Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

187 Neutral

About hustruan

  • Rank
  1. hustruan

    Boat wakes on projected grid water

      Due to the projected grid method, there is no water mesh grid data on CPU, so it's not easy to run a completely dynamic wave simulation like Tessendorf's iWave algorithm? What I want is a simple wake propagation method which I can run on a pixel shader,  Actually, a pixel shader simulation wake propagation to generate wave height map. Then generate normal map from the height map. When render water, combine the wake normal map.
  2. I have implemented a water system, which uses FFT to generate water waves and projected grid to generate water mesh. Now I want to add V-shape boat wakes, does anyone has suggestion on this. I have read Tessendorf's iWave paper, but it works on regular grid, seems not work with projected grid water.  Thanks!
  3. Shader model 1 doesn't even have pixel shaders  If you're using D3D11, then you'll be using SM 2, 4 or 5 (depending if you use the 9, 10 or 11 feature level). Perspective correct interpolation works the same in every shader model, except that in 4/5 you can use the modifiers that you mention.   In SM 2/3, without these modifiers, I guess that if you want to get per-pixel interpolated(z)/interpolated(w), you'd output z*w and w in the vertex shader: VS output: pos = float4(x,y,z,w); o   = float2(z*w, w);   Interpolator performs per pixel: o.x = interpolate(z*w/w)/interpolate(1/w) == interpolate(z)/interpolate(1/w) o.y = interpolate(w/w)/interpolate(1/w) == 1/interpolate(1/w)   Ps code: float depthBuf = o.x / o.y / o.y; // depthBuf == interpolate(z)/interpolate(1/w) / (1/interpolate(1/w)) / (1/interpolate(1/w)) // depthBuf == interpolate(z)/interpolate(1/w) * interpolate(1/w) * interpolate(1/w) // depthBuf == interpolate(z) * interpolate(1/w) This is confusing though, I might have made a mistake  Why not just use a depth buffer?     Yeah, instead of output a non-linear depth buffer, I can use the system back depth buffer directly. I just want to know why the version 1 shader is wrong. I have found that divide w in vertex shader is a wrong way. because w may less than 0. So the version 2 is right.
  4. The position semantic is special -- it's used by the rasterizer to figure out how all the other values should be interpolated. I had this slightly wrong; what happens in normal usage is that the PS receives: PS.input.oDepth = interpolate(oPos.z/oPos.w)*interpolate(oPos.w) if in the vertex shader you write "oDepth = oPos.z/oPos.w", then in the pixel shader you get: PS.input.oDepth = interpolate(oPos.z/oPos.w/oPos.w)*interpolate(oPos.w) Say you've got some regular code like this: VS: output.pos = mul(...); output.texcoord = ... PS: float color = tex2D( input.texcoord ); The hardware will perform perspective correct interpolation of all your PS-inputs/VS-outputs. It does this by: 1) At the end of the vertex shader, every interpolant is divided by w. 2) An extra hidden interpolant is created, which holds the value of 1/w. 3) At the start of the pixel shader, every interpolant is divided by the interpolated value of 1/w.   Thanks to the GPU doing this behind the scenes, you get results like in Image A here, otherwise if the GPU didn't do this, you'd get results like in Image B, which looks like PS1 games did...   If you want to disable perspective-correction and see the PS1-esque results for yourself, then at the end of your vertex shader, perform the perspective division yourself (which also sets w to 1, which disables the above 3 steps) output.position /= output.position.w;//disable hardware perspective correction If you want to verify that the above 3 steps are what actually happens, then create the hidden "1/w" interpolant yourself and use it in the PS: VS: output.texcoord /= output.position.w; // step 1 output.hidden = 1/output.position.w; // step 2 output.position /= output.position.w;//disable hardware perspective correction PS: input.texcood /= input.hidden; // step 3 This code should give you the same results as the regular, built-in hardware version... except that doing "output.position /= output.position.w" in the VS can cause the GPU to cause some clipping problems, etc...     ^This is worth repeating though. If you simply want to output z/w to a texture, then use a depth-stencil target and just let the rasterizer do it all automatically.     Thanks to your reply, Actually I know what hardware rasterizer does. I implement a software D3D10 like rasterizer before.    I post this topic just to verify what it the right way to output the non-linear z/w depth if not use depth-stencil target. Shader Version 1 or Version 2 ? Because so many shader online use version 1 while others use version 2.   PS: we can also use type qualifier to control the interpolation method,  See  Interpolation Modifier  in HLSL.
  5. You are talking just about output positions, oDepth is untouched?   So it divides by w after vertex shader and then just before pixel shader it multiplies by w (restoring old value) ?   http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~lowkl/publications/lowk_persp_interp_techrep.pdf   This page explains what is perspective-correct interpolation.
  6. Now you got me confused. I thought that just output position is affected "behind scene"? If we saved in vertex shader z/w in oDepth, oDepth should not be affected later on? Or i am wrong?   I am interested in DX9 pipeline, don't know about DX11.   Actually,  perspective correct interpolation means that in order to do linear interpolation, it first need to divide by SV_Position's w. later, it will multiply back before pass the output to pixel shader. So If we saved in vertex shader z/w in oDepth, oDepth is equal to  the interpolated z/w in pixel shader. 
  7.   Really? I don't think so. The rasterizer will interpolate vertex shader outputs, default is by perspective-correct interpolation. Consider rasterize a triangle, for first version, the final value of a fragment in triangle is a * (Z1/W1) + b * (Z2/W2) + c * (Z3/W3), (a, b, c) is the barycentric coordinate. (Z/W) is values on each triangle vertex. But for second version, the final value is (a*Z1 + b*Z2 + c*Z3) / (a*W1 + b*W2 + c*W3). Obviously, not the same value. 
  8. I have a question about vertex shader output interpolation. Fox example, when implement shadow map, we need a depth map.  Let's first suppose that we need a non-linear depth map, Z/W. Consider following two shaders, which is the correct way to output a non-linear depth map. I have seen online that someone use the first version, while others use second. But I think only first version is right in math.   // Version 1 void NonLinearDepthVS(in float3 iPos : POSITION, out float4 oPos : SV_Position, out float oDepth : TEXCOORD0) {         oPos = mul(iPos, mul(World, ViewProj));          oDepth = oPos.z / oPos.w;     } float4 NonLinearDepthPS(in float oDepth : TEXCOORD0) : SV_Target0 {         return float4(oDepth, 0, 0, 0); } // Version 2 void NonLinearDepthVS(in float3 iPos : POSITION, out float4 oPos : SV_Position, out float2 oDepth : TEXCOORD0) {         oPos = mul(iPos, mul(World, ViewProj));          oDepth = oPos.zw; } float4 NonLinearDepthPS(in float2 oDepth : TEXCOORD0) : SV_Target0 {         return float4(oDepth.x / oDepth.y, 0, 0, 0); }
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!