Jump to content


Photo

Feature request: emissive materials/volumetric lights

emissive postprocess effects

207 replies to this topic

#201 duzenko

duzenko

    Advanced Member

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 1705 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 06:06 AM

IMO it only needs performance optimization. With number of samples around 30, the performance is solid, but banding is too prominent. Something around 90 looks pretty good (for projection textures), but it's too performance-heavy. So either having 90 samples at the cost of 30 would be great, or maybe some interpolation between those 30 samples will look better.

Is that with quickBlur on the projected texture?



#202 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1644 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 06:10 AM

Yup, the fast blur does nothing to improve banding along the light frustum, it only kind of dims the light. Only the number of samples increases quality of a light shaft.


Edited by Judith, 25 October 2018 - 06:33 AM.


#203 duzenko

duzenko

    Advanced Member

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 1705 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 08:00 AM

Yup, the fast blur does nothing to improve banding along the light frustum, it only kind of dims the light. Only the number of samples increases quality of a light shaft.

Please try with shadows on and off (not the r_shadows but the light material flag)



#204 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1644 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 08:22 AM

Non-shadow lights obviously improve performance, but I don't see fastBlur doing anything differently.



#205 duzenko

duzenko

    Advanced Member

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 1705 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 09:29 AM

Non-shadow lights obviously improve performance, but I don't see fastBlur doing anything differently.

Is the banding better without shadows?



#206 Judith

Judith

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1644 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:27 AM

No, I don't see any difference. IMO, the interpolation has to be done between samples. Blurring falloff or projection images doesn't do anything.



#207 nbohr1more

nbohr1more

    Darkmod PR, Wordsmith

  • Development Role
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9034 posts

Posted 25 October 2018 - 10:31 AM

Questions:

 

What kind of fallback happens if the mode or hardware doesn't support this shader?

 

Does this render the same way (using shadow maps) even when r_shadows = 1 ?

 

If not, does the light render as a standard light or a blend light (etc)?

 

Does it not render at all or not produce any fallback effect?


  • HMart and VanishedOne like this
Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

http://www.indiedb.c...ds/the-dark-mod

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

#208 duzenko

duzenko

    Advanced Member

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPip
  • 1705 posts

Posted 27 October 2018 - 12:57 AM

Questions:

 

What kind of fallback happens if the mode or hardware doesn't support this shader?

Hardware not supported - undefined

 

Does this render the same way (using shadow maps) even when r_shadows = 1 ?

If using stencil shadows, no render

 

 

If not, does the light render as a standard light or a blend light (etc)?

It has its own code path

 

 

Does it not render at all or not produce any fallback effect?

Currently nothing at all but we can just ignore the shadows for the stencil case





Reply to this topic



  



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: emissive, postprocess, effects

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users