm3 value.


So the whole thing will require a lot of referencing of the 10Level9 documentation to use without surprises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 2376 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628722
    • Total Posts
      2984396
  • Similar Content

    • By GreenGodDiary
      Having some issues with a geometry shader in a very basic DX app.
      We have an assignment where we are supposed to render a rotating textured quad, and in the geometry shader duplicate this quad and offset it by its normal. Very basic stuff essentially.
      My issue is that the duplicated quad, when rendered in front of the original quad, seems to fail the Z test and thus the original quad is rendered on top of it.
      Whats even weirder is that this only happens for one of the triangles in the duplicated quad, against one of the original quads triangles.

      Here's a video to show you what happens: Video (ignore the stretched textures)

      Here's my GS: (VS is simple passthrough shader and PS is just as basic)
      struct VS_OUT { float4 Pos : SV_POSITION; float2 UV : TEXCOORD; }; struct VS_IN { float4 Pos : POSITION; float2 UV : TEXCOORD; }; cbuffer cbPerObject : register(b0) { float4x4 WVP; }; [maxvertexcount(6)] void main( triangle VS_IN input[3], inout TriangleStream< VS_OUT > output ) { //Calculate normal float4 faceEdgeA = input[1].Pos - input[0].Pos; float4 faceEdgeB = input[2].Pos - input[0].Pos; float3 faceNormal = normalize(cross(faceEdgeA.xyz, faceEdgeB.xyz)); //Input triangle, transformed for (uint i = 0; i < 3; i++) { VS_OUT element; VS_IN vert = input[i]; element.Pos = mul(vert.Pos, WVP); element.UV = vert.UV; output.Append(element); } output.RestartStrip(); for (uint j = 0; j < 3; j++) { VS_OUT element; VS_IN vert = input[j]; element.Pos = mul(vert.Pos + float4(faceNormal, 0.0f), WVP); element.Pos.xyz; element.UV = vert.UV; output.Append(element); } }  
      I havent used geometry shaders much so im not 100% on what happens behind the scenes.
      Any tips appreciated! 
    • By mister345
      Hi, I'm building a game engine using DirectX11 in c++.
      I need a basic physics engine to handle collisions and motion, and no time to write my own.
      What is the easiest solution for this? Bullet and PhysX both seem too complicated and would still require writing my own wrapper classes, it seems. 
      I found this thing called PAL - physics abstraction layer that can support bullet, physx, etc, but it's so old and no info on how to download or install it.
      The simpler the better. Please let me know, thanks!
    • By Hexaa
      I try to draw lines with different thicknesses using the geometry shader approach from here:
      https://forum.libcinder.org/topic/smooth-thick-lines-using-geometry-shader
      It seems to work great on my development machine (some Intel HD). However, if I try it on my target (Nvidia NVS 300, yes it's old) I get different results. See the attached images. There
      seem to be gaps in my sine signal that the NVS 300 device creates, the intel does what I want and expect in the other picture.
      It's a shame, because I just can't figure out why. I expect it to be the same. I get no Error in the debug output, with enabled native debugging. I disabled culling with CullMode.None. Could it be some z-fighting? I have little clue about it but I tested to play around with the RasterizerStateDescription and DepthBias properties with no success, no change at all. Maybe I miss something there?
      I develop the application with SharpDX btw.
      Any clues or help is very welcome
       


    • By Beny Benz
      Hi,
      I'm currently trying to write a shader which shoud compute a fast fourier transform of some data, manipulating the transformed data, do an inverse FFT an then displaying the result as vertex offset and color. I use Unity3d and HLSL as shader language. One of the main problems is that the data should not be passed from CPU to GPU for every frame if possible. My original plan was to use a vertex shader and do the fft there, but I fail to find out how to store changing data betwen shader calls/passes. I found a technique called ping-ponging which seems to be based on writing and exchangeing render targets, but I couldn't find an example for HLSL as a vertex shader yet.
      I found https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/c79a3701-d028-41d9-ad74-a2b3b3958383/how-to-render-to-multiple-render-targets-in-hlsl?forum=xnaframework
      which seem to use COLOR0 and COLOR1 as such render targets.
      Is it even possible to do such calculations on the gpu only? (/in this shader stage?, because I need the result of the calculation to modify the vertex offsets there)
      I also saw the use of compute shaders in simmilar projects (ocean wave simulation), do they realy copy data between CPU / GPU for every frame?
      How does this ping-ponging / rendertarget switching technique work in HLSL?
      Have you seen an example of usage?
      Any answer would be helpfull.
      Thank you
      appswert
    • By ADDMX
      Hi
      Just a simple question about compute shaders (CS5, DX11).
      Do the atomic operations (InterlockedAdd in my case) should work without any issues on RWByteAddressBuffer and be globaly coherent ?
      I'v come back from CUDA world and commited fairly simple kernel that does some job, the pseudo-code is as follows:
      (both kernels use that same RWByteAddressBuffer)
      first kernel does some job and sets Result[0] = 0;
      (using Result.Store(0, 0))
      I'v checked with debugger, and indeed the value stored at dword 0 is 0
      now my second kernel
      RWByteAddressBuffer Result;  [numthreads(8, 8, 8)] void main() {     for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)     {         uint4 v0 = DoSomeCalculations1();         uint4 v1 = DoSomeCalculations2();         uint4 v2 = DoSomeCalculations3();                  if (v0.w == 0 && v1.w == 0 && v2.w)             continue;         //    increment counter by 3, and get it previous value         // this should basically allocate space for 3 uint4 values in buffer         uint prev;         Result.InterlockedAdd(0, 3, prev);                  // this fills the buffer with 3 uint4 values (+1 is here as the first 16 bytes is occupied by DrawInstancedIndirect data)         Result.Store4((prev+0+1)*16, v0);         Result.Store4((prev+1+1)*16, v1);         Result.Store4((prev+2+1)*16, v2);     } } Now I invoke it with Dispatch(4,4,4)
      Now I use DrawInstancedIndirect to draw the buffer, but ocassionaly there is missed triangle here and there for a frame, as if the atomic counter does not work as expected
      do I need any additional synchronization there ?
      I'v tried 'AllMemoryBarrierWithGroupSync' at the end of kernel, but without effect.
      If I do not use atomic counter, and istead just output empty vertices (that will transform into degenerated triangles) the all is OK - as if I'm missing some form of synchronization, but I do not see such a thing in DX11.
      I'v tested on both old and new nvidia hardware (680M and 1080, the behaviour is that same).
       
  • Popular Now