HLSL beginner needs some directions - direct3d

Is there any example out there of a HLSL written .fx file that splats a tiled texture with different tiles?Like this: http://messy-mind.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/transitions.jpg you can see theres a different tile type in each square and there's a little blurring between them to make a smoother transition,but right now I just need to find a way to draw the tiles on a texture.I have a 2D array of integers,each integer equals a corresponding tile type(0 = grass,1 = stone,2 = sand).I opened up a few HLSL examples and they were really confusing.Everything is running fine on the C++ side,but HLSL is proving to be difficult.

You can use a technique called 'texture splatting'. It mixes several textures (color maps) using another texture which contains alpha values for each color map. The texture with alpha values is an equivalent of your 2D array. You can create a 3-channel RGB texture and use each channel for a different color map (in your case: R - grass, G - stone, B - sand). Every pixel of this texture tells us how to mix the color maps (for example R=0 means 'no grass', G=1 means 'full stone', B=0.5 means 'sand, half intensity').
Let's say you have four RGB textures: tex1 - grass, tex2 - stone, tex3 - sand, alpha - mixing texture. In your .fx file, you create a simple vertex shader which just calculates the position and passes the texture coordinate on. The whole thing is done in pixel shader, which should look like this:
float tiling_factor = 10; // number of texture's repetitions, you can also
// specify a seperate factor for each texture
float4 PS_TexSplatting(float2 tex_coord : TEXCOORD0)
{
float3 color = float3(0, 0, 0);
float3 mix = tex2D(alpha_sampler, tex_coord).rgb;
color += tex2D(tex1_sampler, tex_coord * tiling_factor).rgb * mix.r;
color += tex2D(tex2_sampler, tex_coord * tiling_factor).rgb * mix.g;
color += tex2D(tex3_sampler, tex_coord * tiling_factor).rgb * mix.b;
return float4(color, 1);
}

If your application supports multi-pass rendering you should use it.
You should use a multi-pass shader approach where you render the base object with the tiled stone texture in the first pass and on top render the decal passes with different shaders and different detail textures with seperate transparent alpha maps.
(Transparent map could also be stored in your detail texture, but keeping it seperate allows different tile-levels and more flexibility in reusing it.)
Additionally you can use different texture coordinate channels for each decal pass one so that you do not need to hardcode your tile level.
So for minimum you need two shaders, whereas Shader 2 is used as often as decals you need.
Shader to render tiled base texture
Shader to render one tiled detail texture using a seperate transparency map.
If you have multiple decals z-fighting can occur and you should offset your polygons a little. (Very similar to basic simple fur rendering.)
Else you need a single shader which takes multiple textures and lays them on top of the base tiled texture, this solution is less flexible, but you can use one texture for the mix between the textures (equals your 2D-array).

Related

Homogeneous coordinates and perspective-correctness?

Does the technique that vulkan uses (and I assume other graphics libraries too) to interpolate vertex attributes in a perspective-correct manner require that the vertex shader must normalize the homogenous camera-space vertex position (ie: divide through by the w-coordinate such that the w-coordinate is 1.0) prior to multiplication by a typical projection matrix of the form...
g/s 0 0 0
0 g 0 n
0 0 f/(f-n) -nf/(f-n)
0 0 1 0
...in order for perspective-correctness to work properly?
Or, will perspective-correctness continue to work on any homogeneous vertex position in camera-space (with a w-coordinate other than 1.0)?
(I didn't completely follow the perspective-correctness math, so it is unclear which to me which is the case.)
Update:
In order to clarify terminology:
vec4 modelCoordinates = vec4(x_in, y_in, z_in, 1);
mat4 modelToWorld = ...;
vec4 worldCoordinates = modelToWorld * modelCoordinates;
mat4 worldToCamera = ...;
vec4 cameraCoordinates = worldToCamera * worldCoordinates;
mat4 cameraToProjection = ...;
vec4 clipCoordinates = cameraToProjection * cameraCoordinates;
output(clipCoordinates);
cameraToProjection is a matrix like the one shown in the question
The question is does cameraCoordinates.w have to be 1.0?
And consequently the last row of both the modelToWorld and worldToCamera matricies have to be 0 0 0 1?
You have this exactly backwards. Doing the perspective divide in the shader is what prevents perspective-correct interpolation. The rasterizer needs the perspective information provided by the W component to do its job. With a W of 1, the interpolation is done in window space, without any regard to perspective.
Provide a clip-space coordinate to the output of your vertex processing stage, and let the system do what it exists to do.
the vertex shader must normalize the homogenous camera-space vertex position (ie: divide through by the w-coordinate such that the w-coordinate is 1.0) prior to multiplication by a typical projection matrix of the form...
If your camera-space vertex position does not have a W of 1.0, then one of two things has happened:
You are deliberately operating in a post-projection world space or some similar construct. This is a perfectly valid thing to do, and the math for a camera space can be perfectly reasonable.
Your code is broken somewhere. That is, you intend for your world and camera space to be a normal, Euclidean, non-homogeneous space, but somehow the math didn't work out. Obviously, this is not a perfectly valid thing to do.
In both cases, dividing by W is the wrong thing to do. If your world space that you're placing a camera into is post-projection (such as in this example), dividing by W will break your perspective-correct interpolation, as outlined above. If your code is broken, dividing by W will merely mask the actual problem; better to fix your code than to hide the bug, as it may crop up elsewhere.
To see whether or not the camera coordinates need to be in normal form, let's represent the camera coordinates as multiples of w, so they are (wx,wy,wz,w).
Multiplying through by the given projection matrix, we get the clip coordinates (wxg/s, wyg, fwz/(f-n)-nfw/(f-n)), wz)
Calculating the x-y framebuffer coordinates as per the fixed Vulkan formula we get (P_x * xg/sz +O_x, P_y * Hgy/z + O_y). Notice this does not depend on w, so the position in the framebuffer of a polygons verticies doesn't require the camera coordinates be in normal form.
Likewise calculation of the barycentric coordinates of fragments within a polygon only depends on x,y in framebuffer coordinates, and so is also independant of w.
However perspective-correct perspective interpolation of fragment attributes does depend on W_clip of the verticies as this is used in the formula given in the Vulkan spec. As shown above W_clip is wz which does depend on w and scales with it, so we can conclude that camera coordinates must be in normal form (their w must be 1.0)

threejs - creating "cel-shading" for objects that are close by

So I'm trying to "outline" 3D objects. Standard problem, for which the answer is meant to be that you copy the mesh, color it the outline color, scale it up, and then set it to only render faces that are "pointed in the wrong direction" - for us that means setting side:THREE.BackSide in the material. Eg here https://stemkoski.github.io/Three.js/Outline.html
But see what happens for me
Here's what I'd like to make
I have a bunch of objects that are close together - they get "inside" one another's outline.
Any advice on what I should do? What I want to be seeing is everywhere on the rendered frame that these shapes touch the background or each other, there you have outline.
What do you want to happen? Is that one mesh in your example or is it a bunch of intersecting meshes. If it's a bunch of intersecting meshes do you want them to have one outline? What about other meshes? My point is you need some way to define which "groups" of meshes get a single outline if you're using multiple meshes.
For multiple meshes and one outline a common solution is to draw all the meshes in a single group to a render target to generate a silhouette, then post process the silhouette to expand it. Finally apply the silhouette to the scene. I don't know of a three.js example but the concept is explained here and there's also many references here
Another solution that might work, should be possible to move the outline shell back in Z so doesn't intersect. Either all the way back (Z = 1 in clip space) or back some settable amount. Drawing with groups so that a collection of objects in front has an outline that blocks a group behind would be harder.
For example if I take this sample that prisoner849 linked to
And change the vertexShaderChunk in OutlineEffect.js to this
var vertexShaderChunk = `
#include <fog_pars_vertex>
uniform float outlineThickness;
vec4 calculateOutline( vec4 pos, vec3 objectNormal, vec4 skinned ) {
float thickness = outlineThickness;
const float ratio = 1.0; // TODO: support outline thickness ratio for each vertex
vec4 pos2 = projectionMatrix * modelViewMatrix * vec4( skinned.xyz + objectNormal, 1.0 );
// NOTE: subtract pos2 from pos because BackSide objectNormal is negative
vec4 norm = normalize( pos - pos2 );
// ----[ added ] ----
// compute a clipspace value
vec4 pos3 = pos + norm * thickness * pos.w * ratio;
// do the perspective divide in the shader
pos3.xyz /= pos3.w;
// just return screen 2d values at the back of the clips space
return vec4(pos3.xy, 1, 1);
}
`;
It's easier to see if you remove all references to reflectionCube and set the clear color to white renderer.setClearColor( 0xFFFFFF );
Original:
After:

Merging overlapping transparent shapes in directx

This is the problem I am facing simplified:
Using directx I need to draw two(or more) exactly (in the same 2d plane) overlapping triangles. The triangles are semi transparent but the effect I want to release is that they clip to transparency of a single triangle. The picture below might depict the problem better.
Is there a way to do this?
I use this to get overlapping transparent triangles to not "accumulate". You need to create a blendstate and set it on output merge.
blendStateDescription.AlphaToCoverageEnable = false;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].IsBlendEnabled = true;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].SourceBlend = D3D11.BlendOption.SourceAlpha;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].DestinationBlend = D3D11.BlendOption.One; //
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].BlendOperation = D3D11.BlendOperation.Maximum;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].SourceAlphaBlend = D3D11.BlendOption.SourceAlpha; //Zero
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].DestinationAlphaBlend = D3D11.BlendOption.DestinationAlpha;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].AlphaBlendOperation = D3D11.BlendOperation.Maximum;
blendStateDescription.RenderTarget[0].RenderTargetWriteMask = D3D11.ColorWriteMaskFlags.All;
Hope this helps. Code is in C# but it works the same in C++ etc. Basically, takes the alpha of both source and destination, compares and takes the max. Which will always be the same (as long as you use the same alpha on both triangles) otherwise it will render the one with the most alpha.
edit: I've added a sample of what the blending does in my project. The roads here overlap. Overlap Sample
My pixel shader is as:
I pass the UV co-ords in a float4.
xy = uv coords.
w is the alpha value.
Pixel shader code
float4 pixelColourBlend;
pixelColourBlend = primaryTexture.Sample(textureSamplerStandard, input.uv.xy, 0);
pixelColourBlend.w = input.uv.w;
clip(pixelColourBlend.w - 0.05f);
return pixelColourBlend;
Ignore my responses, couldn't edit them...grrrr.
Enabling the depth stencil prevents this problem

How to isolate a Phaser shader to a specific object/shape?

I'm using the Phaser framework. Here is the jsfiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/Dillybob/u3mGL/13/
Here is where the filter is getting populated:
background = game.add.sprite(0, 0);
background.width = 800;
background.height = 600;
filter = game.add.filter('Fire', 800, 600);
filter.alpha = 0.0;
background.filters = [filter];
My line object is assigned to the variable drawnObject
So I assign that object to receive the filter like so:
drawnObject.filters = [filter];
But my line is now a red fiery square instead of being a line with a fiery background, why?
Firstly, be aware that drawnObject is actually a bitmap, which is rectangular shaped. It consists of white pixels, which build your line, and transparent pixels, which are taking the rest of bitmap space.
The filter you use is a pixel shader. Pixel shader describes instructions that GPU invokes for each pixel of a provided bitmap. In case of this shader, it creates fire effect based on some noise functions, but it doesn't take original bitmap into account. The original color of pixels is not preserved, it doesn't add to final effect in any way.
To achieve your expected result, you have to amend fragmentSrc in Fire.js, so that shader uses and mixes/blends original color into final pixel color and/or doesn't change pixel transparency.

What is the simplest way to implement transparent objects in sharpdx?

I am currently trying to implement semi-transparent polygons in sharpdx.
At the moment I am using GraphicsDevice and BasicEffect to draw my objects.
// Setup the vertices
game.GraphicsDevice.SetVertexBuffer(myModel.vertices);
game.GraphicsDevice.SetVertexInputLayout(myModel.inputLayout);
// Apply the basic effect technique and draw the object
basicEffect.CurrentTechnique.Passes[0].Apply();
game.GraphicsDevice.Draw(PrimitiveType.TriangleList, myModel.vertices.ElementCount);
This is working fine for normal objects, however I would like to make some of the objects partially transparent. I've set the alpha value of these object's colors to 50, however they are still being rendered as opaque. What do I need to do to achieve this effect?
Transparency in Sharpdx requires alpha blending value 0..1 for float colors. The comment Nico Schertler provided above solved the question and can be regarded as answer.
Without Alpha mode, there are two options, that you can use in the HLSL shader file
In the Pixel shader, use the clip() function, dependent on the input color. You could define your transparent black and not show any black triangles. Like so:
float4 PS( PS_IN input ) : SV_Target
{
clip(input.color[3] < 0.1f ? -1:1 );
return input.color;
}
ref: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3dhlsl/dx-graphics-hlsl-clip
See the effect:
modify the Vertex Shader to project these vertices to (0,0,0), dependent on the input color. You could define your transparent black and not show any black triangles. Like so:
PS_IN VS( VS_IN input)
{
PS_IN output = (PS_IN)0;
if ((input.color[0]!=0)||(input.color[1]!=0)||(input.color[2]!=0))
{
output.position = mul(worldViewProj,input.position);
}
output.color = input.color;
return output;
}
See below the effect on the edges of my HeightField mesh, on the left is the unchanged version..
NOTE: The latter solution gives sharper edges, but it only works when (0,0,0) is behind the object.

Resources