• 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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196 Neutral

About michaelruecker

  • Rank
  1.   Oh nice! Thank you that is what I was waiting for.
  2. Thank you for your replies.     I am always drawing all particles per emitter in a single draw call. I never heard about using bounding boxes for particle sorting, but it sounds interesting.   Anyways, what I meant with performance is that, if I have the particles sorted anyways for an order dependent blending like alpha blending,I might as well activate depth writing. This would not produce any artifacts since the particles are drawn in correct order. Yet I still wonder if it has any advantage? Like maybe some fragments getting rejected in step 1 and don't have to be blended in step 2?
  3. First question:   My particle systems currently supports a few blend modes. For example: Additive, multiplicative or alpha blending.   Everything works fine so far, yet I am struggling with the actual understanding.   Lets take additive blending as an example and assume we are drawing two particles. Either Particle 1 (P1) or Particle 2 (P2) is drawn first. Which leads to one of the images shown below:     On the right side is how it should look. The left side is how it shouldn't. The problem here is even though I use additive blending, which is for itself order independent, the output merger does some depth testing magic which results in the image shown on the left. The area T overlaps P2 and all fragments of P2 being removed (or never drawn).    My question is why or how the output merger exactly performs that depth test. And how that error on the left side of the image can occur. I mean it is clear that it is the drawing order that causes the problem but how the rasterizer does the depth test per fragment is a mystery.    I also know that if I disable depth write for my particles everything works fine since no fragments getting rejected. ----   Second question:   So far I have disabled depth writing for all blend modes but alpha blending. Since they are order independent blend modes. But now I am wondering if I even need depth writing for alpha blending. In fact I wonder if I ever need depth writing for any blend mode? Maybe it has some performance advantages?
  4. Thank you for your answer!     This is where I got that quote: http://cvg.ethz.ch/teaching/2011spring/gpgpu/GPU-Optimization.pdf (Page 15). There isn't much more info though.   With my current implementation for my particle system, I have noticed that my performance drops, if I increase my thread group size from 64 to 128 on my nvidia card (had 1 million particles active -> 1 million threads). And I am not using shared memory. All I do is consume() a particle from one buffer, process the particle and append() it to the other buffer. These should be atomic operations. So there must be another reason why it might be bad to have bigger thread group sizes...   Also, I would like to write a few words about why it is critical to use the correct amounts of threads per thread group for my bachelor thesis. For that I need some reason why it might be bad to have too many threads per thread group. So any theoretical reason would help. (I could not find anything on the web so far)   While we are at it... there is this GTC presentation: http://www.nvidia.com/content/GTC/documents/1015_GTC09.pdf. On page 44 it says something about thread group size heristics.     I guess this is only true if you actually have enough work to do. So if you only need one thread group at a size of 512 you might want to lower it to 64 or even 32 and dispatch more groups. But it is not advised to start a few more thread groups if you only need 32 threads and your group size is already 32 just to have the other multiprocessor occupied. If i am correct? (Just asking because you have to be super precise when writing papers...)     Why is that? So that the multiprocessor can already load data for the next thread group to be processed?      This means having more warps in the queue and ready to be executed while the processor is still doing work on other warps, so that in case of latency it can switch out the warps and work on the warps in the queue instead?
  5. Hi Guys,   I have a few questions regarding ThreadGroupSize and performance.   1. No matter how many threads are in one thread group, it will always be executed by one SIMD / SMX (split in wavefronts / warps)? So lets say if I only need 1024 threads to process something and I start this in one group only, I have wasted performance since I could split it in smaller parts and have multiple SIMDs / SMXs working on it?   2. In case the above assumption is correct: If I dispatch only one thread group, will the other SIMD / SMX are blocked? Or do they work on other stuff like pixel processing, vector operations etc.? In other words... do all of them have to work on the same stuff or will the mix different things to keep them occupied?   3. Someone was writing this:      The first Statement makes perfectly sense. But the second... well I don't get it. Local memory is the main memory on the graphics card I guess not the thread shared memory? And could anyone explain what exactly happens that these races occur?   Thanks already!  
  6. RT @hearthstone_de: Folgt uns & RT diesen Tweet vor 16:00 Uhr am 15. November! Wir werden 50 zufällige Gewinner von Betazugängen auswählen.…
  7. A friend of mine found the solution.   Apparently I corrupted the w value of the vector.   And the second problem is actually no problem.    Anyways thank you!
  8. To visualize this I made a simple test scene and a video:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXFxU8nsAuI   This was done with the settings mentioned above. As you can see there are actually two problems:   1. The depth buffer problem 2. The billboards aren't rotated accordingly. The arrow should point to the right when I rotate the placement.
  9. I have particles which are processed to a billboard in the geometry shader.   These particles emit from a source point. This source point is attached to a placement. One can position, rotate and scale this placement.     What I would like to have is, that if I rotate the placement (which rotates the emitter) the emission direction is also rotated. So i.e. if my particles follow the y-axsis and I rotate it by 90° it would then follow the x-axis. Sounds more complicated than it is. Check these images to imagine it:     Basicly I am getting the WVP matrix from that placement(emitter). So all I need to do is project my particle with that matrix.   Here is what I tried:   float3 g_positions[4] =     {         float3( fHalfBillboardSizeX, fHalfBillboardSizeY, 0 ),         float3( -fHalfBillboardSizeX, fHalfBillboardSizeY, 0 ),         float3( fHalfBillboardSizeX, -fHalfBillboardSizeY, 0 ),         float3( -fHalfBillboardSizeX, -fHalfBillboardSizeY, 0 ),     }; // for all 4 billboard edge points (g_positions[4] ) do: float3 position =  g_positions[i]; float3 vInputPos = input[0].position; // that is the center point of the billboard. the actual particle position. output.position = float4(vInputPos, 1.0); output.position = mul(output.position, World); output.position = mul(float4(position, 1.0f), (float4x4)ViewInv ) + output.position; output.position = mul(output.position, View); output.position = mul(output.position, Projection); This does nearly work. It's just that my depth buffer seems to be broken with this. I see my particles through other objects for example. Any ideas why that is and how I could fix it?  
  10. Thank you for your answer!   After taking your suggestion into consideration, I figured out that those are more operations that I am willing to sacrifice.    Actually it is not that bad if it is not evenly distributed. Even in Unity it isn't either. Guess they also figured, that it is too expensive.   Either way, I implemented a not evenly distributed version now which is sufficient for my needs.   Thank you in any way!
  11. Hey guys,   I am looking for two formulas to pick evenly distributed random points ON and IN a conical frustum. (I mean the first formula should find a random point ON the frustum and the second formula should give me random points IN that frustum.)     I had no success with Google so far. Does anyone have any useful links or knowledge about this?    
  12. Thank you both!   Apparently I had no alpha channel in my image, that's why it never worked.   Since I am not using additive blending now, my billboards flipping from back to front and vice versa. (In some frames billboard 1 is in front of 2 and then in the next frame it is the other way around)   I guess I have to sort the billboards by depth now am I correct about this or is there another way?
  13. I am currently stuck with a blending problem.   Basically I am having a lot of billboards each with an image and some black space around that image. All I want is to replace that black color with whatever is in the background so that it becomes invisible.   Original billboard image:   Background:   Expected result:   Yet I have tried everything I could imagine with my BlendStateDescription, DepthStencil and BlendFactor. Nothing bringt me to my expected result.   Without blending I get the following result: (As expected)     With : blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].SrcBlend = D3D11_BLEND_ONE; blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].DestBlend = D3D11_BLEND_ONE; blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].BlendOp = D3D11_BLEND_OP_ADD;   Or:   blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].SrcBlend = D3D11_BLEND_SRC_ALPHA; blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].DestBlend = D3D11_BLEND_ONE; blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].BlendOp = D3D11_BLEND_OP_ADD;   I get:     As stated earlier I have tried a hundred other combinations. Nothing successful yet.    Also I thought when I set my BlendFactor to {0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f) it would handle the black color as my alpha channel. But it aparently does not. Actually nothing I do with SrcBlendAlpha, DestBlendAlpha and BlendOpAlpha has ANY effect.  
  14. Thank you so far. I have just tested it with:   D3D11_BOX destRegion; destRegion.left = 0; destRegion.right = iArrayEntries* sizeof(PARTICLE_SPAWN_DISTRIBUTION); destRegion.top = 0; destRegion.bottom = 1; destRegion.front = 0; destRegion.back = 1; m_pRenderAPI->m_pdevicecontext->UpdateSubresource(m_pbParticleDistribution, 0, &destRegion, aParticleDistribution, 0, 0); Seems to work. Yet no idea about the performance though. I just hope that it does what it says and only copies those few bytes over to the GPU.
  15. Updating i.e. 16 Bytes of a huge buffer with this method would be the same as updating a 16 byte buffer completely? (If you have any experiences here)