Sign in to follow this  

DX11 Display Quad in top left corner.

Recommended Posts

Hi there,
I am very new to rendering, and i have a problem displaying a quad on the top left corner of my screen.
I already have a small 3D engine, and i wanted to use this code to display my quad.
The issue is that the quad shows, but way off the -x axis and up the y axis. So i actually have to move my camera down the -z axis and tilt it to the left to see the quad. 
Camera position and aiming when starting :
After going way back and turning a on the left
I just want it to stick in front of my camera in the top left corner of my screen.
My guts tell me there is something wrong with my view matrix, or at least, it is not setup the way the rastertek tutorial expected it, but i can't find exactly what it is.
Vertex Shader
cbuffer PerFrameBuffer
float4x4 gWorldViewProj;

PixelInputType VS(VertexInputType input)
    PixelInputType output;    

// Change the position vector to be 4 units for proper matrix calculations.
    input.position.w = 1.0f;

// Calculate the position of the vertex against the world, view, and projection matrices.
    output.position = mul(float4(, 1.0f), gWorldViewProj);
// Store the texture coordinates for the pixel shader.
output.tex = input.tex;
    return output;
Quad code sending the matrix
XMMATRIX worldViewProj = world * camera->View() * camera->Proj(); 
XMMATRIX Camera::View()const
return XMLoadFloat4x4(&mView);

void Camera::UpdateViewMatrix()
XMVECTOR R = XMLoadFloat3(&mRight);
XMVECTOR U = XMLoadFloat3(&mUp);
XMVECTOR L = XMLoadFloat3(&mLook);
XMVECTOR P = XMLoadFloat3(&mPosition);

// Keep camera's axes orthogonal to each other and of unit length.
L = XMVector3Normalize(L);
U = XMVector3Normalize(XMVector3Cross(L, R));

// U, L already ortho-normal, so no need to normalize cross product.
R = XMVector3Cross(U, L); 

// Fill in the view matrix entries.
float x = -XMVectorGetX(XMVector3Dot(P, R));
float y = -XMVectorGetX(XMVector3Dot(P, U));
float z = -XMVectorGetX(XMVector3Dot(P, L));

XMStoreFloat3(&mRight, R);
XMStoreFloat3(&mUp, U);
XMStoreFloat3(&mLook, L);

mView(0,0) = mRight.x; 
mView(1,0) = mRight.y; 
mView(2,0) = mRight.z; 
mView(3,0) = x;   

mView(0,1) = mUp.x;
mView(1,1) = mUp.y;
mView(2,1) = mUp.z;
mView(3,1) = y;  

mView(0,2) = mLook.x; 
mView(1,2) = mLook.y; 
mView(2,2) = mLook.z; 
mView(3,2) = z;   

mView(0,3) = 0.0f;
mView(1,3) = 0.0f;
mView(2,3) = 0.0f;
mView(3,3) = 1.0f;
The shader output vertices with very big negative values, when my camera is almost centered at the world origin, so there is no way it can see those.
So i am a bit confused about how i am supposed to use the view transformation (if the problem indeed lies there) so i can always see my quad no matter where i look.
Any help or suggestion would be greatly appreciated :-)
Thanks !

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't really need view matrix to render 2D image on screen.

Try to take a look at this tutorial, which is specifically made to render 2D things on the screen, not 3D space.

It should explain how to position things on the screen, and you should be able to easily see where's your mistake.

Edited by Zaoshi Kaba

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't really need view matrix to render 2D image on screen.

Try to take a look at this tutorial, which is specifically made to render 2D things on the screen, not 3D space.

It should explain how to position things on the screen, and you should be able to easily see where's your mistake.


Thanks a lot for the reply !

I read that tutorial, and i have to admit i am still confused because i think this is extacly what i am doing.

But i kept diging into and i found a similar code in the shadowmap sample which works for me :



I just don't know why yet.

Contrary to rastertek code, the d3dcoder code creates vertices directly in NDC space

	// Load the vertex array with data.
	vertices[0].position = XMFLOAT3(-1.0f, -1.0f, 0.0f);
	vertices[0].texture = XMFLOAT2(0.0f, 0.0f);

	vertices[1].position = XMFLOAT3(-1.0f, +1.0f, 0.0f);
	vertices[1].texture = XMFLOAT2(1.0f, 1.0f);

	vertices[2].position = XMFLOAT3(+1.0f, +1.0f, 0.0f);
	vertices[2].texture = XMFLOAT2(0.0f, 1.0f);

	vertices[3].position = XMFLOAT3(+1.0f, -1.0f, 0.0f);
	vertices[3].texture = XMFLOAT2(0.0f, 0.0f);

and only sends this world transform matrix to the shader :

		0.5f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f,
		0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f, 0.0f,
		0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f,
		0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, 1.0f);

Nothing else.

No projection or view matrix sent at all. And no matter where i look, the quad remains visible.

Its like the quad is not part of the rest of the "world" and "bypassed" the whole 3d part.

How is this possible ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like the quad is not part of the rest of the "world" and "bypassed" the whole 3d part.

How is this possible ?


Its just how graphics work. Your GPU does not know nor care what a view, projection matrix is, or whats drawn 3d and what not. It just sees vertices, and performs transformations on those in the vertex shader. You could even display a quad from (-1, -1, 0) to (1, 1, 0) without any transformation applied. What that matrix you supplied here does is scale the quad to 50% of its size, and move it 0.5 to the right, and 0.5 down. You don't need anything else, try to replace that matrix with identity and see what happens.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.
I think your answer helped me understand something very fundamental !
Every vertices in the frustrum ends up being projected on the screen, and my screen surface IS the NDC space, ranging from -1 to 1.

So the whole point of world * view * proj operation is to convert my vertex from its 3D position to a 2D position in the NDC space.
And nothing stops me from sending vertices with NDC coordinates directly to the GPU.
I feel very stupid for realizing this only now... The whole thing makes sense now !

Thank you very much :-)


Note: Please do not hesitate to correct me if i came to a wrong conclusion, i would much rather know it now ;-)

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  

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Similar Content

    • By KarimIO
      Hey guys,
      I'm trying to work on adding transparent objects to my deferred-rendered scene. The only issue is the z-buffer. As far as I know, the standard way to handle this is copying the buffer. In OpenGL, I can just blit it. What's the alternative for DirectX? And are there any alternatives to copying the buffer?
      Thanks in advance!
    • By joeblack
      im reading about specular aliasing because of mip maps, as far as i understood it, you need to compute fetched normal lenght and detect now its changed from unit length. I’m currently using BC5 normal maps, so i reconstruct z in shader and therefore my normals are normalized. Can i still somehow use antialiasing or its not needed? Thanks.
    • By 51mon
      I want to change the sampling behaviour to SampleLevel(coord, ddx(coord.y).xx, ddy(coord.y).xx). I was just wondering if it's possible without explicit shader code, e.g. with some flags or so?
    • By GalacticCrew
      I want to improve the performance of my game (engine) and some of your helped me to make a GPU Profiler. After creating the GPU Profiler, I started to measure the time my GPU needs per frame. I refined my GPU time measurements to find my bottleneck.
      Searching the bottleneck
      Rendering a small scene in an Idle state takes around 15.38 ms per frame. 13.54 ms (88.04%) are spent while rendering the scene, 1.57 ms (10.22%) are spent during the SwapChain.Present call (no VSync!) and the rest is spent on other tasks like rendering the UI. I further investigated the scene rendering, since it takes über 88% of my GPU frame rendering time.
      When rendering my scene, most of the time (80.97%) is spent rendering my models. The rest is spent to render the background/skybox, updating animation data, updating pixel shader constant buffer, etc. It wasn't really suprising that most of the time is spent for my models, so I further refined my measurements to find the actual bottleneck.
      In my example scene, I have five animated NPCs. When rendering these NPCs, most actions are almost for free. Setting the proper shaders in the input layout (0.11%), updating vertex shader constant buffers (0.32%), setting textures (0.24%) and setting vertex and index buffers (0.28%). However, the rest of the GPU time (99.05% !!) is spent in two function calls: DrawIndexed and DrawIndexedInstance.
      I searched this forum and the web for other articles and threads about these functions, but I haven't found a lot of useful information. I use SharpDX and .NET Framework 4.5 to develop my game (engine). The developer of SharpDX said, that "The method DrawIndexed in SharpDX is a direct call to DirectX" (Source). DirectX 11 is widely used and SharpDX is "only" a wrapper for DirectX functions, I assume the problem is in my code.
      How I render my scene
      When rendering my scene, I render one model after another. Each model has one or more parts and one or more positions. For example, a human model has parts like head, hands, legs, torso, etc. and may be placed in different locations (on the couch, on a street, ...). For static elements like furniture, houses, etc. I use instancing, because the positions never change at run-time. Dynamic models like humans and monster don't use instancing, because positions change over time.
      When rendering a model, I use this work-flow:
      Set vertex and pixel shaders, if they need to be updated (e.g. PBR shaders, simple shader, depth info shaders, ...) Set animation data as constant buffer in the vertex shader, if the model is animated Set generic vertex shader constant buffer (world matrix, etc.) Render all parts of the model. For each part: Set diffuse, normal, specular and emissive texture shader views Set vertex buffer Set index buffer Call DrawIndexedInstanced for instanced models and DrawIndexed models What's the problem
      After my GPU profiling, I know that over 99% of the rendering time for a single model is spent in the DrawIndexedInstanced and DrawIndexed function calls. But why do they take so long? Do I have to try to optimize my vertex or pixel shaders? I do not use other types of shaders at the moment. "Le Comte du Merde-fou" suggested in this post to merge regions of vertices to larger vertex buffers to reduce the number of Draw calls. While this makes sense to me, it does not explain why rendering my five (!) animated models takes that much GPU time. To make sure I don't analyse something I wrong, I made sure to not use the D3D11_CREATE_DEVICE_DEBUG flag and to run as Release version in Visual Studio as suggested by Hodgman in this forum thread.
      My engine does its job. Multi-texturing, animation, soft shadowing, instancing, etc. are all implemented, but I need to reduce the GPU load for performance reasons. Each frame takes less than 3ms CPU time by the way. So the problem is on the GPU side, I believe.
    • By noodleBowl
      I was wondering if someone could explain this to me
      I'm working on using the windows WIC apis to load in textures for DirectX 11. I see that sometimes the WIC Pixel Formats do not directly match a DXGI Format that is used in DirectX. I see that in cases like this the original WIC Pixel Format is converted into a WIC Pixel Format that does directly match a DXGI Format. And doing this conversion is easy, but I do not understand the reason behind 2 of the WIC Pixel Formats that are converted based on Microsoft's guide
      I was wondering if someone could tell me why Microsoft's guide on this topic says that GUID_WICPixelFormat40bppCMYKAlpha should be converted into GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA and why GUID_WICPixelFormat80bppCMYKAlpha should be converted into GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA
      In one case I would think that: 
      GUID_WICPixelFormat40bppCMYKAlpha would convert to GUID_WICPixelFormat32bppRGBA and that GUID_WICPixelFormat80bppCMYKAlpha would convert to GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA, because the black channel (k) values would get readded / "swallowed" into into the CMY channels
      In the second case I would think that:
      GUID_WICPixelFormat40bppCMYKAlpha would convert to GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA and that GUID_WICPixelFormat80bppCMYKAlpha would convert to GUID_WICPixelFormat128bppRGBA, because the black channel (k) bits would get redistributed amongst the remaining 4 channels (CYMA) and those "new bits" added to those channels would fit in the GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA and GUID_WICPixelFormat128bppRGBA formats. But also seeing as there is no GUID_WICPixelFormat128bppRGBA format this case is kind of null and void
      I basically do not understand why Microsoft says GUID_WICPixelFormat40bppCMYKAlpha and GUID_WICPixelFormat80bppCMYKAlpha should convert to GUID_WICPixelFormat64bppRGBA in the end
  • Popular Now