• 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

Exact signed distance fields on the GPU

0 posts in this topic

I implemented a rather slack and simple version of SDF's on the GPU and the results I'm getting are actually pretty good for sources that don't have fine detail or sharp corners. However, the transformation is not perfect and while I wouldn't expect a hack like the one I'm using to be 100%  accurate, I don't really see why it couldn't be in theory. I kind of came up with this myself simply because I wanted to write a fast approximation that'd be easy to code. So it's possible I'm missing some of the vital theory.
What I'm doing is:
1) set up ping-pong FBO targets and fill them with white. I'm using floating point targets for added precision.
2) guess a radius for the distance kernel. I'm using r = 10
3) draw the source texture (r*2)^2 (for r = 10 => 400) times from (x, y) = [-r, -r] to [r, r], offsetting texture coordinates by (x, y) pixels for every iteration; set d to the normalized distance from the current static origin: d = sqrt(x * x + y * y) / r. I'm also clipping all pixels that fall outside of the normalized unit circle (because the sampling area is square and distances >1 would be clipped anyway)
4) use the ping-pong textures to update distance in the active map if it's smaller than the previous recorded distance and the pixel lies inside the shifted source texture:
    if(cur.x < 1)
        f = min(prv.x, d * 0.5 + 0.5);
        if(cur2.x < 1)
            f = min(prv.x, d * 0.5);
            f = prv.x;
where cur is the shifted source texture, cur2 is the unshifted source texture and prv is the alternate ping pong texture. Distance is packed to the range [0, 1]
5) "invert" distance inside objects to fix the sign
At this point the resulting image is a relatively crude approximation of the shape in that it's somewhat wobbly. To fix this I:
6) run hor+ver Gaussian blur over the image
7) and finally introduce a contrast compensation factor (empirical tests led me to a value of 1.45), as part of the blurring
The results can be seen below: the top image is from a CPU approach (not my code and I'm unsure of the running time); the below is my GPU transform (~0.4 sec for calculation only on a 640M in debug mode). This is a zoomed in region of an unscaled 1024x1024 SDF texture.
I haven't gotten to scaling the SDF yet - I'm first trying to figure out whether chasing pixel perfection on the GPU is a wild goose chase or not. I mean, I'm perfectly fine with using an approximation for stuff like shadowmaps, but fonts and high-detail stencils still need a more accurate approach.
To recap - can anyone share their experience on this? Eg if, then why wouldn't exact SDF transform be possible using something like the above approach, because the distance metric is actually correct, as is clipping and sign calculation/packing?
PS - the wobble may also be introduced by an error that I can't quite put my finger on yet. When inverting the negative distances (d = (0.5 - d)), using 0.5 actually creates banding at the perimeter. Using 0.56 introduces an appropriate shift, but I can't really explain why this is needed in the first place...
EDIT: naturally it dawned on my while I was in the toilet, but the 0.06 offset is perfectly logical, because the pixel is inside the perimeter, not on the boundary. Hence the inversion is performed on r-1 pixels, making the offset factor 0.5 + 0.5 / (r - 1) = 0.555(5).
Edited by irreversible

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