• 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.

FriendlyFire

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

128 Neutral

About FriendlyFire

  • Rank
    Member
  1. We're using a 32-bit floating point buffer for the depth. EDIT: Figured it out. We were reconstructing our view matrix from an eye position and a rotation matrix by passing the required vectors to D3DXMatrixLookAtLH (which we'd calculate from the rotation matrix and eye position). Doing the calculations manually the long way seems to have corrected the problem with no other changes required.
  2. The far clip values can go really high, above 400,000 units (depends on the cascade and the viewer's orientation), while the near clip is determined by scene geometry and usually is around 100,000 (since the source is always a star, there tends to be very little close by). My problem is that while I'd understand this being an issue for shadow mapping, the algorithm I've posted doesn't actually use shadow maps. It only reconstructs a position from the depth buffer, without using any shadow map. Could it be that the far clip for the main depth buffer is too large, too? The near clip for that is set at 0.5 units as a constant, while the far clip can go to 600,000 or more, depending on scene geometry and user settings.
  3. So I'm using a fairly traditional method for depth reconstruction through a Vertex/Pixel Shader. First, here's the relevant code: [CODE] VS_FARCLIPVEC VS_RenderScreen( float4 vPos : POSITION, float2 vTexCoord0 : TEXCOORD0) { VS_FARCLIPVEC OUT; OUT.Position = vPos; float fTexX = (vTexCoord0.x * 2 - 1); float fTexY = ((1- vTexCoord0.y) * 2 - 1); float4 fProjPoint = float4(fTexX,fTexY,1,1); float4 fFarClipVector = mul(fProjPoint, g_mProjectionInverse); fFarClipVector.xyz /= fFarClipVector.w; OUT.vTexCoord0 = vTexCoord0; OUT.fFarClipVector = fFarClipVector; float4 fLightPosVS = mul(float4(g_singleLightPos,1), g_mView); OUT.fLightPosVS = fLightPosVS.xyz / fLightPosVS.w; return OUT; } float4 PS_CreateShadowBufferPlanets( VS_FARCLIPVEC IN ) : COLOR0 { float fDepth = tex2D(Tex0Sampler, IN.vTexCoord0).r; if(fDepth == 1.0) discard; float3 vPosVS = IN.fFarClipVector.xyz * fDepth; float dist = length(vPosVS - g_vLightPosVS.xyz); for(int i = 0; i < g_iPlanetCount; i++) { float3 p1 = vPosVS; float3 p2 = g_vLightPosVS.xyz; float3 p3 = g_vPlanetPositions[i].xyz; float r = g_fPlanetRadii[i]; float3 d = normalize(p2 - p1); float a = dot(d, d); float b = 2.0 * dot(d, p1 - p3); float c = dot(p3, p3) + dot(p1, p1) - 2.0 * dot(p3, p1) - r*r; float discriminant = b*b - 4*a*c; if(discriminant >= 0) { float smoothing = sqrt(discriminant) / (4*a); float dist2 = -b / (4*a) - smoothing; if(dist2 > 0 && dist2 < dist) return smoothing / r * 7; } } discard; return 0; } [/CODE] This whole code is used to render planet shadows regardless of distance and without using shadow maps. Performance isn't ideal, but I've selected this code because it has a minimal amount of inputs. This is largely working as expected, except for one thing: the shadows that are calculated shake, badly. Whenever I rotate the camera, even if just a little bit, the shadows tend to slide a bit in one direction, then snap back to their original location. Rinse and repeat as the camera rotates. If the camera moves, the effect still appears, but it takes a very, very large amount of movement before just one "snapping" happens. If the camera doesn't move, the shadows are pixel-accurate and don't have any visible defect. The g_vPlanetPositions and g_vLightPosVS use world-space XYZ coords which are projected into the camera's view space prior to the shader running. I do not believe that those are problematic, because I also have another shadow algorithm (this one using cascade shadow maps) that does the same thing. Therefore, I am suspecting one of two things: either my view matrix or my projection matrix is wrong. I do not know which would be the case. In order to calculate my inverse projection matrix, I just use D3DXMatrixInverse. The initial projection matrix is a simple D3DXMatrixPerspectiveFovLH call with a field of view between 70 and 90 degrees. The view matrices are calculated from the camera position and a rotation matrix. It must be said that the scale of the scene is fairly large. The distance between the light and the casters can be in the 500,000 units range, same for the receivers. I am uncertain whether the entire thing is caused by floating point precision issues, because my shadow maps have a much higher accuracy than the steps I notice and the rest of the scene renders fine. Does anyone have pointers as for what could cause this? I can paste more code as necessary, just ask.
  4. Thanks for the help. I've been trying things following your post but I just can't seem to figure it out. Guess I'll put it on the backburner for a while longer...
  5. [quote name='PixelSmasher' timestamp='1347288471' post='4978591'] Hi FriendlyFire. I'm sorry for the late answer, I'm in total crunch time and deadlines do not forgive ! I eventually got SMAA to work on console aaaannnnnd it took 10 ms to render ! This is the time I gave up. To have it working on PC, I simply turned the pixel shader interpolated array "offsets[3]" into 3 interpolated values "offset0", "offset1" and "offset2". The compiler did mess with them. [/quote] Hey! First of all thanks for updating this. I've tried to do as you said, but I do not see any significant change. I have tried to only replace the offset array in SMAABlendingWeightCalculationPS and to replace all offset arrays in all functions to no avail. If you have a few moments, would you be able to detail a bit more what you've done to fix it, perhaps with some code? Thanks once more.
  6. Bumping this again. PixelSmasher, did you figure out the issue? I'm still entirely stumped.
  7. I'm afraid I have not. I have deactivated SMAA and went back to FXAA because I just couldn't figure out the solution and didn't want to waste so long on it. If you do find a solution, I'd be most grateful if you could post it here.
  8. Bump. I've done a few more tests but I plain and simply can't figure that one out. Is there anybody who's got any idea on what the hell might be wrong with this?
  9. A small update: after tinkering with the loading loop, I figured out that the defines I had weren't being used. I've decided to just make the source get compiled at load time to make things easier, which lets me match the demo source even more closely. Now, I'm getting something slightly better, like this: [img]http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/4074/newncy.png[/img] You can see that there are some more green and red edges. When looking at the model from certain angles, I can see pronounced green edges that fade in and out, which I believe is right. However, there are still clearly edges missing and red edges in particular seem to flicker constantly so that instead of staying relatively consistent, any small movement will change their appearance entirely. I don't think that this is right.
  10. Thanks for the reply! I've done some testing. Here's the vertex buffer I'm using (with the offsets being 1/width and 1/height respectively): [CODE] struct PPVERT { float x, y, z, rhw; float tu, tv; // Texcoord for post-process source float tu2, tv2; // Texcoord for the original scene const static D3DVERTEXELEMENT9 Decl[4]; }; PPVERT Quad[4] = { {-1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f+fPixelOffsetX, 0.0f+fPixelOffsetY, 0.0f, 0.0f }, { 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f+fPixelOffsetX, 0.0f+fPixelOffsetY, 1.0f, 0.0f }, {-1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f+fPixelOffsetX, 1.0f+fPixelOffsetY, 0.0f, 1.0f }, { 1.0f, -1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f+fPixelOffsetX, 1.0f+fPixelOffsetY, 1.0f, 1.0f } }; [/CODE] I've also tried using the SMAA demo's buffer: [CODE] const D3DVERTEXELEMENT9 vertexElements[3] = { { 0, 0, D3DDECLTYPE_FLOAT3, D3DDECLMETHOD_DEFAULT, D3DDECLUSAGE_POSITION, 0 }, { 0, 12, D3DDECLTYPE_FLOAT2, D3DDECLMETHOD_DEFAULT, D3DDECLUSAGE_TEXCOORD, 0 }, D3DDECL_END() }; D3DXVECTOR2 pixelSize = D3DXVECTOR2(1.0f / float(width), 1.0f / float(height)); float quad[4][5] = { { -1.0f - pixelSize.x, 1.0f + pixelSize.y, 0.5f, 0.0f, 0.0f }, { 1.0f - pixelSize.x, 1.0f + pixelSize.y, 0.5f, 1.0f, 0.0f }, { -1.0f - pixelSize.x, -1.0f + pixelSize.y, 0.5f, 0.0f, 1.0f }, { 1.0f - pixelSize.x, -1.0f + pixelSize.y, 0.5f, 1.0f, 1.0f } }; [/CODE] which is used with DrawPrimitiveUP. The resulting weights are identical to the first buffer. Changing the original buffer (while keeping the PPVERT vertex declaration) to this: [CODE] PPVERT Quad[4] = { {-1.0f-fPixelOffsetX, 1.0f-fPixelOffsetY, 0.5f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f }, { 1.0f-fPixelOffsetX, 1.0f-fPixelOffsetY, 0.5f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f }, {-1.0f-fPixelOffsetX, -1.0f-fPixelOffsetY, 0.5f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f }, { 1.0f-fPixelOffsetX, -1.0f-fPixelOffsetY, 0.5f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f } }; [/CODE] produces even fewer weights, so I think the initial buffer is fine.
  11. I've been working on a fairly complex project which involves rebuilding a graphics engine from DirectX 8 to DirectX 9 for the past few months. We've done great progress and added a full deferred renderer to the project. However, this obviously causes problems with antialiasing, so we've implemented FXAA 3.1 some time ago. Lately, I've been thinking about switching over to SMAA 2.7. The results SMAA gets are just much better than FXAA's. I've integrated the code given by the team just fine, but the resulting data is wrong. SMAA's split into three pass: edge detection, blending weight calculations and finally neighbor blending. The first step seemingly works perfectly, but the second step doesn't produce the results I should get, and thus the final result is that the image isn't even antialiased. As a side note, I'm using the precompiled DX10 application but I've taken most of the code and logic from the DX9 sample. First of all, here's the code which sets up the postprocess: [CODE] if(HkData::iSetSMAA) { #ifdef DEBUG_PIPELINE OutputDebugString("SMAA\n"); D3DPERF_BeginEvent(PIX_COLOR, L"SMAA"); #endif if(HkData::bBenchmark) timerBench.start(); // save critical states IDirect3DVertexDeclaration9* oldVertexDecl; d3d9_realdevice->GetVertexDeclaration(&oldVertexDecl); IDirect3DVertexBuffer9* pVBOLD; uint iVBOLD_OFFSET, iVBOLD_STRIDE; d3d9_realdevice->GetStreamSource(0, &pVBOLD, &iVBOLD_OFFSET, &iVBOLD_STRIDE); d3d9_realdevice->SetVertexDeclaration( g_pVertDeclPP ); d3d9_realdevice->SetStreamSource( 0, pVB, 0, sizeof( PPVERT ) ); d3d9_realdevice->StretchRect(surfBackBuffer, 0, surfBackBufferTex, 0, D3DTEXF_NONE); // edge detection pass d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderTarget(0, surfSMAA_Edge); d3d9_realdevice->SetDepthStencilSurface(surfOldDepth); d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderState(D3DRS_STENCILENABLE, TRUE); d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderState(D3DRS_CULLMODE, D3DCULL_NONE); d3d9_realdevice->Clear( 0, NULL, D3DCLEAR_TARGET | D3DCLEAR_STENCIL, 0x00000000, 0.0f, 0 ); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("colorTex2D", texBackBuffer); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTechnique("LumaEdgeDetection"); g_pEffectSMAA->Begin(&iPasses, 0); g_pEffectSMAA->BeginPass(0); d3d9_realdevice->DrawPrimitive( D3DPT_TRIANGLESTRIP, 0, 2 ); g_pEffectSMAA->EndPass(); g_pEffectSMAA->End(); // blending weight pass d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderTarget(0, surfSMAA_Blend); d3d9_realdevice->Clear( 0L, NULL, D3DCLEAR_TARGET, 0x00000000, 1.0f, 0L ); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("edgesTex2D", texSMAA_Edge); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("areaTex2D", texSMAA_Area); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("searchTex2D", texSMAA_Search); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTechnique("BlendWeightCalculation"); g_pEffectSMAA->Begin(&iPasses, 0); g_pEffectSMAA->BeginPass(0); d3d9_realdevice->DrawPrimitive( D3DPT_TRIANGLESTRIP, 0, 2 ); g_pEffectSMAA->EndPass(); g_pEffectSMAA->End(); d3d9_realdevice->StretchRect(surfSMAA_Blend, 0, surfBackBuffer, 0, D3DTEXF_NONE); // final pass /*d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderState(D3DRS_STENCILENABLE, FALSE); d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderTarget(0, surfBackBuffer); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("blendTex2D", texSMAA_Blend); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTexture("colorTex2D", texBackBuffer); g_pEffectSMAA->SetTechnique("NeighborhoodBlending"); g_pEffectSMAA->Begin(&iPasses, 0); g_pEffectSMAA->BeginPass(0); SMAARenderQuad(surfdescBackBuffer.Width, surfdescBackBuffer.Height); g_pEffectSMAA->EndPass(); g_pEffectSMAA->End();*/ // restore stuff d3d9_realdevice->SetVertexDeclaration( oldVertexDecl ); oldVertexDecl->Release(); d3d9_realdevice->SetRenderState(D3DRS_STENCILENABLE, FALSE); d3d9_realdevice->SetStreamSource(0, pVBOLD, iVBOLD_OFFSET, iVBOLD_STRIDE); d3d9_realdevice->SetPixelShader(NULL); d3d9_realdevice->SetVertexShader(NULL); if(HkData::bBenchmark) bench_current.tAA = timerBench.stop(); #ifdef DEBUG_PIPELINE D3DPERF_EndEvent(); #endif } [/CODE] The shader code I'm using is taken bit-for-bit from the DX9 demo, so I won't copy the (lengthy) files here. Here's a link to the release I've been working with: [url="https://github.com/iryoku/smaa/zipball/v2.7"]https://github.com/iryoku/smaa/zipball/v2.7[/url] I've debugged the application with maximum validation and output, but nothing in the log makes me believe the code is encountering errors. I've also done PIX runs, but I can't say I'm quite at the level necessary to understand the shader, so seeing what it does is slightly pointless. I have however taken pictures of each step (sorry for the large pictures but resizing kills all the details): Initial image: [img]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/741/diffuse.png[/img] Edges: [img]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9512/edgesd.png[/img] Related edge stencil: [img] http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/352/edgesstencil.png[/img] Weights: [img]http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/543/weights.png[/img] Weights (alpha channel): [img]http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/989/weightsalpha.png[/img] Demo program edges: [img]http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1281/demoedges.png[/img] Demo program edge stencil: [img]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/6909/demoedgesstencil.png[/img] Demo program weights: [img]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5421/demoweights.png[/img] Demo program weights (alpha): [img]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/4997/demoweightsalpha.png[/img] Unless I'm missing something, it's pretty clear that my weights output is entirely different from what I'm supposed to be getting. I can't find a channel match which would indicate that the two versions use different channels for storing the data, either. I've double-checked and both surfaces I have are A8R8G8B8 like in the demo. I'm quite stumped, but I have found very little information on how to implement SMAA outside of the main team's package. Most hits come back to the SMAA injector, which ironically works fine when wrapped around this (but it affects HUD elements and adds another layer of complexity, which is unacceptable). I can also say that I have modified the SMAA injector shader to get the weights image and it is extremely similar (if not identical) to the demo's, which makes me believe it's not a difference between DX9 and DX10 implementations, but a real problem with my code. However, considering the only inputs in the blend weights pass are the edge texture, the area texture and the search texture, all three of which appeared fine in PIX... I'm not sure what the error is. Any help would be greatly appreciated.