Sign in to follow this  
joeblack

DX11 Dynamic ibl

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

i implemented ibl in my engine. Currently i precompute cubemaps offline and use them in game. This works good, but its only static. I would like to implement dynamic cubemap creation and convolution. I more or less know how to do it. But : My current workflow is : Render hdr cubemap in 3dsmax with mental ray (white material for everything). Convolute with ibl baker. Use it in game. Capture probe ingame (only once). Convolute with ibl baker and use it without changing. This is used for every "ambient" light in game. On top of that I'm rendering "normal" light (with ambient and specular).

I would like to capture and convolute cubemaps dynamically in game. So capture cubemap in 3ds max once. Use It in game and generate cube maps there at some time. This sounds easy. But as I said I first render ambient lights and on top of that normal lights. Then I create cubemap from that and use it in next frame for ambient light and add normal lights... Creating infinite feedback. Is there any way around it ? I believe games are using reatime generated ibl cubemaps. Or it's done completely differently ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joeblack said:

Creating infinite feedback.

The feedback loop is actually just "bounce lighting". As long as your materials obey the physical rule of conservation of energy, it will be ok. Every time through the loop, most of the energy gets lost, and exponentially more and more gets lost every iteration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hodgman said:

The feedback loop is actually just "bounce lighting". As long as your materials obey the physical rule of conservation of energy, it will be ok. Every time through the loop, most of the energy gets lost, and exponentially more and more gets lost every iteration. 

Not really, this leads into the "local lighting" infinite bounce trap. Light won't "travel" throughout the level correctly unless you iterate over every single cubemap therein, which you don't really want to do. So you end up with pockets of extreme brightness where the light bounces around next to ones of extreme darkness. You also have iteration time lag, so when you start it's very dark and the longer you hang around the brighter (though less exponentially) it gets as each iteration bounces more light. Still, it can be very annoying looking, as there's a literal "lag" to light and it's travelling very slowly somehow.

The general idea is doable however! The only full shipped version I'm aware of is Call of Duty Infinite Warfare with their Fast filtering of reflection probes and the Rendering part. There's several strategies you could choose from, but all of them ditch the idea of taking the previous cubemap lighting results and re-applying them infinitely and recursively.

One is only using local and sun light for lighting each probe at runtime. You'd only get one "bounce" but you could render and ambient light as well. Another is rendering the ambient term into the reflection probes, then just using the reflection probes for the final pass and no ambient there. But this can lead to odd colorbleeding results that don't look good.

A hack could be as so: Light your cubemap with an ambient term, take the resulting hdr cubemap and re-light the original, unlit cubemap with it once. This should provide an approximation of multiple light bounces and smooth out any weird color/lightbleeding artifacts that come from doing only one "ambient" bounce. As long as you smoothly blend between cubemaps for both spec/diffuse I'd suspect there wouldn't be much "boundary" artefacts where inappropriate dramatic lighting changes happen.

That being said check out the rendering parts separate spherical harmonic ambient occlusion like term. The idea is to take a higher resolution, precomputed sample of global illumination results. And then where that differs from the sparser cubemap information bake the difference into a greyscale spherical harmonic, so naturally dark areas don't get lit up inappropriately because the cubemap isn't correct, and vice versa. It's a hack, but an effective one.

Edit  - The Witcher 3 also does some sort of dynamic cubemap thing. But I'm not entirely sure how it works and I don't think they ever said.

Edited by FreneticPonE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hodgman ,

after I implemented it, it looks quite good actually, you were right. Im using NdL/PI for diffuse and GGX from internet for specular. For 128 samples its also quite fast. I needed to rewrite my camera culling code a bit to make it usable.

 

Thanks again.

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
      628401
    • Total Posts
      2982456
  • 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
      Hi,
      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
      Hello,
      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