• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

211 Neutral

About Tubos

  • Rank
  1. Thanks for your advice. I looked at Unreal and it's a great engine, and with some adjustments it can be made to run on low-end hardware.   Only thing I wonder is whether CryEngine / Lumberyard may be better for outdoor scenes. A lot of my customers work with outdoor sceneries, including water and buildings. At the same time, CryEngine seems to be less general, more optimized for particular kinds of games, and harder to use. 
  2. Thanks for your input so far!   About Lumberyard: I wonder what will happen long-term. My software has been out for 5 years and I predict it'll still be around in the next 5-10 years. That's a much longer lifecycle than most games.   Unreal has an 18-year history, and I'm confident development will continue over the next years, incorporating new features, even better graphics and support for the newest VR gear.   Lumberyard, on the other hand, has been acquired from Crytek and I'm not sure future CryEngine improvements would be incorporated into Lumberyard. So by choosing Lumberyard, I may be stuck with the current version of the CryEngine, with no possibility to upgrade.
  3. Hi,   I'm developing a 3D visualization application for the entertainment industry. It's used, for example, to plan stage shows. The application has been released 5 years ago and is mature (large userbase).   I wrote everything in raw DirectX, and the graphics are bad. To improve the graphics and save time, I want to switch to a commercial, well-supported game engine.   I want state-of-the-art graphics with dynamic indirect lighting and shadows. I don't need most "game" features (e.g. AI, controller support), but I do want the best graphics I can possibly get. It should be possible to go deep into the rendering pipeline and adjust all details myself.   I'm looking for an engine with a proven track-record, a large userbase, that will still be around in 5-10 years. Multi-plattform support is not necessary, all of my customers use Windows. C++ or C# are both fine.   My candidates: 1. Unity   Pro: well-supported, big community, easy to learn, runs on old hardware.   Cons: less good at photorealistic rendering 2. Unreal   Pro: better graphics   Cons: harder to learn, more expensive, doesn't support old hardware 3. CryEngine    Problem: I am not allowed to use their "pay-what-you-want" game license, because it's not a game. I doubt I could afford their enterprise license, as I'm just a one-man business. 4. Torque3D    Cons: smaller userbase, not sure if it can deliver the super-realistic lighting I'm looking for.   Any suggestions? Thank you!
  4. Random Skybox Artifacts

    Thanks, I have made the code single-threaded. However, the same problem appears so the problem must be somewhere else.   Any other ideas?
  5. Hi,   I'm rendering a skybox by drawing 5 quads (front, back, left, right, top). This is Direct3D9.   This works when rendering to the backbuffer, as usual. However, when I render a video, very strange problems occur. It looks as if one additional triangle is inserted. Rendering a video from my application involves reloading the device and rendering to a rendertarget without presenting.   [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waXYHmnQI4I[/url]   What I found out so far: * the entire triangle has texture coordinates (0,0), and definitely belongs to the Skybox (same texture, same pixel shader) * the triangle appears even if I just render one quad of the skybox. In that case, the triangle appears exactly opposite the quad. For example, if I render the "back" quad only, then the triangle appears in the front. * The problem is sporadic - sometimes it just works, sometimes it doesn't. * The debug runtime shows no problems, except an unrelated "Warning - device that was created without D3DCREATE_MULTITHREADED was accessed from a different thread". UPDATE: I solved that, and it made no difference. The skybox artifact still appears.     Does anybody have an idea what's wrong here?
  6. It does have the advantage of supporting MSAA on Direct3D9 hardware with little effort. For traditional deferred rendering there is no good Direct3D9 MSAA solution that I'm aware of.   OK, if I understand that correctly, I can do one of two things: a) Lighting and normals buffer has to be 2x or 4x the size (for 2x or 4x MSAA, respectively). or b) Make the lighting and normal buffers antialiased, and then read from them. This only works in DirectX 10 and up, Direct3D9 cannot use an antialiased rendertarget as texture.   Thanks Hodgman, that flitering idea sounds nice and would work on DX9 class hardware with no problems as far as I can see.
  7. I want to change my existing application from Forward Shading to Deferred Lighting. I read that Deferred Lighting works with MSAA from the start. But I don't understand why.   In Deferred Lighting, we have a "n-buffer" which stores surface normals per screen pixel. We also have a "light buffer" which accumulates the intensity of diffuse lighting. (Let's ignore specularity for the moment). Deferred LIghting has 3 steps: 1. Render geometry (surface normals and z-buffer only) to n-buffer 2. Render light volumes, adding their contributions into the light buffer 3. Render geometry again, reading from the light buffer to calculate final shading.   In my understanding, the backbuffer is antialised while n-buffer and light buffer are not. In MSAA, the pixel shader is executed for each pixel center where one of the sub-samples is occupied by a triangle. Wouldn't that mean that in step 3, the pixel shader would read from the wrong values in the light buffer, as the light buffer is not antialiased?
  8. Thank you!   According to the CardCaps.xls file included with the DirectX SDK, sRGB Writes and Reads on A8R8G8B8 surfaces are supported on almost all hardware except some released in 2002 (Geforce 4 MX 420). Is that true, or do recent adapters exist which don't support it?
  9. Ok! I'm now doing that, and the result looks exactly right :)   One thing still puzzles me. Most HDR samples I see do not use sRGBWrite, but perform the pow in their tonemapping instead. Why is that? Is there an advantage to doing it manually?
  10. Ah, that means DirectX does the conversion using an exact sRGB conversion, while my shader uses the approximated version.   So a good solution would be to disable the sRGB sampler state, and do the pow(x, 1.0 / 2.2) manually in every pixel shader, right? Then I'm working with slightly incorrect texture values in the linear space, but the final output should look identical to the input image.
  11. Hi, I just switched my Direct3D9 renderer to linear color.   As a test, I rendered a quad with an image. The quad itself uses no shaders. In the sampler state, I'm setting D3DSAMP_SRGBTEXTURE to 1. Before presenting, I copy the rendertarget to the backbuffer with a gamma adjustment of 2.2. Here is the gamma adjustment shader: ("Texture" refers to the rendertarget as rendered previously). sampler Texture { SRGBTexture=false; }; float4 GammaAdjustOnly( float2 Tex : TEXCOORD0 ) : COLOR0 { return pow(tex2D(Texture, Tex), 1.0/2.2); } technique TAdjustGamma { pass P0 { pixelshader = compile ps_2_0 GammaAdjustOnly(); } } This should lead to the exact same result as before, when I didn't use sRGB textures. However, there is a difference: When using sRGB, the image looks more grey-ish and a bit brighter.   I am not using sRGB writes, instead I'm using an FP16 buffer. To confirm that I messed nothing else up, I removed the Gamma Adjustment and the sRGB sampler state while leaving everything else that same. Sure enough, it looks correct then.   Where does the difference come from? After all, "pixel ^ (1 / 2.2) ^ (2.2)" should be equal to "pixel", right?   Here are some more details: This is on Windows 7, with Direct3D9 via SlimDX, running in windowed mode.
  12. Hi,   I wondered about the various blend operations - specifically, I want to use D3DBLENDOP_SUBTRACT.   Are these supported in all hardware, or do I have to check the caps for that? I could not find any capabilities related to the blend operation. (Only for SrcBlend, and DestBlend).     Thanks!
  13. Looking for Night Skybox

    That would be great! If it looks good, I'd gladly pay for commercial usage. However, keep in mind I'm looking for real photos only. No CGI or drawings. I was unable to find something like that that really looks great, anywhere.
  14. Looking for Night Skybox

    Hi, I need a skybox of a night-time sky. It should be made from real photos. I will use it commercially and am willing to pay for it. Any ideas where I can find that?
  15. Sounds like a good idea. I will give them instructions how to get the correct graphics card driver, or to contact me.