• 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
lipsryme

Best way of handling different Shader functions

8 posts in this topic

Let's say I have a technique that I want to implement e.g. SSAO.
This technique has to be done in 2 parts, computing the occlusion and blurring the result.

What I want to know is what would be the best way/design to approach this.
Do I have 2 seperate shader files, which means I have to have 2 seperate shader interfaces inside my application for each of the 2 parts or is it better to have a single shader that has both shader functions inside and then call these with a macro define ? Edited by lipsryme
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well no I'm not talking about using an effect file with technique and passes but what I'm doing is compiling the pixel and vertex shader seperately. Edited by lipsryme
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're compiling them separately, there's no way to do both passes in a single shader. A shader is a program running on a Warp / Wavefront. To be able to blur the result of the SSAO, you would need to synchronize the whole pipeline accross all the different Warps / Wavefronts. The driver controlled by DirectX needs to synchronize them. That's why it's impossible. The Effect framework introduces such features in the HLSL language but actually executes them as DirectX function calls and splits the different passes and techniques into individual shaders, but hides that from the user. Edited by CryZe
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I meant by that was having a single file and using #define macros to run the first function that does the computation and then a second function that does the other part. Of course rendering these two seperately. Is that not possible ? Edited by lipsryme
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically speaking, you could write a compute shader that was able to calculate the occlusion and then filter it all in one pass. It would be horribly inefficient, but it would technically be possible since you are only interested in a small neighborhood of pixels when blurring. Probably this would be something like an academic exercise, rather than what you would want in your actual game / engine.

Instead of doing that, you would be much better off separating these two passes of the algorithm. The biggest reason is that you can then use a separable filter, which is a huge win when you are using a large filter radius.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='lipsryme' timestamp='1346512145' post='4975445']and then call these with a macro define[/quote]If you're using a #define to select the function, that means you're compiling the shader multiple times ([i]once for each option[/i]).
[quote name='lipsryme' timestamp='1346514313' post='4975459']
Well no I'm not talking about using an effect file with technique and passes but what I'm doing is compiling the pixel and vertex shader seperately.
[/quote]If you're compiling the shaders yourself, then whether you put all the code in one file ([i]and compile 2 different shaders using different #defines or different entry points[/i]), or whether you put the code in two files, make no difference. It's just a matter of style. In the end you still end up with 2 shader binaries in either approach.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]If you're compiling the shaders yourself, then whether you put all the code in one file ([i]and compile 2 different shaders using different #defines or different entry points[/i]), or whether you put the code in two files, make no difference. It's just a matter of style. In the end you still end up with 2 shader binaries in either approach.
[/quote]

Well that was my question. What the design choice would be in this case...using defines makes it easier for me inside the application code, though might make the shader code less readable... I guess there's no right or wrong. Edited by lipsryme
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='lipsryme' timestamp='1346520507' post='4975488']
using defines makes it easier for me inside the application code
[/quote]
Why would it make it easier from the application? You still have two shader binaries, like Hodgman said. The only thing you could do, is either writing your own library that hides "global synchronizations of the pipeline" or you use the Effect framework. A single shader can't do that.

[quote name='Jason Z' timestamp='1346517476' post='4975475']
Technically speaking, you could write a compute shader that was able to calculate the occlusion and then filter it all in one pass. It would be horribly inefficient
[/quote]
I think an efficient implementation might actually be faster. Simply cache the depth values and the resulting ambient occlusion values in groupshared memory. If you manage to do the necessary calculations on a single Warp, you can synchronize the threads and in that way implement the AO calculation, the horizontal blur and the vertical blur in a single shader. And since the whole process only requires one actual read and write to the VRAM, it should be way faster than a pixel shader implementation with 3 passes.
0

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