Sign in to follow this  

DX11 What is the point of using Catmull-Clark subdivision shaders?

This topic is 1814 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've been checking out demos of Catmull-Clark subdivisions implemented with DX11 tessellation,however I don't understand what exactly is the benefit of this technique.The visual effects are identical to the simpler,basic dynamic-LOD-tessellation shaders in the samples,yet the Catmull-Clark samples are a LOT heavier on performance.What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not that familiar with the samples, but they're probably just implementing "linear" tesselation, where more triangles are added, but they don't curve at all to better match the curved surface that's roughly defined by their 'source' triangles. This is useful when you need extra vertices for something like displacement mapping, but not for smoothing out edges.


Catmull-Clark subD surfaces add curvature to the generated "sub triangles", e.g. on the Wikipedia page, you can see a cube bulge out into a sphere. The artist has control over how/where this "bulging" will occur.

Also, these surfaces and their behaviours are programmed into many 3D modelling packages, so if you implement them in the exact same way, then an artist working with Max/Maya/Blender/Softimage/etc can tweak their "bulge"/"smooth" parameters to get the kind of shape that they want, and then know it's actually going to appear that way in the engine too.

Edited by Hodgman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, the artist have barely control over where bulging etc. happens, if you look for it on the net, you'll see that a lot of beginner artist wonder how they can control it. e.g. if you have a cylinder and you tessellate it with catmull-clark to make it rounder, you will end up with a capsule shape. some editing packages add extensions where artist can define hard borders, but most work-arounds for the original algorithm are to add two borders on edges you want to preserve to some degree (beveling in 3ds max), but you still get some smoothing at them.

but that's actually what makes catmull clark so nice and why artist who worked with the pure version, don't like the tools that extend it. if you have some nurb surfaces or bezier patches or ..., artist have to tweak them, and if you have an animated mesh, you have to tweak those control points in every keyframe, which makes it quite a lot of work. catmull clark meshes just work, they deliver mostly the expected result, they have no control points to skin with the mesh or to adjust. you tessellate an object, it looks nice, you apply a displacement texture and that's it. and while other algorithms usually get into trouble when you vary in the valence of your polys, catmull clark also works nicely in those special cases.

 

I also think you haven't seen a DX11 tessellation implementation of catmull clark, the tessellator hardware of dx11 cannot really be used for catmull clark as catmull clark is a recursive approach. there are ways to make it none-recursive, but the higher the tessellation factor, the more of the mesh you evaluate, it's not doable beyond some simple shapes. you've probably seen some approximation of catmull clark using e.g. bezier patches. but those are quite complex and error prone to implement and you need to run them on every animation step of a mesh, to re-create the approximation (at least that's what I've read in the papers when I was implementing it).

 

however, it's quite straight forward to implement catmull clark via compute. it's actually really nice for GPUs, working on every vertex independently etc.

http://twitpic.com/3ud6cx

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, the artist have barely control over where bulging etc. happens

I've never modelled anything with catmull-clark surfaces -- is the tesselation shape dependent only on the vertex positions and normals, like phong tesselation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



actually, the artist have barely control over where bulging etc. happens

I've never modelled anything with catmull-clark surfaces -- is the tesselation shape dependent only on the vertex positions and normals, like phong tesselation?
Normals are ignored. The new points are build by averaging neighbouring polygon centers, edge centers, vertices... The different rules for subdivided corner points / edge-, poly-centers are simple, but because the process is recursive, it's difficult to accelerate.

I've done a lot of modeling with catmull clark and also made my own editor because i was not happy with crease options from commercial apps.
For modeling organic shapes catmull clark is the best option. With proper creases it's also a very good alternative to nurbs for things like cars etc., while still easier to understand.
Cons are: You need to avoid triangles and use regular quad grids whenever possible. A good model will end up with mostly quads, some 5 sided and a few 6 sided polygons.
Subdividing a typical triangulated mesh makes no sense - you need to have the original quadbased model to get good results.

The first subdivision step is special, it does the most important work and ends up with a mesh containing quads only.
For a good HW-acceleration it gives sense to do it with its own algorithm, maybe on CPU.
For following steps it could give sense to switch to a more hardware friendly method, like bezier patches.

If anyone has experience with practical HW-acceleration i would like to hear something about it too...
Note that this can be a very good thing, because if you do the skinning with the low res control mesh, you get MUCH better final high res skinning! This also saves some work, as you don't need to skin the subdivided stuff.

Skinning is where difference to other tesselation methods shows up most noticeably. Because the corner vertices get smoothed too, not just the surface around them. Maybe it's hard for a programmer to get the point why they are so good compared th other methods - but with skinning the difference in visual quality is really huge. Trust me :) Edited by JoeJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hodgman

JoeJ pretty much hits the spot :)

just to emphasize it, while just positions are taken and it sounds like you loose a lot of informations (e.g. curvature that normals might express), it's actually the really good point of the algorithm, it is very very simple, you know what to expect, every implementation will lead to the same result (if you try to get some data from one modeling package to the other, tessellated stuff can be a horror, while catmull-clark basically is just an obj mesh, no extra features/data).

 

If anyone has experience with practical HW-acceleration i would like to hear something about it too...
Note that this can be a very good thing, because if you do the skinning with the low res control mesh, you get MUCH better final high res skinning! This also saves some work, as you don't need to skin the subdivided stuff.

you mean the tessellator on GPU? I've used it to implement an approximation described in this paper: http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/schaefer/research/acc.pdf

 

as I said in my first post here, the sad thing comes with animation, I had to evaluate the skinned mesh every time, to generate those patches and to make it leak-free is quite an effort, nothing compared to the simplicity and beauty of catmull-clark tessellation.

 

 

Skinning is where difference to other tesselation methods shows up most noticeably. Because the corner vertices get smoothed too, not just the surface around them. Maybe it's hard for a programmer to get the point why they are so good compared th other methods - but with skinning the difference in visual quality is really huge. Trust me smile.png

I totally agree, that's why I've made the GPGU version of it, it works flawlessly with skinned characters, it's fast even in the cpu version (vectorized), you can go crazy to 1Mio vertices, then displace them (also with GPGPU) and it just works. :)

 

Hardware tessellation units are way faster, of course, but even without HW, you can get to a point where the polycount exceeds the pixelcount by far (while you still have normalmaps etc) and it's still running smoothly on average GPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for summing up again, that gives a lot of sense to me now. I'm not really up to date with GPU stuff and missed the point that OGL/DX now have their own compute stuff and we can avoid to choose between Cuda or OpenCL :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for summing up again, that gives a lot of sense to me now. I'm not really up to date with GPU stuff and missed the point that OGL/DX now have their own compute stuff and we can avoid to choose between Cuda or OpenCL smile.png

I've actually implemented it in OpenCL.

I've also written an rasterizer in OpenCL (for this renderer) rather than inter-op with OGL/DX ( tho, I have sadly no Catmull+software screenshot, just http://twitpic.com/40e85b ), but abusing the massive compute power for rasterization works actually quite nicely. you setup 1024 triangles into the local memory, then you can work on them in 8x8 pixel granularity, I think I got 10% to 20% of the theoretical peak hardware rasterization performance in a real world scenario. it wasn't even fully optimized, I just stopped when it was fast enough (was just like 2 or 3 days of work to make the rasterizer).

Share this post


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

  • Similar Content

    • By mister345
      Hi, can somebody please tell me in clear simple steps how to debug and step through an hlsl shader file?
      I already did Debug > Start Graphics Debugging > then captured some frames from Visual Studio and
      double clicked on the frame to open it, but no idea where to go from there.
       
      I've been searching for hours and there's no information on this, not even on the Microsoft Website!
      They say "open the  Graphics Pixel History window" but there is no such window!
      Then they say, in the "Pipeline Stages choose Start Debugging"  but the Start Debugging option is nowhere to be found in the whole interface.
      Also, how do I even open the hlsl file that I want to set a break point in from inside the Graphics Debugger?
       
      All I want to do is set a break point in a specific hlsl file, step thru it, and see the data, but this is so unbelievably complicated
      and Microsoft's instructions are horrible! Somebody please, please help.
       
       
       

    • By mister345
      I finally ported Rastertek's tutorial # 42 on soft shadows and blur shading. This tutorial has a ton of really useful effects and there's no working version anywhere online.
      Unfortunately it just draws a black screen. Not sure what's causing it. I'm guessing the camera or ortho matrix transforms are wrong, light directions, or maybe texture resources not being properly initialized.  I didnt change any of the variables though, only upgraded all types and functions DirectX3DVector3 to XMFLOAT3, and used DirectXTK for texture loading. If anyone is willing to take a look at what might be causing the black screen, maybe something pops out to you, let me know, thanks.
      https://github.com/mister51213/DX11Port_SoftShadows
       
      Also, for reference, here's tutorial #40 which has normal shadows but no blur, which I also ported, and it works perfectly.
      https://github.com/mister51213/DX11Port_ShadowMapping
       
    • By xhcao
      Is Direct3D 11 an api function like glMemoryBarrier in OpenGL? For example, if binds a texture to compute shader, compute shader writes some values to texture, then dispatchCompute, after that, read texture content to CPU side. I know, In OpenGL, we could call glMemoryBarrier before reading to assure that texture all content has been updated by compute shader.
      How to handle incoherent memory access in Direct3D 11? Thank you.
    • By _Engine_
      Atum engine is a newcomer in a row of game engines. Most game engines focus on render
      techniques in features list. The main task of Atum is to deliver the best toolset; that’s why,
      as I hope, Atum will be a good light weighted alternative to Unity for indie games. Atum already
      has fully workable editor that has an ability to play test edited scene. All system code has
      simple ideas behind them and focuses on easy to use functionality. That’s why code is minimized
      as much as possible.
      Currently the engine consists from:
      - Scene Editor with ability to play test edited scene;
      - Powerful system for binding properties into the editor;
      - Render system based on DX11 but created as multi API; so, adding support of another GAPI
        is planned;
      - Controls system based on aliases;
      - Font system based on stb_truetype.h;
      - Support of PhysX 3.0, there are samples in repo that use physics;
      - Network code which allows to create server/clinet; there is some code in repo which allows
        to create a simple network game
      I plan to use this engine in multiplayer game - so, I definitely will evolve the engine. Also
      I plan to add support for mobile devices. And of course, the main focus is to create a toolset
      that will ease games creation.
      Link to repo on source code is - https://github.com/ENgineE777/Atum
      Video of work process in track based editor can be at follow link: 
       
       

    • By mister345
      I made a spotlight that
      1. Projects 3d models onto a render target from each light POV to simulate shadows
      2. Cuts a circle out of the square of light that has been projected onto the render target
      as a result of the light frustum, then only lights up the pixels inside that circle 
      (except the shadowed parts of course), so you dont see the square edges of the projected frustum.
       
      After doing an if check to see if the dot product of light direction and light to vertex vector is greater than .95
      to get my initial cutoff, I then multiply the light intensity value inside the resulting circle by the same dot product value,
      which should range between .95 and 1.0.
       
      This should give the light inside that circle a falloff from 100% lit to 0% lit toward the edge of the circle. However,
      there is no falloff. It's just all equally lit inside the circle. Why on earth, I have no idea. If someone could take a gander
      and let me know, please help, thank you so much.
      float CalculateSpotLightIntensity(     float3 LightPos_VertexSpace,      float3 LightDirection_WS,      float3 SurfaceNormal_WS) {     //float3 lightToVertex = normalize(SurfacePosition - LightPos_VertexSpace);     float3 lightToVertex_WS = -LightPos_VertexSpace;          float dotProduct = saturate(dot(normalize(lightToVertex_WS), normalize(LightDirection_WS)));     // METALLIC EFFECT (deactivate for now)     float metalEffect = saturate(dot(SurfaceNormal_WS, normalize(LightPos_VertexSpace)));     if(dotProduct > .95 /*&& metalEffect > .55*/)     {         return saturate(dot(SurfaceNormal_WS, normalize(LightPos_VertexSpace)));         //return saturate(dot(SurfaceNormal_WS, normalize(LightPos_VertexSpace))) * dotProduct;         //return dotProduct;     }     else     {         return 0;     } } float4 LightPixelShader(PixelInputType input) : SV_TARGET {     float2 projectTexCoord;     float depthValue;     float lightDepthValue;     float4 textureColor;     // Set the bias value for fixing the floating point precision issues.     float bias = 0.001f;     // Set the default output color to the ambient light value for all pixels.     float4 lightColor = cb_ambientColor;     /////////////////// NORMAL MAPPING //////////////////     float4 bumpMap = shaderTextures[4].Sample(SampleType, input.tex);     // Expand the range of the normal value from (0, +1) to (-1, +1).     bumpMap = (bumpMap * 2.0f) - 1.0f;     // Change the COORDINATE BASIS of the normal into the space represented by basis vectors tangent, binormal, and normal!     float3 bumpNormal = normalize((bumpMap.x * input.tangent) + (bumpMap.y * input.binormal) + (bumpMap.z * input.normal));     //////////////// LIGHT LOOP ////////////////     for(int i = 0; i < NUM_LIGHTS; ++i)     {     // Calculate the projected texture coordinates.     projectTexCoord.x =  input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].x / input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].w / 2.0f + 0.5f;     projectTexCoord.y = -input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].y / input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].w / 2.0f + 0.5f;     if((saturate(projectTexCoord.x) == projectTexCoord.x) && (saturate(projectTexCoord.y) == projectTexCoord.y))     {         // Sample the shadow map depth value from the depth texture using the sampler at the projected texture coordinate location.         depthValue = shaderTextures[6 + i].Sample(SampleTypeClamp, projectTexCoord).r;         // Calculate the depth of the light.         lightDepthValue = input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].z / input.vertex_ProjLightSpace[i].w;         // Subtract the bias from the lightDepthValue.         lightDepthValue = lightDepthValue - bias;         float lightVisibility = shaderTextures[6 + i].SampleCmp(SampleTypeComp, projectTexCoord, lightDepthValue );         // Compare the depth of the shadow map value and the depth of the light to determine whether to shadow or to light this pixel.         // If the light is in front of the object then light the pixel, if not then shadow this pixel since an object (occluder) is casting a shadow on it.             if(lightDepthValue < depthValue)             {                 // Calculate the amount of light on this pixel.                 float lightIntensity = saturate(dot(bumpNormal, normalize(input.lightPos_LS[i])));                 if(lightIntensity > 0.0f)                 {                     // Determine the final diffuse color based on the diffuse color and the amount of light intensity.                     float spotLightIntensity = CalculateSpotLightIntensity(                         input.lightPos_LS[i], // NOTE - this is NOT NORMALIZED!!!                         cb_lights[i].lightDirection,                          bumpNormal/*input.normal*/);                     lightColor += cb_lights[i].diffuseColor*spotLightIntensity* .18f; // spotlight                     //lightColor += cb_lights[i].diffuseColor*lightIntensity* .2f; // square light                 }             }         }     }     // Saturate the final light color.     lightColor = saturate(lightColor);    // lightColor = saturate( CalculateNormalMapIntensity(input, lightColor, cb_lights[0].lightDirection));     // TEXTURE ANIMATION -  Sample pixel color from texture at this texture coordinate location.     input.tex.x += textureTranslation;     // BLENDING     float4 color1 = shaderTextures[0].Sample(SampleTypeWrap, input.tex);     float4 color2 = shaderTextures[1].Sample(SampleTypeWrap, input.tex);     float4 alphaValue = shaderTextures[3].Sample(SampleTypeWrap, input.tex);     textureColor = saturate((alphaValue * color1) + ((1.0f - alphaValue) * color2));     // Combine the light and texture color.     float4 finalColor = lightColor * textureColor;     /////// TRANSPARENCY /////////     //finalColor.a = 0.2f;     return finalColor; }  
      Light_vs.hlsl
      Light_ps.hlsl
  • Popular Now