Sign in to follow this  

DX11 Updating Shadow Maps

This topic is 2056 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 have deferred renderer in DX11 so I can support many lights. I have the option to make each light cast shadows with shadow maps. I am looking for good ideas on a system to determine when a shadow map needs to be updated. Examples that could cause a shadow map update:

1. Light moves
2. An object in the scene moves
3. An object is animated
4. An object is removed/added to the scene

My current idea is for each light to keep track of an object visibility list. If one of the above events occurs, then each light updates its visibility list and checks if it changed. If it changed, then it updates its shadow map using its updated visiblity list. If a light contains an animated object, then it always updates its shadow map. Obviously, a good data structure to query visibility is needed.

Another idea I had was to process one light per frame. So one light would check if its visibility list has changed, and update the shadow map if it had. Assuming I have less that 90 lights and am getting over 30 FPS, all shadow maps would be updated within 3 seconds (if I had to update all at once, which really should be never except at level load time). Although, I doubt it would happen, this also prevents a stall if I had to update all my shadow maps at once for some reason, as it spreads the work across frames.

Anyway, I'm just checking to see if anyone had good ideas / data structures for this. Edited by Quat

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always wanted to try caching each lights shadow map for purely static geometry and then using that to cull out dynamic stuff. I.E. from the shadow maps point of view never draw anything beyond the cached static shadow maps reach and only draw dynamic geometry when updating. If the light is static then who cares about redrawing all of the geometry every frame?

For that matter, I was also musing earlier today that you could use a tiled deferred approach to help you decide when to update shadow maps as well. I.E. an object moves in tile X, then you only have to update shadow casting lights that affect tile X, of course it won't work that way specifically, no way to tell from that what specific lights are affected, but the point is a scheme built around that might work. There are plenty of other things to consider, how far away is the light? How much screenspace does it actually take up? (If it's only a few pixels maybe you shouldn't care).

Honestly, use your imagination and experiment. The idea that you could even [b]have[/b] 90 shadow casting lights in the same scene is pretty new, it's not like there's a ton of research or any best practices to deal with this sort of problem yet. Edited by Frenetic Pony

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since this post got me thinking about it, in clearer and better explained manner I'd say:

Make sure you are using a tile base light culling scheme. See here: [url=""]http://forum.beyond3...?t=61739&page=2[/url] , DICE's presentations, etc.

Cull your lights out, and if it affects no tiles (the light doesn't show onscreen) then obviously don't update it the shadow map.

And as I mentioned above, always have a shadow maps purely static geometry cached if the light doesn't move. Then when updating only draw dynamic geometry with a depth closer than the cached static geometry. Because obviously nothing beyond that static geometry will ever need to be drawn, it could be a good performance win in the right situations.

Come to think of it, the cached shadow map could be very useful for culling out light as well. Assuming a much larger falloff radius for lights in future games it could get hard to cull out lights in the right scenarios. Just using the radius would get unwieldy. Say you had a dozen lights sitting in a house in an open world. They might all have a radius large enough to affect your current view, but most of them might be entirely occluded by geometry. You might be able to used those cached shadow maps to check and cull the lights when a tile based scheme might include them. Edited by Frenetic Pony

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 2056 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
    • Total Posts
  • 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(,; //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.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:
      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
      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
      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
    • By ADDMX
      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