I know gl_FragDepth will take the value of gl_FragCoord.z from opengl wiki.
https://www.khronos.org/opengl/wiki/Fragment_Shader/Defined_Outputs
But I have a problem. If I enable MSAA and write gl_FragDepth = gl_FragCoord.z in fragment shader, the display will not work fine. You can see a black line on the white triangle as below:
If I don't write gl_FragDepth in fragment shader, it will works fine.
If I disable MSAA, it also works fine no matter if I write gl_FragDepth.
The correct display image has no black line:
The render scene is easy, I just draw 2 white triangles and they are intersected on an edge.
I add a simple light in vertex shader. The codes show as below:
const char *vertexShaderSource[] = {
"#version 120\n",
"varying vec4 lightColor;\n",
"void main()\n",
"{\n",
" vec3 n = normalize(gl_NormalMatrix * gl_Normal);\n",
" vec3 l = normalize(vec3(0.0, 1.0, 1.0));\n",
" float NdotL = clamp(dot(n, l), 0.001, 1.0);\n",
" lightColor = vec4(1.0)*(NdotL + 0.2);\n",
" gl_Position = gl_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * gl_Vertex;\n",
"}\n"
};
const char *fragmentShaderSource[] = {
"#version 120\n",
"varying vec4 lightColor;\n",
"void main(void)\n",
"{\n",
" gl_FragColor = vec4(lightColor.rgb, 1.0);\n",
" gl_FragDepth = gl_FragCoord.z;\n"
"}\n"
};
The positions of 6 vertices of 2 triangles are (-5,-5,0),(5,-5,0),(-5,5,0),(-5,0,0),(5,0,0),(-5,0,-10).
The normals are perpendicular to triangles.
I wanna know why the display images are different if I write gl_FragDepth in fragment shader?
Your two triangles intersect. Specifically, the grey triangle has an edge which can generate depth values equal to the depth values of the white triangle. As such, it is entirely possible for a particular sample from the grey triangle at that intersection to generate a depth value that is equal to the depth value of the white triangle.
So you were never guaranteed to not see a line there; you just happened not to many cases.
However, that all assumes that:
The grey triangle is being rendered after the white one.
Your depth test will pass on equal values.
The result you are getting here may happen even outside of these two conditions. The reason for that is complex.
See, the whole point of multisampling is that the number depth values generated by the rasterizer and the number of fragment shader executions are not the same. So a single FS invocation is mapped to multiple depth values.
However, a single FS invocation can still write to gl_FragDepth. If it does this, then all samples that map to that FS invocation will receive the same depth. This depth overrides the multisample-generated depth values.
Also, interpolation at the edges of a primitive is weird under multisampling. Each sample that is within the bounds of the triangle at that pixel will result in a sample value being written (unless something else culls it out). But the center point of the pixel need not be one of these sample locations. So a triangle that doesn't pass through the center of a pixel can still contribute some samples to the pixel, so long as the triangle passes through at least one sample in that pixel.
The fragment shader gets interpolated values based on some location inside the pixel. With multisampling, this location may not be inside of the triangle. For example, if the location the implementation selects for the FS's interpolation within the pixel is in the center of the triangle, and the triangle doesn't pass through the center of that pixel, you will still get an FS invocation so long as it passes through some sample.
But this means that the interpolated values can represent locations outside of the area of the triangle. The interpolation math can produce values for areas not within the triangle; they just don't make sense.
gl_FragCoord, being an interpolated value, could therefore generate values outside of the triangle. Since the grey triangle is aimed towards the viewer, the values from locations "above" the oncoming edge of the grey triangle will be closer than they should be. And since the edge of the grey triangle intersects the white triangle, values closer than its actual edge values will be considered closer than the white triangle
The normal way to counter this would be to use the centroid interpolation qualifier. However, the standard doesn't really allow this; even if you redeclared gl_FragCoord with the centroid qualifier, it won't have any effect:
The use of centroid does not further restrict this value to be inside the current primitive.
Also, as previously stated, depth-replacement in regular multisampled rendering destroys all of the per-sample depth information anyway. Every sample in a pixel would get the same depth value if your FS writes to the depth. That's not really what you wanted, even if you could do centroid interpolation of gl_FragCoord (which is probably why they don't allow it).
So if it is absolutely essential to do depth-replacement in a shader used for multisampling (and you should avoid this whenever possible), you will need to use per-sample shading. You can redeclare gl_FragCoord with sample to achieve this.
Related
I am making a retro-style game with OpenGL, and I want to draw my own cubemaps for it. Here is an example of one:
As you can tell, there is no perspective warping anywhere; each face is fully equiangular. When using this as a cubemap, the result is this:
As you can see, it looks box-y, and not spherical at all. I know of a solution to this, which is to remap each point on the cubemap to a a sphere position. I have done this manually by creating a sphere mesh and mapping the cubemap texture onto it (and then rendering that to an environment map), but this is time-consuming and complicated.
I seek a different solution: in my fragment shader, I hope to remap the sampling ray to a sphere position, instead of a cube position. Here is my original fragment shader, without any changes:
#version 400 core
in vec3 cube_edge;
out vec3 color;
uniform samplerCube skybox_sampler;
void main(void) {
color = texture(skybox_sampler, cube_edge).rgb;
}
I can get a ray that maps to the sphere by just normalizing cube_edge, but that doesn't change anything, for some reason. After messing around a bit, I tried this mapping, which almost works, but not quite:
vec3 sphere_edge = vec3(cube_edge.x, normalize(cube_edge).y, cube_edge.z);
As you can see, some faces become spherical in nature, whereas the top face warps inwards, instead of outwards.
I also tried the results from this site: http://mathproofs.blogspot.com/2005/07/mapping-cube-to-sphere.html, but the faces were not curved outwards enough.
I have been stuck on this for so long now - if you know how I can change my cube to sphere mapping in my fragment shader, or if that's even possible, please let me know!
As you can tell, there is no perspective warping anywhere; each face is fully equiangular.
This premise is incorrect. You hand-drew some images; this doesn't make them equiangular.
'Equiangular cubemap' (EAC) specifically means a cubemap remapped by this formula (section 2.4):
u = 4/pi * atan(u)
v = 4/pi * atan(v)
Let's recognize first that the term is misleading, because even though EAC aims at reducing the variation in sampling rate, the sampling rate is not constant. In fact no 2d projection of any part of a sphere can truly be equi-angular; this is a mathematical fact.
Nonetheless, we can try to apply this correction. Implemented in GLSL fragment shader as:
d /= max(abs(d.x), max(abs(d.y), abs(d.z));
d = atan(d)/atan(1);
gives the following result:
Compare it with the uncorrected d:
As you can see the EAC projection shrinks the pixels in the middle by a little bit, and expands them near the corners, so that they cover more equal area.
Instead, it appears that you want a cylindrical projection around the horizon. It can be implemented like so:
d /= length(d.xy);
d.xy /= max(abs(d.x), abs(d.y));
d.xy = atan(d.xy)/atan(1);
Which gives the following result:
However there's no artifact-free way to fit the top/bottom square faces of the cube onto the circular faces of the cylinder -- which is why you see the artifacts there.
Bottom-line: you cannot fit the image that you drew onto a sphere in a visually pleasing way. You should instead re-focus your effort on alternative ways of authoring your environment map. I recommend you try using an equidistant cylindrical projection for the horizon, cap it with solid colors above/below a fixed latitude, and use billboards for objects that cannot be represented in that projection.
Your problem is that the size of the geometry on which the environment is placed is too small. You are not looking at the environment but at the inside of a small cube in which you are sitting. The environment map should behave as if you are always in the center of the map and the environment is infinitely far away. I suggest to draw the environment map on the far plane of the viewing frustum. You can do this by setting the z-component of the clip space position equal to the w-component in the vertex shader. If you set z to w, you guarantee that the final z value of the position will be 1.0. This is the z value of the far plane. (You can do that with Swizzling gl_Position = clipPos.xyww). It is quite sufficient to draw a cube and wrap the environment by looking up the map with the interpolated vertices of the cube. In the case of a samplerCube, the 3-dimensional texture coordinate is treated as a direction vector. You can use the vertex coordinate of the cube to look up the texture.
Vertex shader:
cube_edge = inVertex.xyz;
vec4 clipPos = projection * view * vec4(inVertex.xyz, 1.0);
gl_Position = clipPos.xyww;
Fragment shader:
color = texture(skybox_sampler, cube_edge).rgb;
The solution is also explained in detail at LearnOpenGL - Cubemap.
I'm working on a deferred lighting technique in 2D, using a frame buffer to accumulate light sources using the GL_MAX blend equation.
Here's what I get when rendering one light source (the geometry is a quad without a texture, I'm only using a fragment shader for colouring) to my buffer:
Which is exactly what I want - attenuation from the light source. However, when two light sources are near each other, when they overlap, they seem to produce a lower RGB value where they meet, like so:
Why is there a darker line between the two? I was expecting that with GL_MAX blend equation they would smoothly blend into each other, using the maximal value of the fragments in each location.
Here's the setup for the FBO (using LibGDX):
Gdx.gl.glClearColor(0.14f, 0.14f, 0.19f, 1);
Gdx.gl.glClear(GL20.GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT);
Gdx.gl.glBlendEquation(GLMAX_BLEND_EQUATION);
Gdx.gl.glBlendFunc(GL20.GL_SRC_COLOR, GL20.GL_DST_COLOR);
Gdx.gl.glEnable(GL20.GL_BLEND);
I don't think the call to glBlendFunc is actually necessary when using this equation. GLMAX_BLEND_EQUATION is set to 0x8008.
varying vec2 v_texCoords;
varying vec2 v_positionRelativeToLight;
uniform sampler2D u_texture;
uniform vec3 u_lightPosition;
uniform vec3 u_lightColor;
void main() {
float distanceToLight = length(v_positionRelativeToLight);
float falloffVarA = 0.1;
float falloffVarB = 1.0;
float attenuation = 1.0 / (1.0 + (falloffVarA*distanceToLight) + (falloffVarB*distanceToLight*distanceToLight));
float minDistanceOrAttenuation = min(attenuation, 1.0-distanceToLight);
float combined = minDistanceOrAttenuation * attenuation;
gl_FragColor = vec4(combined, combined, combined, 1.0);
}
There are extra variables passed in there as this fragment shader is usually more complicated, but I've cut it down to just show how the attenuation and blending is behaving.
This happens between every light source that I render where they meet - rather than the colour that I'm expecting, the meeting of two light sources - the equidistant point between the two quads, is a darker colour that I'm expecting. Any idea why and how to fix it?
This is the result of subtracting the first image from the second:
The background on the first isn't quite black, hence the yellowing on the right, but otherwise you can clearly see the black region on the left where original values were preserved, the darker arc where values from both lights were evaluated but the right was greater, then all the area on the right that the original light didn't touch.
I therefore think you're getting max-pick blending. But what you want is additive blending:
Gdx.gl.glBlendFunc(GL20.GL_ONE, GL20.GL_ONE);
... and leave the blend equation on the default of GL_FUNC_ADD.
Your result is the expected appearance for maximum blending (which is just like the lighten blend mode in Photoshop). The dark seam looks out of place perhaps because of the non-linear falloff of each light, but it's mathematically correct. If you introduce a light with a bright non-white color to it, it will look much more objectionable.
You can get around this if you render your lights to a frame buffer with inverted colors and multiplicative blending, and then render the frame buffer with inverted colors. Then the math works out to not have the seams, but it won't look unusually bright like what additive blending produces.
Use a pure white clear color on your frame buffer and then render the lights with the standard GL_ADD blend equation and the blend function GL_ONE_MINUS_DST_COLOR. Then render your FBO texture to the screen, inverting the colors again.
Two lights drawn using your method
Two lights drawn additively
Two lights, drawn sequentially with GL_ONE_MINUS_DST_COLOR, GL_ZERO and GL_ADD
The above result, inverted
I have a scene that is rendered to texture via FBO and I am sampling it from a fragment shader, drawing regions of it using primitives rather than drawing a full-screen quad: I'm conserving resources by only generating the fragments I'll need.
To test this, I am issuing the exact same geometry as my texture-render, which means that the rasterization pattern produced should be exactly the same: When my fragment shader looks up its texture with the varying coordinate it was given it should match up perfectly with the other values it was given.
Here's how I'm giving my fragment shader the coordinates to auto-texture the geometry with my fullscreen texture:
// Vertex shader
uniform mat4 proj_modelview_mat;
out vec2 f_sceneCoord;
void main(void) {
gl_Position = proj_modelview_mat * vec4(in_pos,0.0,1.0);
f_sceneCoord = (gl_Position.xy + vec2(1,1)) * 0.5;
}
I'm working in 2D so I didn't concern myself with the perspective divide here. I just set the sceneCoord value using the clip-space position scaled back from [-1,1] to [0,1].
uniform sampler2D scene;
in vec2 f_sceneCoord;
//in vec4 gl_FragCoord;
in float f_alpha;
out vec4 out_fragColor;
void main (void) {
//vec4 color = texelFetch(scene,ivec2(gl_FragCoord.xy - vec2(0.5,0.5)),0);
vec4 color = texture(scene,f_sceneCoord);
if (color.a == f_alpha) {
out_fragColor = vec4(color.rgb,1);
} else
out_fragColor = vec4(1,0,0,1);
}
Notice I spit out a red fragment if my alpha's don't match up. The texture render sets the alpha for each rendered object to a specific index so I know what matches up with what.
Sorry I don't have a picture to show but it's very clear that my pixels are off by (0.5,0.5): I get a thin, one pixel red border around my objects, on their bottom and left sides, that pops in and out. It's quite "transient" looking. The giveaway is that it only shows up on the bottom and left sides of objects.
Notice I have a line commented out which uses texelFetch: This method works, and I no longer get my red fragments showing up. However I'd like to get this working right with texture and normalized texture coordinates because I think more hardware will support that. Perhaps the real question is, is it possible to get this right without sending in my viewport resolution via a uniform? There's gotta be a way to avoid that!
Update: I tried shifting the texture access by half a pixel, quarter of a pixel, one hundredth of a pixel, it all made it worse and produced a solid border of wrong values all around the edges: It seems like my gl_Position.xy+vec2(1,1))*0.5 trick sets the right values, but sampling is just off by just a little somehow. This is quite strange... See the red fragments? When objects are in motion they shimmer in and out ever so slightly. It means the alpha values I set aren't matching up perfectly on those pixels.
It's not critical for me to get pixel perfect accuracy for that alpha-index-check for my actual application but this behavior is just not what I expected.
Well, first consider dropping that f_sceneCoord varying and just using gl_FragCoord / screenSize as texture coordinate (you already have this in your example, but the -0.5 is rubbish), with screenSize being a uniform (maybe pre-divided). This should work almost exact, because by default gl_FragCoord is at the pixel center (meaning i+0.5) and OpenGL returns exact texel values when sampling the texture at the texel center ((i+0.5)/textureSize).
This may still introduce very very very slight deviations form exact texel values (if any) due to finite precision and such. But then again, you will likely want to use a filtering mode of GL_NEAREST for such one-to-one texture-to-screen mappings, anyway. Actually your exsiting f_sceneCoord approach may already work well and it's just those small rounding issues prevented by GL_NEAREST that create your artefacts. But then again, you still don't need that f_sceneCoord thing.
EDIT: Regarding the portability of texelFetch. That function was introduced with GLSL 1.30 (~SM4/GL3/DX10-hardware, ~GeForce 8), I think. But this version is already required by the new in/out syntax you're using (in contrast to the old varying/attribute syntax). So if you're not gonna change these, assuming texelFetch as given is absolutely no problem and might also be slightly faster than texture (which also requires GLSL 1.30, in contrast to the old texture2D), by circumventing filtering completely.
If you are working in perfect X,Y [0,1] with no rounding errors that's great... But sometimes - especially if working with polar coords, you might consider aligning your calculated coords to the texture 'grid'...
I use:
// align it to the nearest centered texel
curPt -= mod(curPt, (0.5 / vec2(imgW, imgH)));
works like a charm and I no longer get random rounding errors at the screen edges...
I draw lots of quadratic Bézier curves in my OpenGL program. Right now, the curves are one-pixel thin and software-generated, because I'm at a rather early stage, and it is enough to see what works.
Simply enough, given 3 control points (P0 to P2), I evaluate the following equation with t varying from 0 to 1 (with steps of 1/8) in software and use GL_LINE_STRIP to link them together:
B(t) = (1 - t)2P0 + 2(1 - t)tP1 + t2P2
Where B, obviously enough, results in a 2-dimensional vector.
This approach worked 'well enough', since even my largest curves don't need much more than 8 steps to look curved. Still, one pixel thin curves are ugly.
I wanted to write a GLSL shader that would accept control points and a uniform thickness variable to, well, make the curves thicker. At first I thought about making a pixel shader only, that would color only pixels within a thickness / 2 distance of the curve, but doing so requires solving a third degree polynomial, and choosing between three solutions inside a shader doesn't look like the best idea ever.
I then tried to look up if other people already did it. I stumbled upon a white paper by Loop and Blinn from Microsoft Research where the guys show an easy way of filling the area under a curve. While it works well to that extent, I'm having trouble adapting the idea to drawing between two bouding curves.
Finding bounding curves that match a single curve is rather easy with a geometry shader. The problems come with the fragment shader that should fill the whole thing. Their approach uses the interpolated texture coordinates to determine if a fragment falls over or under the curve; but I couldn't figure a way to do it with two curves (I'm pretty new to shaders and not a maths expert, so the fact I didn't figure out how to do it certainly doesn't mean it's impossible).
My next idea was to separate the filled curve into triangles and only use the Bézier fragment shader on the outer parts. But for that I need to split the inner and outer curves at variable spots, and that means again that I have to solve the equation, which isn't really an option.
Are there viable algorithms for stroking quadratic Bézier curves with a shader?
This partly continues my previous answer, but is actually quite different since I got a couple of central things wrong in that answer.
To allow the fragment shader to only shade between two curves, two sets of "texture" coordinates are supplied as varying variables, to which the technique of Loop-Blinn is applied.
varying vec2 texCoord1,texCoord2;
varying float insideOutside;
varying vec4 col;
void main()
{
float f1 = texCoord1[0] * texCoord1[0] - texCoord1[1];
float f2 = texCoord2[0] * texCoord2[0] - texCoord2[1];
float alpha = (sign(insideOutside*f1) + 1) * (sign(-insideOutside*f2) + 1) * 0.25;
gl_FragColor = vec4(col.rgb, col.a * alpha);
}
So far, easy. The hard part is setting up the texture coordinates in the geometry shader. Loop-Blinn specifies them for the three vertices of the control triangle, and they are interpolated appropriately across the triangle. But, here we need to have the same interpolated values available while actually rendering a different triangle.
The solution to this is to find the linear function mapping from (x,y) coordinates to the interpolated/extrapolated values. Then, these values can be set for each vertex while rendering a triangle. Here's the key part of my code for this part.
vec2[3] tex = vec2[3]( vec2(0,0), vec2(0.5,0), vec2(1,1) );
mat3 uvmat;
uvmat[0] = vec3(pos2[0].x, pos2[1].x, pos2[2].x);
uvmat[1] = vec3(pos2[0].y, pos2[1].y, pos2[2].y);
uvmat[2] = vec3(1, 1, 1);
mat3 uvInv = inverse(transpose(uvmat));
vec3 uCoeffs = vec3(tex[0][0],tex[1][0],tex[2][0]) * uvInv;
vec3 vCoeffs = vec3(tex[0][1],tex[1][1],tex[2][1]) * uvInv;
float[3] uOther, vOther;
for(i=0; i<3; i++) {
uOther[i] = dot(uCoeffs,vec3(pos1[i].xy,1));
vOther[i] = dot(vCoeffs,vec3(pos1[i].xy,1));
}
insideOutside = 1;
for(i=0; i< gl_VerticesIn; i++){
gl_Position = gl_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * pos1[i];
texCoord1 = tex[i];
texCoord2 = vec2(uOther[i], vOther[i]);
EmitVertex();
}
EndPrimitive();
Here pos1 and pos2 contain the coordinates of the two control triangles. This part renders the triangle defined by pos1, but with texCoord2 set to the translated values from the pos2 triangle. Then the pos2 triangle needs to be rendered, similarly. Then the gap between these two triangles at each end needs to filled, with both sets of coordinates translated appropriately.
The calculation of the matrix inverse requires either GLSL 1.50 or it needs to be coded manually. It would be better to solve the equation for the translation without calculating the inverse. Either way, I don't expect this part to be particularly fast in the geometry shader.
You should be able to use technique of Loop and Blinn in the paper you mentioned.
Basically you'll need to offset each control point in the normal direction, both ways, to get the control points for two curves (inner and outer). Then follow the technique in Section 3.1 of Loop and Blinn - this breaks up sections of the curve to avoid triangle overlaps, and then triangulates the main part of the interior (note that this part requires the CPU). Finally, these triangles are filled, and the small curved parts outside of them are rendered on the GPU using Loop and Blinn's technique (at the start and end of Section 3).
An alternative technique that may work for you is described here:
Thick Bezier Curves in OpenGL
EDIT:
Ah, you want to avoid even the CPU triangulation - I should have read more closely.
One issue you have is the interface between the geometry shader and the fragment shader - the geometry shader will need to generate primitives (most likely triangles) that are then individually rasterized and filled via the fragment program.
In your case with constant thickness I think quite a simple triangulation will work - using Loop and Bling for all the "curved bits". When the two control triangles don't intersect it's easy. When they do, the part outside the intersection is easy. So the only hard part is within the intersection (which should be a triangle).
Within the intersection you want to shade a pixel only if both control triangles lead to it being shaded via Loop and Bling. So the fragment shader needs to be able to do texture lookups for both triangles. One can be as standard, and you'll need to add a vec2 varying variable for the second set of texture coordinates, which you'll need to set appropriately for each vertex of the triangle. As well you'll need a uniform "sampler2D" variable for the texture which you can then sample via texture2D. Then you just shade fragments that satisfy the checks for both control triangles (within the intersection).
I think this works in every case, but it's possible I've missed something.
I don't know how to exactly solve this, but it's very interesting. I think you need every different processing unit in the GPU:
Vertex shader
Throw a normal line of points to your vertex shader. Let the vertex shader displace the points to the bezier.
Geometry shader
Let your geometry shader create an extra point per vertex.
foreach (point p in bezierCurve)
new point(p+(0,thickness,0)) // in tangent with p1-p2
Fragment shader
To stroke your bezier with a special stroke, you can use a texture with an alpha channel. You can check the alpha channel on its value. If it's zero, clip the pixel. This way, you can still make the system think it is a solid line, instead of a half-transparent one. You could apply some patterns in your alpha channel.
I hope this will help you on your way. You will have to figure out things yourself a lot, but I think that the Geometry shading will speed your bezier up.
Still for the stroking I keep with my choice of creating a GL_QUAD_STRIP and an alpha-channel texture.
In a tutorial there was a diffuse value calculation of the type
float diffuse_value = max(dot(vertex_normal, vertex_light_position), 0.0);
..on the vertex shader.
That was supposed to be making per vertex lighting if later on the fragment shader..
gl_FragColor = gl_Color * diffuse_value;
Then when he moved the first line - appropriately (by outputting vertex_normal and vertex_light_position to fragment) - to the the fragment shader, it is supposed to be transforming the method to "per pixel shading".
How is that so? The first method appears to be doing the diffuse_value calculation every pixel anyway!
diffuse_value in the first case is computed in the vertex shader. So it's only done per vertex.
After the vertex shader outputs values, the rasterizer takes those values (3 per triangle for each vector) and interpolates (in a perspective correct manner) them to provide different values for each pixel. As it happens, interpolating vectors like that (the normal and the light direction vectors) is not proper, because it loses their normalized property. Many implementations will actually normalize the vectors first thing in the fragment shader.
But it's worse to interpolate the dot of the 2 vectors (what the vector lighting effectively does). Say for example that your is N=+Z for all your vertices and L=norm(Z-X) on one and L=norm(Z+X) on another.
N.L = 1/sqrt(2) for both vertices.
Interpolating that will give you a flat lighting, whereas actually interpolating N and L separately and renormalizing will give you the result you'd expect, a lighting that peaks exactly in the middle of the polygon. (because the interpolation of norm(Z-X) and norm(Z+X) will give exactly Z once normalized).
Well ... Code in a vertex shader is only evaluated per-vertex, with the input values of that vertex.
But when moved to a fragment shader, it is evaluated per-fragment, i.e. per pixel, with input values appropriately interpolated between vertices.
At least that is my understanding, I'm quite rusty with shader programming though.
If diffuse_value is computed in vertex shader, that means it is computed per vertex. Then, it is linearly interpolated on pixels of triangle and feed into pixel shader. (If you don't have per-pixel normals, that's all you can do.) Then, in pixel shader, polygon color (interpolated too) is modulated with that diffuse_value.