Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
ekba89

DX11 nvidia rain demo

This topic is 2237 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'm trying to render rain with dx11 and hlsl and there aren't a lot of examples to create realistic rain. The best I've found so far is nvidia's rain demo from their directx 10 sdk. I've managed to convert it to directx 11 and it is working but I'm having hard time to understand the main part of their code which i added below.
My first problem is how they indexed their streak images. There are 370 rain streak images and if I'm not mistaken the maximum index value can be 368.
And my second problem is "if"s in the code. I didn't understand their purpose. And why they are using is_EpLp_angle_ccw to invert only one of the horizontal texture coordinates.
Also if there are any other rain tutorial that you can suggest I would like to check it out.

void rainResponse(PSSceneIn input, float3 lightVector, float lightIntensity, float3 lightColor, float3 eyeVector, bool fallOffFactor, inout float4 rainResponseVal)
{

float opacity = 0.0;
float fallOff;
if(fallOffFactor)
{
float distToLight = length(lightVector);
fallOff = 1.0/( distToLight * distToLight);
fallOff = saturate(fallOff);
}
else
{ fallOff = 1;
}
if(fallOff > 0.01 && lightIntensity > 0.01 )
{
float3 dropDir = g_TotalVel;
#define MAX_VIDX 4
#define MAX_HIDX 8
// Inputs: lightVector, eyeVector, dropDir
float3 L = normalize(lightVector);
float3 E = normalize(eyeVector);
float3 N = normalize(dropDir);

bool is_EpLp_angle_ccw = true;
float hangle = 0;
float vangle = abs( (acos(dot(L,N)) * 180/PI) - 90 ); // 0 to 90

{
float3 Lp = normalize( L - dot(L,N)*N );
float3 Ep = normalize( E - dot(E,N)*N );
hangle = acos( dot(Ep,Lp) ) * 180/PI; // 0 to 180
hangle = (hangle-10)/20.0; // -0.5 to 8.5
is_EpLp_angle_ccw = dot( N, cross(Ep,Lp)) > 0;
}

if(vangle>=88.0)
{
hangle = 0;
is_EpLp_angle_ccw = true;
}

vangle = (vangle-10.0)/20.0; // -0.5 to 4.5

// Outputs:
// verticalLightIndex[1|2] - two indices in the vertical direction
// t - fraction at which the vangle is between these two indices (for lerp)
int verticalLightIndex1 = floor(vangle); // 0 to 5
int verticalLightIndex2 = min(MAX_VIDX, (verticalLightIndex1 + 1) );
verticalLightIndex1 = max(0, verticalLightIndex1);
float t = frac(vangle);
// textureCoordsH[1|2] used in case we need to flip the texture horizontally
float textureCoordsH1 = input.tex.x;
float textureCoordsH2 = input.tex.x;

// horizontalLightIndex[1|2] - two indices in the horizontal direction
// s - fraction at which the hangle is between these two indices (for lerp)
int horizontalLightIndex1 = 0;
int horizontalLightIndex2 = 0;
float s = 0;

s = frac(hangle);
horizontalLightIndex1 = floor(hangle); // 0 to 8
horizontalLightIndex2 = horizontalLightIndex1+1;
if( horizontalLightIndex1 < 0 )
{
horizontalLightIndex1 = 0;
horizontalLightIndex2 = 0;
}

if( is_EpLp_angle_ccw )
{
if( horizontalLightIndex2 > MAX_HIDX )
{
horizontalLightIndex2 = MAX_HIDX;
textureCoordsH2 = 1.0 - textureCoordsH2;
}
}
else
{
textureCoordsH1 = 1.0 - textureCoordsH1;
if( horizontalLightIndex2 > MAX_HIDX )
{
horizontalLightIndex2 = MAX_HIDX;
} else
{
textureCoordsH2 = 1.0 - textureCoordsH2;
}
}

if( verticalLightIndex1 >= MAX_VIDX )
{
textureCoordsH2 = input.tex.x;
horizontalLightIndex1 = 0;
horizontalLightIndex2 = 0;
s = 0;
}

// Generate the final texture coordinates for each sample
uint type = input.type;
uint2 texIndicesV1 = uint2(verticalLightIndex1*90 + horizontalLightIndex1*10 + type,
verticalLightIndex1*90 + horizontalLightIndex2*10 + type);
float3 tex1 = float3(textureCoordsH1, input.tex.y, texIndicesV1.x);
float3 tex2 = float3(textureCoordsH2, input.tex.y, texIndicesV1.y);
if( (verticalLightIndex1<4) && (verticalLightIndex2>=4) )
{
s = 0;
horizontalLightIndex1 = 0;
horizontalLightIndex2 = 0;
textureCoordsH1 = input.tex.x;
textureCoordsH2 = input.tex.x;
}

uint2 texIndicesV2 = uint2(verticalLightIndex2*90 + horizontalLightIndex1*10 + type,
verticalLightIndex2*90 + horizontalLightIndex2*10 + type);
float3 tex3 = float3(textureCoordsH1, input.tex.y, texIndicesV2.x);
float3 tex4 = float3(textureCoordsH2, input.tex.y, texIndicesV2.y);
// Sample opacity from the textures
float col1 = rainTextureArray.Sample( samAniso, tex1) * g_rainfactors[texIndicesV1.x];
float col2 = rainTextureArray.Sample( samAniso, tex2) * g_rainfactors[texIndicesV1.y];
float col3 = rainTextureArray.Sample( samAniso, tex3) * g_rainfactors[texIndicesV2.x];
float col4 = rainTextureArray.Sample( samAniso, tex4) * g_rainfactors[texIndicesV2.y];
// Compute interpolated opacity using the s and t factors
float hOpacity1 = lerp(col1,col2,s);
float hOpacity2 = lerp(col3,col4,s);
opacity = lerp(hOpacity1,hOpacity2,t);
opacity = pow(opacity,0.7); // inverse gamma correction (expand dynamic range)
opacity = 4*lightIntensity * opacity * fallOff;
}

rainResponseVal = float4(lightColor,opacity);
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By chiffre
      Introduction:
      In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
      I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
      (TLDR at bottom)
      The Actual Post:
      To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
      To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
      struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
      struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
      Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
      struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape. 
      TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.
    • By cozzie
      Hi all,
      I was wondering it it matters in which order you draw 2D and 3D items, looking at the BeginDraw/EndDraw calls on a D2D rendertarget.
      The order in which you do the actual draw calls is clear, 3D first then 2D, means the 2D (DrawText in this case) is in front of the 3D scene.
      The question is mainly about when to call the BeginDraw and EndDraw.
      Note that I'm drawing D2D stuff through a DXGI surface linked to the 3D RT.
      Option 1:
      A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT
      B - Draw 3D
      C - BeginDraw D2D RT
      D - Draw 2D
      E - EndDraw D2D RT
      F - Present
      Option 2:
      A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT + BeginDraw D2D RT
      B - Draw 3D
      C - Draw 2D
      D - EndDraw D2D RT
      E- Present
      Would there be a difference (performance/issue?) in using option 2? (versus 1)
      Any input is appreciated.
    • By Sebastian Werema
      Do you know any papers that cover custom data structures like lists or binary trees implemented in hlsl without CUDA that work perfectly fine no matter how many threads try to use them at any given time?
    • By cozzie
      Hi all,
      Last week I noticed that when I run my test application(s) in Renderdoc, it crashes when it enable my code that uses D2D/DirectWrite. In Visual Studio no issues occur (debug or release), but when I run the same executable in Renderdoc, it crashes somehow (assert of D2D rendertarget or without any information). Before I spend hours on debugging/ figuring it out, does someone have experience with this symptom and/or know if Renderdoc has known issues with D2D? (if so, that would be bad news for debugging my application in the future );
      I can also post some more information on what happens, code and which code commented out, eliminates the problems (when running in RenderDoc).
      Any input is appreciated.
    • By lonewolff
      Hi Guys,
      I understand how to create input layouts etc... But I am wondering is it at all possible to derive an input layout from a shader and create the input layout directly from this? (Rather than manually specifying the input layout format?)
      Thanks in advance :)
       
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!