Loakum @Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (4 Days ago)
Driftwood @Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (6 Days ago)
Loakum *takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (6 Days ago)
Driftwood @reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (4 Weeks ago)
CraCra Y a un souci sur les forums ? (7 Weeks ago)
nostradamus very few with religious beliefs are naive or zealots, but for sure don't find amusing their beliefs being thrown in for clout. maybe STFU with that discourse? (10 Weeks ago)
Driftwood Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
I'm glad we can't race at night. I'm scared of the dark. Oh God. My text is in the dark! HALP!
Phaethon, the forum Spectre.
http://www.bizarrecreations.com/article.php?articl...
Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.
Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.
Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.
Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.
I think there was like day, night and dawn/dusk? Or did I dream that?
Bizarre's solution isn't one I would have chosen, but it works and the results are quite impressive.
Sometimes you have to give the developer an opportunity to explain their position before you run into a forum declaring "huge dissapointment" Although I know you weren't attacking Bizzarre, only the DVD9 format.
Parallax Mapping is not pixel shader light / vertex shader heavy, and it doesn't require a tesselation unit.
Unified shaders is a hardware implimentation that has not obscured the distinction between vertex and pixel processing (or ROP processing either) in the way you are suggesting.
Virtex shading deals with vertices (geometry) and pixel shading deals with pixels. Vertex shaders can use textures (vertex shading, R2VB) to augment real geometry; pixel shaders can use textures (various bump maps like normals and parallax maps) to augment pixels to appear to represent geometry -- hence drawing flush to geometry with a parallax map will clearly show the geometry hasn't been altered.
Edit: Wiki is your friend (as it seems you don't believe me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_mapping
Parallax mapping is implemented by displacing the texture coordinates at a point on the rendered polygon by a function of the view angle in tangent space (the angle relative to the surface normal) and the value of the height map at that point. At steeper view angles the texture coordinates are displaced more, and so give the illusion of depth due to parallax effects as the view changes.
Parallax mapping described by Kaneko is a single step process that does not account for occlusion. Subsequent enhancements have been made to the algorithm incorporating iterative approaches to allow for occlusion and accurate silhouette rendering[2].
Stable real bump mapping requires either a built in shader programming unit on the GPU (vertex shader) or a dedicated vector processing unit connected to the GPU. The GPU must also have multi-pass rendering capabilities or bump mapping will be the only type of texture effect available due to a two texture layer limit.
The Emotion Engine on the Sony PlayStation 2 is an example of handling bump mapping through a vector processing unit. Sony included 2 vector processors rather than a GPU shader that could be used for bump mapping operations. The system could calculate height maps independently while the per-pixel calculations were carried out in one of the vector processing units. Unfortunately this capability was not used much until nearly the end of the system's life cycle with games such as Hitman: Blood Money[1].
Most other systems, including the Sony PlayStation 3, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360, and most PC graphics cards do bump mapping using pixel shaders.
You are confusing yourself over terms. You need to make clear distinctions between methods in your points.
I already explained the terms I was using and how I was using them. If you want to ignore them and all we are doing is arguing over terms.
We won't come to proper analysis if you do not define what you mean when you use terms like bump mapping. Obviously you believe it to be a pixel shader process.
I'm telling you that it is not - but also that the effect can be run on pixel shaders.
I can't explain that any simpler.
In the new world of unified shaders, it's best to just call it shading - I guess.
All forms of bump mapping, including parallax require vertex shading, which is basically heavier as you move towards parallax mapping.
And I see that the old play on words of confusion is at it again.
To clear things up:
Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Virtual Displacement mapping = somebody just made that up - it's a dirty fast way of doing Parallax mapping, which is the same as Displacement mapping.
You could also call Virtual Displacement mapping = Virtual Parallax mapping
Now people have taken to calling parallax mapping the dirty fast way of doing displacement mapping, which you appear to be doing - but forgive me for saying, that is just wrong.
As far as I can remember:
Parallax Mapping = Displacement mapping
Parallax Mapping != Virtual Displacement mapping
Virtual Parallax Mapping = Virtual Displacement mapping
Make sense?
Obviously, a pixel shader can be used to apply a pixel only affect like a screen filter for example, or even AA.
But the same can be accomplished by using a vertex shader - its all about how you approach the task.
Shaders are just specialized processors that handle certain types of tasks really well.
There's nothing that a shader can do that a normal processor can't do slower.