When you can achive such quality and the tradeoff is realy low for normale computer shader. Why didn't AMD and Nvidia integrated a raszier for triangles smaller than a pixel?
Modern and Future Geometry Rasterizer layout? *spawn*
- Thread starter Digidi
- Start date
Rootax
Veteran
It's pretty old and "basic", but I like this blog post about small triangles and impacts : https://www.g-truc.net/post-0662.html
All UV-transforms are missing in this case, a UV-position doesn't convey the UV-space's scale, rotation, shearing and so on. I guess only the scale is essential. The scale is affected by the triangle's size on screen, and the UV-values on the vertices. Calculating those factors isn't all that convenient. You likely would make use of much more interpolator-slots, and that path isn't really large, not even today.
pixeljetstream
Newcomer
just a reminder there is some content available describing the pipeline for NVIDIA
presentation (2016)
https://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gt...-rendering.pdf
blog (2015)
https://developer.nvidia.com/content...gical-pipeline
nvidia's hardware can pack quads from different triangles into a single warp. think someone here wondered about that.
presentation (2016)
https://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gt...-rendering.pdf
blog (2015)
https://developer.nvidia.com/content...gical-pipeline
nvidia's hardware can pack quads from different triangles into a single warp. think someone here wondered about that.
I did some testing. Did Nvidia changed from tiled base back to normal or immediate rasterizer?
Her you can see how it looks on Pascal and Maxwell.
https://www.realworldtech.com/tile-b...n-nvidia-gpus/
This picture is from turing.
Her you can see how it looks on Pascal and Maxwell.
https://www.realworldtech.com/tile-b...n-nvidia-gpus/
This picture is from turing.
Jawed
Legend
Working page link:
https://www.realworldtech.com/tile-based-rasterization-nvidia-gpus/
https://www.realworldtech.com/tile-based-rasterization-nvidia-gpus/
Try setting the floats per vertex, pixel format and sample count to their maximum values. It looks like the tiles on Turing just start off very large.
This is how IMR looks like. Turing displaying the turquoise pixels while at the same time having some pixels completely untouched shows its doing conceptually the same thing as Maxwell and Pascal. Different buffer sizes or other defaults may lead to small differences though.
edit: I can see a maximum span over a 9 tile region at once.
edit: I can see a maximum span over a 9 tile region at once.
Attachments
Last edited:
When i see nanite enigne i think the real bottelnack are micro polyogons. I wathched these analysis of nanite egninge an also looked clother. Even whene there is no good lightning in the scene the polygon structure make it unike. I don't understand why whe invest so much in shader when micro polygons gif you so much picture quality:
It's funny how realtime graphics follow past movie industry trends. Movies went REYES and nowdays ray tracing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering
I think like in the video they said now theyfollow polygons, because film industry need it 
If you want to make a realistic face and realistic structures you realy need more geometry than light effects.
Also ghost of thushima is a example that geometry rueles over lighning, all the high poly vegetation make it so realistic and the game don't use raytracing.
If you want to make a realistic face and realistic structures you realy need more geometry than light effects.Also ghost of thushima is a example that geometry rueles over lighning, all the high poly vegetation make it so realistic and the game don't use raytracing.
Last edited:
Nanite is not REYES nor is Lumen ray tracing based on everything I've read. Nanite is rendering small triangles, but that's where the similarity with REYES seems to end.
Also, you absolutely need good lighting to complement dense geometry and vice versa. Just because a game doesn't use ray tracing doesn't mean it has poor lighting.
Also, you absolutely need good lighting to complement dense geometry and vice versa. Just because a game doesn't use ray tracing doesn't mean it has poor lighting.
I find this tragic rather than funny. Isn't there some cartoon software that could help make games look interesting again?
[my bold]
I think that's a bit of a misconception. You would need to properly light the micropolygons as well and in order to know where to apply which amount of each color component, you need some kind of formula. Preferrably (but depending on your art style), global illumination based on physcial surface properties.[/QUOTE]
@CarstenS
Exactly. But for a good shadow you need a good contour of the geometry. The geometry is feeding the formular with information.
My argument: If you use a complex mesh with a simple lightning formulare you will get besser results than with a complex formular for lightning with a simple mesh. because Main information for the lightning comes from the mesh. The mesh is a big part of the variables insight a lightning formular. If the mesh is not detailed enough you can have the best ray traycing, it will look ugly.
Thats why i think we will get a better grafic advantage when we invest more time and resources in polygon creation with simple light shader formula than if we use a simple polygon mesh with a complex lightning formula.
That is what nanite is exatly doing. They don't do any raytracing. They use complex geometry and us a simplified lightning system with only one lighning bounce and the result is impressive.
Her it is good video which explains it:
If you look here. The small geometry hights make the wall so realistic. Withought the hights you don't get the information for the micro shadows.
Exactly. But for a good shadow you need a good contour of the geometry. The geometry is feeding the formular with information.
My argument: If you use a complex mesh with a simple lightning formulare you will get besser results than with a complex formular for lightning with a simple mesh. because Main information for the lightning comes from the mesh. The mesh is a big part of the variables insight a lightning formular. If the mesh is not detailed enough you can have the best ray traycing, it will look ugly.
Thats why i think we will get a better grafic advantage when we invest more time and resources in polygon creation with simple light shader formula than if we use a simple polygon mesh with a complex lightning formula.
That is what nanite is exatly doing. They don't do any raytracing. They use complex geometry and us a simplified lightning system with only one lighning bounce and the result is impressive.
Her it is good video which explains it:
If you look here. The small geometry hights make the wall so realistic. Withought the hights you don't get the information for the micro shadows.
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that.
Similar threads
