• FEATURED

View more

View more

View more

### Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

### The latest, straight to your Inbox.

Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.

# Having problems getting soft particles to work

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

9 replies to this topic

### #1Telanor  Members

Posted 10 June 2013 - 06:22 PM

I've been trying to implement soft particles as described in the nvidia paper. I'm having a problem with this part: "If we want to compare consistent depth values, the fetched value Zbuf needs to be transformed into projection space". I'm using log-depth, so I can't use the formula they're using. They also never explain what any of the variables in the equation are or why the comparison needs to be done in projection-space and not "Normalized device coordinate" space.

I know how to reconstruct a world-space position from a log-depth value from a previous topic, so I tried several different ways to get it to work for the soft particles.

For reference, this is the equation for the reconstruction:
float depthVal = DepthMap.Sample(depthSampler, texCoord).r;
depthVal = (pow(0.001 * FarPlane + 1, depthVal) - 1) / 0.001;
depthVal /= (1 * FarPlane) / (FarPlane - 1); //The 1 is the near plane value

float2 invProjPos = mul(input.ScreenPosition.xy * depthVal, InverseProjection);
float4 position = mul(float4(invProjPos, -depthVal, 1), InverseView);

position /= position.w;

So I figured to get the projection-space value, the equation should be just the first 3 lines. Next, I figured the particle's Z value should be calculated like this (from the vertex shader):
float4 worldPosition = mul(float4(input.Position, 1), instanceTransform);
float4 viewPosition = mul(worldPosition, View);
output.Position = mul(viewPosition, Projection);

output.Position.z = log(0.001 * output.Position.z + 1) / log(0.001 * NearFar.y + 1) * output.Position.w;
output.Z = output.Position.z;

Now I know the value output to the depth buffer will be divided by the W normally, so I also tried changing the last line to:

output.Z = output.Position.z / output.Position.w;

In either case, the result is the same: no fading what-so-ever. The particles still have their hard edges. I'm not really sure what I'm doing wrong here and was hoping someone could point it out.

Spoiler

### #2Ashaman73  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:06 AM

As long as you use some kind of linear z distribution it should not matter in which space you are. Best to use either camera/eye space or projection space, which ever is easier in your engine. In this case world space is not really useful, in general it is not really useful for billboard/particle/projection handling. I think that you will already align your particles to the camera, therefor you particle will most likely use a constant depth. Use this depth (make it lineare if neccessary) to compare it with the (linear) camera depth of your gbuffer.

Ashaman

### #3Telanor  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:44 AM

Well, as far as I can tell, that is what I'm doing. The gbuffer value I'm reading in should be converted to projection-space and compared with the projection-space particle depth. I must have done something wrong though, because the particles look exactly the same as before; there's no fade-out near the intersection area.

Edited by Telanor, 11 June 2013 - 01:45 AM.

### #4Styves  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:29 AM

Try flipping the order you do the difference or use abs(), your value might just be negative.

### #5phil_t  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:25 PM

Have you stepped through the shader to see where your values are going wrong?

### #6Telanor  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:42 PM

Ok so I ran through the shader a few times. It seems that input.Z is in the range of 0-1 (which is what the nvidia contrast function seems to expect) and depthVal wasn't, so I removed these two lines:
depthVal = (pow(0.001 * NearFar.y + 1, depthVal) - 1) / 0.001;
depthVal /= NearFar.z / NearFar.w;

Now they're both in the 0-1 range... but all the particles are invisible. Stepping through one of the pixels came out with the following values:

depthVal = 0.210246200
input.Z = 0.184789200
zdiff = 0.025457070
c = 0.001296125

My only guess at this issue is that maybe my Z values aren't linear, but I don't know how to fix that if that's the case.

### #7Ashaman73  Members

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:31 PM

What is your blending code ?

Here's an example:

depthVal = normalized and linear depth value of g-buffer, 1 is farest
z = current depth of the pixel, normalized and linear

zdiff = depthVal-z;
alpha_blend_factor = smoothstep(0.0, 0.1, zdiff); //<-- play around with the 0.1 value

final_alpha_blend_factor = alpha_blend_factor * particle_color.a;



Ashaman

### #8Telanor  Members

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:35 PM

Sorry for not replying sooner, somehow I didn't get a notification email. I'm using the same blending function from the nvidia sample:

float Contrast(float Input, float ContrastPower)
{
//piecewise contrast function
bool IsAboveHalf = Input > 0.5 ;
float ToRaise = saturate(2*(IsAboveHalf ? 1-Input : Input));
float Output = 0.5*pow(ToRaise, ContrastPower);

Output = IsAboveHalf ? 1-Output : Output;

return Output;
}

The spoiler tag in the OP has the full shader code

### #9Ashaman73  Members

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:29 AM

Double check your zdiff and depth reconstruction implementation. Btw. why are you using a log-depth buffer, why don't use a linear one ? Nevertheless, the blending seems ok, even if your example pixel will be rendered, the very low c = 0.001296125 value will make it more or less invisible. Use testcode first, until you see the particle squares (like the uncommented output.Color = float4(depthVal * 100, 0, 0, 1); ), then try to add some smooth blending.

Ashaman

### #10Telanor  Members

Posted 20 June 2013 - 07:29 PM

Well the reconstruction code looks fine to me but I'm particularly bad at this kind of math, so even if I stare at it for hours it's going to look fine to me with my basic understanding.

We're using a log depth because a) we didn't want all the artifacts associated with the standard z/w buffer and b) it doesn't require disabling early-z. While I probably could switch, it'd be a bit of a pain, and I think it could work with log depth with the right math.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.