|
Twilight Box
#388496
12/03/11 21:13
12/03/11 21:13
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,252
OP
Expert
Twilight Box
New graphics demo inspired by Superku´s 2d shadowing technique. Originaly planed as a small side project this took me about a week longer to finish than expected. But it was worth the effort I think. ![laugh laugh](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/laugh.gif) The demo is designed to run under shader model 2.0 (or higher) without the need for multible render targets or floating point render targets. There are still a few things missing I planed to implement in the beginning, even some fundamental features like loading/saving a scene but I had to stop at some point. I´ll probably make a more complete version sometime. Key features: - soft shadows - self-shadowing (was trickier than one might expect) - ambient occlusion You can/have to create occluders on your own and move the light around (duhh ![tongue tongue](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/tongue1.gif) ). There is a new video on my Youtube Channel which shows how to organize the occluders the way that you prevent light-bleeding artifacts which can occur due to the approximation nature of the whole shadow rendering. Credits: - eye symbol design by Nintendo - original eye symbol graphic by BlindedFan103 ( http://blindedfan103.deviantart.com/) - inspiration for making this demo by Superku And here is the download link to the demo: Twilight BoxHave fun!
Last edited by Hummel; 07/21/15 23:34. Reason: updated download link (thx to HeelX)
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: Joozey]
#453203
07/11/15 20:44
07/11/15 20:44
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
diggin' up this 4 years old topic.. link is dead ;_; I could use a reupload if that's possible ![smirk smirk](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/smirk.gif)
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: HeelX]
#453347
07/21/15 21:32
07/21/15 21:32
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
I forgot to say that Hummel recieved my PM in the meanwhile and will reupload it after fixing some bugs ^^' But I told him to take his time so.. great that you've found it and thanks for uploading ![laugh laugh](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/laugh.gif) Edit: Well.. I've got some graphics glitches: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105854633/tw_box%202015-07-21%2023-46-36-799.webmLooks like some kind of overdraw/z-sorting bug. ...I'd understand if you don't really want to fix it, though. I'm gonna look into it in the next couple of days.
Last edited by Kartoffel; 07/21/15 21:59.
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: Hummel]
#453351
07/22/15 07:57
07/22/15 07:57
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
Thanks for pointing that out. Btw, you might wanna apply a sine falloff ( COS((x + 1) * pi) * 0.5 + 0.5 ) to smooth off the hard edges of the linear falloff ![wink wink](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/wink.gif)
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: Hummel]
#453398
07/24/15 12:34
07/24/15 12:34
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
If you assume that the strength of the emitted light is evenly distributed across the light source, yes. A sine falloff would be correct if you assume that the light source is some kind of luminescent gas you can see through - so it's not entirely wrong imo. I find it visually more pleasing to have a smooth falloff in this case. Just a matter of personal preference, I guess. Edit: oh and that sine falloff substitute is pretty neat. didn't know such an accurate approximation exists ![smirk smirk](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/smirk.gif)
Last edited by Kartoffel; 07/24/15 12:43.
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: Kartoffel]
#453405
07/24/15 19:06
07/24/15 19:06
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,252
Hummel
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,252
|
If you assume that the strength of the emitted light is evenly distributed across the light source, yes. A sine falloff would be correct if you assume that the light source is some kind of luminescent gas you can see through - so it's not entirely wrong imo. True. Would be interesting to figure out the exact emittance behavior for a given falloff. Btw, don't do this: (x + 1) * pi, instead: x * pi + pi;// mad(x, pi, pi), one instruction instead of two. ![wink wink](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Re: Twilight Box
[Re: Hummel]
#453406
07/24/15 20:24
07/24/15 20:24
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
If you assume that the strength of the emitted light is evenly distributed across the light source, yes. A sine falloff would be correct if you assume that the light source is some kind of luminescent gas you can see through - so it's not entirely wrong imo. True. Would be interesting to figure out the exact emittance behavior for a given falloff. Btw, don't do this: (x + 1) * pi, instead: x * pi + pi;// mad(x, pi, pi), one instruction instead of two. ![wink wink](/ubb7/images/graemlins/default_dark/wink.gif) thanks again. yep, MAD.. now I see it. Haven't gotten into d3d assembler enough, I guess ;(
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
|