"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
More pages: 1 ... 11 ... 21 ... 31 ... 41 ... 51 ... 61 ... 71 ... 81 ... 91 ... 101 ... 111 ... 121 ... 131 ... 141 ... 151 ... 161 ... 171 ... 181 ... 191 ... 201 ... 211 ... 221 ... 231 ... 241 ... 251 ... 261 ... 271 ... 281 ... 291 ... 301 ... 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 321 ... 331 ... 341 ... 351 ... 361 ... 365
Query FailedG!ZMo
Thursday, March 4, 2004

@z

you have to add this to your windows-registry:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\OpenGl\Debug]
"ShaderObjects"=dword:00000001
"WriteProgramObjectAssembly"=dword:00000000


this works fine for my fx5950ultra
Humus
Thursday, March 4, 2004

MesserFuerFrauSchmid,
well first of all, 2D maps aren't neccesarily "always fast" just because it's a certain format. It also depends on how they are used, size, access pattern etc.

Also, 3D textures aren't always neccesarily always slow either. There's nothing saying that 3D textures must have significantly worse caching behavior. Worse, yes, significantly worse, no. The hardware probably uses something like Morton order that will ensure that spatially close pixels are in most cases also close in one-dimensional memory space. Then you have the access pattern. For every texel loaded from the 3D map, tens of texels are loaded 2D maps. This is because the lightmap is sparsely sampled and constantly is in magnification mode. If you remove the lightmap entirely from the shader you'll see that the performance doesn't improve significantly. It goes from 110fps to 115fps for me. A whooping 4.5%!

There just isn't any general rule that 3D textures must be slow, and in this demo it's not even close to being the bottleneck. In most situations where 3D textures are useful they are accessed in ways that are fairly cheap.
NeoKenobi
Wednesday, March 3, 2004

@FrauleinSchmid

You're right about the 2D maps part, but don't think computing the lighting realtime is cheap. Not to mention the soft shadows, multiple passes with stencil buffer shadowing are much more expensive than using a 3D texture. On the other hand, using shadow mapping with textures is also very expensive, but not anywhere near multiple passes with the stencil buffer.

Btw. this is a demo, meant to demonstrate graphical technologies, NOT A GAME!
MesserFuerFrauSchmid
Wednesday, March 3, 2004

@NewKenobi

This is only faster because they use 2D maps (two dimensional textures are always fast at least as long you use the right format (like R8G8B8A8 or L) 3D textures are fucking slow because of memory adressing and heavy cache misses and they are a waste of memory because right now they always have to be ^2. That's why GAMEZ NEVER EVER USE THOSE.
Humus
Wednesday, March 3, 2004

This is what I got from google. Haven't tried it myself so I don't know if it works:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\OpenGL\Debug]
"ShaderObjects"=dword:00000001
z
Wednesday, March 3, 2004

What do you mean by "tweak to enable GLSL on the GFFX"
Humus
Tuesday, March 2, 2004

NeoKenobi,
hmm, haven't noticed that. Probably something wrong in my .dds write code. Gonna look into it.
Daedalus
Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Looks great (especially if you run with 6x AA and 16x AF)
More pages: 1 ... 11 ... 21 ... 31 ... 41 ... 51 ... 61 ... 71 ... 81 ... 91 ... 101 ... 111 ... 121 ... 131 ... 141 ... 151 ... 161 ... 171 ... 181 ... 191 ... 201 ... 211 ... 221 ... 231 ... 241 ... 251 ... 261 ... 271 ... 281 ... 291 ... 301 ... 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 321 ... 331 ... 341 ... 351 ... 361 ... 365