• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mrheisenberg

Passing matrices vs passing floats in instance buffer?

6 posts in this topic

I have noticed a lot of people use something like this:

[CODE]//just for example:
struct InstanceStruct
{
XMFLOAT3 position;
XMFLOAT3 rotation;
XMFLOAT3 scale;
}

which would equivalent 3 float3's in the shader;[/CODE]

yet others just pass a ready matrix:

[CODE]struct InstanceStruct
{
XMFLOAT4X4 transform;
};[/CODE]

for just 1 float4x4
I was wondering - what's the point of the second method?Isn't it better to calculate all the simple things on the GPU insteac of making a matrix on the CPU for each instance?Or have I misunderstood something?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GPU would have to multiply those 3 matrices every vertex (or transform vertex 3 times instead of once), that's a waste, considering those matrices do not change for many vertices. Also it takes less memory/bandwidth, but with such difference probably irrelevant.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ripiz' timestamp='1345572955' post='4971912']
GPU would have to multiply those 3 matrices every vertex (or transform vertex 3 times instead of once), that's a waste, considering those matrices do not change for many vertices. Also it takes less memory/bandwidth, but with such difference probably irrelevant.
[/quote]

would you happen to know what SemanticName and Format to pass to the D3D11_INPUT_ELEMENT_DESC for a matrix?Or will any texcoordX do?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So there are no SV semantics for a matrix per vertex. Honestly you probably don't need a matrix per vertex unless you're doing skinning, in which case it's better to just pass it in as a matrix array in a constant buffer.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both ways have their uses. If you can provide some code examples, it is easier to see what's going on in the shader code and may help on explaining the differences.
Sometimes it is enough to pass just 4x3 matrix in order to save bandwidth (skinning for example).

Nowadays, shaders using instancing may read data easily from constant buffers or generic buffer<float4> objects. I find the latter one quite flexible (size way bigger than a constant buffer and each draw call can use variable amount of data). It's usage is described in Frostbyte design docs.

Cheers!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mrheisenberg' timestamp='1345575533' post='4971927']
[quote name='Ripiz' timestamp='1345572955' post='4971912']
GPU would have to multiply those 3 matrices every vertex (or transform vertex 3 times instead of once), that's a waste, considering those matrices do not change for many vertices. Also it takes less memory/bandwidth, but with such difference probably irrelevant.
[/quote]

would you happen to know what SemanticName and Format to pass to the D3D11_INPUT_ELEMENT_DESC for a matrix?Or will any texcoordX do?
[/quote]

You have to set it up as 4 adjacent elements using DXGI_FORMAT_R32G32B32A32_FLOAT.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Seabolt' timestamp='1345577390' post='4971939']
So there are no SV semantics for a matrix per vertex. Honestly you probably don't need a matrix per vertex unless you're doing skinning, in which case it's better to just pass it in as a matrix array in a constant buffer.
[/quote]
You can store per instance data in a second vertex buffer. The Input Assembler combines the per vertex data and the per instance data for each vertex shader call.

BTT: It's better to upload just a single matrix to the GPU, because this would result in just 4 DP4 instructions. While uploading position, rotation and scale would result in way more instructions. Quaternions are probably faster though.

Also, you don't need to use the TEXCOORD# semantics anymore. Since DirectX 10 you can use any semantic name you want. To upload a matrix you simply upload the 4 float4 values with the same semantic name but different indexes, eg. WVP0, WVP1, WVP2, WVP3. Edited by CryZe
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  
Followers 0