Talk:Depth buffer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Biohazard 90 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Biohazard 90 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:As you noticed, the available range of the default depth buffer is very short. 'Scaling the depth output' simply means adjusting the range - do you think the term 'quantify' would make it clearer then? This has nothing to do with 'fog' at all - I was wondering why you would want to compare it anyway. All of the things I mentioned can be done, I personally didn't try the third option of shader replacement yet, that's all, but if standard filesystem rules apply it should be possible. I can provide screenshots of a larger depthbuffer in source with 32bit precision or anyone could take a look at zeno clash's depth buffer which has increased range, yet 8bit precision -> strong colour banding, but I don't think that's necessary as it looks the same (well, my depth is inverted), it just has another range. | :As you noticed, the available range of the default depth buffer is very short. 'Scaling the depth output' simply means adjusting the range - do you think the term 'quantify' would make it clearer then? This has nothing to do with 'fog' at all - I was wondering why you would want to compare it anyway. All of the things I mentioned can be done, I personally didn't try the third option of shader replacement yet, that's all, but if standard filesystem rules apply it should be possible. I can provide screenshots of a larger depthbuffer in source with 32bit precision or anyone could take a look at zeno clash's depth buffer which has increased range, yet 8bit precision -> strong colour banding, but I don't think that's necessary as it looks the same (well, my depth is inverted), it just has another range. | ||
:I tried explaining how it works with more detail, for anyone who could care about that anyway, that part should make clear why 'scaling/quantifying' the output should be the correct term. --[[User:Biohazard 90|Biohazard]] 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | :I tried explaining how it works with more detail, for anyone who could care about that anyway, that part should make clear why 'scaling/quantifying' the output should be the correct term. --[[User:Biohazard 90|Biohazard]] 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
:What kind of code would you want to see exactly? Other than changing the line I mentioned, recompiling the shaders and then using SDK_ shaders instead of default ones there's nothing else to do. --[[User:Biohazard 90|Biohazard]] 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:44, 16 January 2011
Scaling the depth output
This section doesn't make any sense. What does "scaling" the output mean? I would have thought making the depth 'fog' extend further, yet the page doesn't say that. And then what exactly are we being told to do? "Render all opaque geometry in a scene with modified shaders" is incredibly vague, and the rest of the section is apparently telling us all about something we can't do?
Can you provide screens and code, please? --TomEdwards 12:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- As you noticed, the available range of the default depth buffer is very short. 'Scaling the depth output' simply means adjusting the range - do you think the term 'quantify' would make it clearer then? This has nothing to do with 'fog' at all - I was wondering why you would want to compare it anyway. All of the things I mentioned can be done, I personally didn't try the third option of shader replacement yet, that's all, but if standard filesystem rules apply it should be possible. I can provide screenshots of a larger depthbuffer in source with 32bit precision or anyone could take a look at zeno clash's depth buffer which has increased range, yet 8bit precision -> strong colour banding, but I don't think that's necessary as it looks the same (well, my depth is inverted), it just has another range.
- I tried explaining how it works with more detail, for anyone who could care about that anyway, that part should make clear why 'scaling/quantifying' the output should be the correct term. --Biohazard 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of code would you want to see exactly? Other than changing the line I mentioned, recompiling the shaders and then using SDK_ shaders instead of default ones there's nothing else to do. --Biohazard 12:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)