Beta Testing 2.06

[cabalistic]

I believe we could implement MSAA for the fbo. Would be cheaper than supersampling and could respect the AA setting.

[duzenko]

I believe we could implement MSAA for the fbo. Would be cheaper than supersampling and could respect the AA setting.

In 2.07 I guess.

Can we modify the OP to emphasize that r_fboresolution does not need to be integer? It uses value 2 as example, that seems to be somewhat misleading.

[Bikerdude]

r_useGLSL = 1 : needed for Soft Shadows

r_useFBO = 1 : No shadow artifacts but a few transparency artifacts. No AA allowed other than FXAA

So if I use r_useGLSL = 1 & r_useFBO = 1, FXAA is enabled in the nvidia/Amd control panel..?

[lowenz]

So if I use r_useGLSL = 1 & r_useFBO = 1, FXAA is enabled in the nvidia/Amd control panel..?

You must force it in the NVCP / Radeon Settings (creating a new profile for the TDM exe you launch)

But remember that forced FXAA apply to HUD too.

Edited December 18, 2017 by lowenz

[stgatilov]

I was also wondering if anyone else was getting strange artifacts appearing with shadows on AI and entities? It seems to happen at certain angles.

Ok so it was brought to my attention that "r_useFBO 1" fixes the issue (which I tested and it does), I assume in future versions that'll be on by default or there's another remedy in mind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is reported as issue 4693.

 

Initially FBO was required to make soft shadows work.

Then Duzenko hacked them into the case when FBO is off.

As you see, they are far from perfect (random flickering squares, often light leaking).

 

@stgatilov should we include fragment position in its pixel in the SS tex coord formula? Are normals and view angles same for every fragment on a given pixel? In other words, does the SS formula have the same result for every fragment in a pixel when AA is used? If so, it's kinda a waste to do the same computation for each fragment.

 

 

I guess it's better to discuss in the soft shadows thread, not here.

But yes, if computed blur radius is 3 pixels, having 96 samples spread over 30 pixels is overkill.

High number of samples gives benefit only when effective blur radius is high (e.g. if you set "r_softShadowsRadius 10").

 

I have a feeling that main confusion here comes from the fact that we have too many options in GUI setting for soft shadows.

Perhaps we should simply limit the choice to three cases: 0 (none), 12 (medium) and 24 (hard).

This should be enough for normal gameplay and not tough for GPU.

And if anyone wants more, he can set any number he wants by cvar (just like soft shadow radius).

[Springheel]

Perhaps we should simply limit the choice to three cases: 0 (none), 12 (medium) and 24 (hard).

 

 

I agree. 12 makes a fine medium. It would be worth trying out a 6 or 8, to see what the lowest value is that still provides half-decent results for the people with lower end systems.

 

 

Does turning on SS automatically set useFBO to 1? I don't think it does, but if using SS is glitchy with useFBO 0, then shouldn't it? End users won't know they're supposed to change it, and will just complain that the shadows are broken.

[Bikerdude]

• It would be worth trying out a 6 or 8, to see what the lowest value is that still provides half-decent results for the people with lower end systems.
• End users won't know they're supposed to change it, and will just complain that the shadows are broken.

+1, Thats what I was thinking last night, but couldn't think of the right words.

[duzenko]

 

I agree. 12 makes a fine medium. It would be worth trying out a 6 or 8, to see what the lowest value is that still provides half-decent results for the people with lower end systems.

 

 

Does turning on SS automatically set useFBO to 1? I don't think it does, but if using SS is glitchy with useFBO 0, then shouldn't it? End users won't know they're supposed to change it, and will just complain that the shadows are broken.

There is a problem with warp material when r_usefbo 1

[Springheel]

So end users have to choose between glitchy shadows or broken warp materials?

[nbohr1more]

So end users have to choose between glitchy shadows or broken warp materials?

Or no soft shadows with everything else fine. Eg. 2.05 visuals.

[Springheel]

Or no soft shadows with everything else fine. Eg. 2.05 visuals.

 

But if they turn soft shadows on, they're going to experience one of the two problems? Neither are solvable?

[nbohr1more]

But if they turn soft shadows on, they're going to experience one of the two problems? Neither are solvable?

We could add http://bugs.thedarkmod.com/view.php?id=4693 as a requirement for 2.06 release.

[Springheel]

Which materials are broken under useFBO 1? Anything using a heathaze warp?

[nbohr1more]

Which materials are broken under useFBO 1? Anything using a heathaze warp?

HeatHaze with "Depth" is broken.

As I recall, the depth sampler doesn't like the new FBO shared depth setup.

One possible resolution would be to make new GLSL versions of these shaders

but we'd have to add GLSL to the material loader.

 

Both fixes should be possible, it all depends on how long you want 2.06 development to keep going.

The other option is to simply hide all the new graphic features so only advanced users can

get to them via cvar (original plan) until those fixes are in 2.07.

[Bikerdude]

I don't think Grayman wants to prolong this test cycle for too much longer, so if its not a relatively quick fix (creating the shader to replace HeatHaze w/Depth) then IMHO it should be a bug for 2.07.

[Springheel]

Maybe we should call it "Experimental Soft Shadows" in the menu. That lets us off the hook for any glitches atm.

[Oktokolo]

Don't hurry. It is fine to have a beta testing phase of more than one month. Soft shadows are the big next thing for TDM. They are highly visible.

And who played with soft shadows once can't ever go back to legacy shadows again.

 

Edit: Forgot about EFX: That could be as inpactfull as soft shadows if missions get updated with regional acoustic parameters.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Abusimplea

[peter_spy]

Don't hurry. It is fine to have a beta testing phase of more than one month. Soft shadows are the big next thing for TDM. They are highly visible.

And who played with soft shadows once can't ever go back to legacy shadows again.

 

+1

Take your time, soft shadows and EFX sounds are big features, we'll lose the impact of that with bugs and glitches. Right now, new options seem a bit confusing, and IMO they break too many things to be released in that state. Move those to 2.07 if you need, leaving only those features that perform well.

[Spooks]

I agree with Abusimplea.

 

I have submitted a minor glitch to the bugtracker.

Please assign this one at some point too. The Builder's Blocks is broken in 2.06 the last time I checked.

 

I did an incomplete runthrough of Lords and Legacy in 2.06. Not a lot to report, the playtest went smoothly. Areas which had previously given me poor FPS seemed to perform better, but take that with a grain of salt since it's been awhile since I played that one. That's about it.

 

re: Goldwell's test of Edgar's Bathhouse, I still maintain the sluggish feeling is the result of the input lag issue. Duzenko suggesting that lowering soft shadow quality in order to increase FPS sounds to me like it's just trying to treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. TDM has missions that will tank your FPS at certain places (or in certain situations such as alerting a lot of AI) even on good hardware. The resulting discussion of capping the soft shadow values in the menu to lower values was good, since I think 96 costs way too much FPS too, but I think the issue Goldwell reported got away from you.

[Goldwell]

So I may have just stumbled upon a serious bug but I just want to verify if other people are experiencing this too.

 

To reproduce this bug do the following:

 

1) Load up any mission

2) Once the mission is loaded and you're walking around press the console button and dmap

3) TDM should crash

 

 

I have tested this about 5 times now and across multiple maps and they all have the same result. The crash doesn't happen if I dmap while inside the menu however. This doesn't happen in 2.05 either for comparison.

[peter_spy]

Yeah, if you dmap in 2.05 while in the level, it throws you back to main menu, in 2.06 you have to be in the menu, otherwise it crashes. It would be nice to have the 2.05 behavior in subsequent versions in that regard.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Judith

[grayman]

Known problem.

[Bikerdude]

nm, just read Gman's reply.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bikerdude

[Goldwell]

x64 is the TDM version im using

[Bikerdude]

x64 is the TDM version im using

I have only had crashing with the x64 version, x86 is as solid as 2.05.