I'm working on a game with fairly low-polygon models, so when I try to implement directional lighting, I end up getting unsightly edges like the per-face example in this picture (not my picture) where the
model's mesh is clearly visible.
I have tried many tutorials for fragment lighting in the hopes that I can smooth it out, but I can't figure out how they calculate a normal for each fragment. I just want to know how to calculate a normal for each pixel -- I know how to take care of all the other aspects of lighting I need.
Related
I'm working on a simple 2D game engine. I'd like to support a variety of light types, like the URP in Unity. Lighting would be calculated according to the normal and specular maps attached to the sprite.
Because of the different geometry of the light types, it would be ideal to defer the lighting calculations, and use a dedicated shader for it. However it would limit the user in the folowing ways:
No transparent textures, as they would override the normal and specular data, so the sprites behind would appear unlit.
No stylized lighting (like a toon shader) for individual sprites.
To resolve these issues I tried implementing something like in Godot. In a Godot shader, one can write a light function, that is called per pixel for every light in range. Now I have two shaders per sprite. One that outputs normal and specular information to an intermediate framebuffer, and a light shader that is called on the geometry of the light, and outputs to the screen.
The problem is that this method decreeses performance significantly, because I change buffers and shaders twice for every sprite, and the draw calls per frame also doubled.
Is there a way to decrease this methods overhead?
Or is there any other solution to this problem, that i missed?
I am making a simple pixel top-down game. And I want to add some simple lights there, but I don't know what the best way to do that. This image is an example of light what I want to realise.
http://imgur.com/a/PpYiR
When I googled that task, I saw only solutions for that kind of light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlYsGOkkyM
But I need to increase a brightness of the texture part when the light source is near. How can I do this if I am using textures with GL_QUADS without UV?
Ok, my response may not totally answer you question, but it will lead you down the right path.
It appears you are using immediate mode, this is now depreciated and changing to VBOs (vertex buffer objects) will make you life easier.
The lighting in the picture appears to be hand drawn. You cannot create that style of lighting exactly with even the best algorithm.
You really have two options to solve your problem, and both of them will require texture coordinates and shaders.
You could go with lightmaps, which use a pre generated texture multiplied over the texture of a quad. This is extremely fast, but requires some sort of tool to generate the lightmaps which might be a bit over your head at the moment.
Instead, learn shader based lighting. Many tutorials exist for 3d lighting but the principles remain the same for 2D.
Some Googling will get you the resources you need to implement shaders.
A basic distance based lighting algorithm will look like this:
GL_Color = texturecolor * 1.0/distance(light_position,world_position);
It multiplies the color of the texel by how far away the texel is from the light position. There are tutorials that go more into depth on this.
If you want to make the lighting look "retro" like in the first image,you can downsample the colors in a postprocesing step.
I just have some questions about deferred shading. I have gotten to the point where I have the Color, Position ,Normal and textures from the Multiple Render Targets. My questions pertain to what I do next. To make sure that I have gotten the correct data from the textures I have put a plane on the screen and rendered the textures onto that plane. What I don't understand is how to manipulate those textures so that the final output is shaded with lighting. Do I need to render a plane or a quad that takes up the screen and apply all the calculations onto that plane? If I do that I am kind of confused how I would be able to get multiple lights to work this way since the "plane" would be a renderable object so for each light I would need to re-render the plane. Am I thinking of this incorrectly?
You need to render some geometry to represent the area covered by the light(s). The lighting term for each pixel of the light is accumulated into a destination render target. This gives you your lit result.
There are various ways to do this. To get up and running, a simple / easy (and hellishly slow) method is to render a full-screen quad for each light.
Basically:
Setup: Render all objects into the g-buffer, storing the various object properties (albedo, specular, normals,
depth, whatever you need)
Lighting: For each light:
Render some geometry to represent the area the light is going to cover on screen
Sample the g-buffer for the data you need to calculate the lighting contribution (you can use the vpos register to find the uv)
Accumulate the lighting term into a destination render target (the backbuffer will do nicely for simple cases)
Once you've got this working, there's loads of different ways to speed it up (scissor rect, meshes that tightly bound the light, stencil tests to avoid shading 'floating' regions, multiple lights drawn at once and higher level techniques such as tiling).
There's a lot of different slants on Deferred Shading these days, but the original technique is covered thoroughly here : http://http.download.nvidia.com/developer/presentations/2004/6800_Leagues/6800_Leagues_Deferred_Shading.pdf
I'm trying to develop a high level understanding of the graphics pipeline. One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why the Geometry shader exists. Both the Tessellation and Geometry shaders seem to do the same thing to me. Can someone explain to me what does the Geometry shader do different from the tessellation shader that justifies its existence?
The tessellation shader is for variable subdivision. An important part is adjacency information so you can do smoothing correctly and not wind up with gaps. You could do some limited subdivision with a geometry shader, but that's not really what its for.
Geometry shaders operate per-primitive. For example, if you need to do stuff for each triangle (such as this), do it in a geometry shader. I've heard of shadow volume extrusion being done. There's also "conservative rasterization" where you might extend triangle borders so every intersected pixel gets a fragment. Examples are pretty application specific.
Yes, they can also generate more geometry than the input but they do not scale well. They work great if you want to draw particles and turn points into very simple geometry. I've implemented marching cubes a number of times using geometry shaders too. Works great with transform feedback to save the resulting mesh.
Transform feedback has also been used with the geometry shader to do more compute operations. One particularly useful mechanism is that it does stream compaction for you (packs its varying amount of output tightly so there are no gaps in the resulting array).
The other very important thing a geometry shader provides is routing to layered render targets (texture arrays, faces of a cube, multiple viewports), something which must be done per-primitive. For example you can render cube shadow maps for point lights in a single pass by duplicating and projecting geometry 6 times to each of the cube's faces.
Not exactly a complete answer but hopefully gives the gist of the differences.
See Also:
http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/
In OpenGL 2.1, I'm passing a position and normal vector to my vertex shader. The vertex shader then sets a varying to the normal vector, so in theory it's linearly interpolating the normals across each triangle. (Which I understand to be the foundation of Phong shading.)
In the fragment shader, I use the normal with Lambert's law to calculate the diffuse reflection. This works as expected, except that the interpolation between vertices looks funny. Specifically, I'm seeing a starburst affect, wherein there are noticeable "hot spots" along the edges between vertices.
Here's an example, not from my own rendering but demonstrating the exact same effect (see the gold sphere partway down the page):
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~slongay/pmwiki-2.2.1/pmwiki.php?n=CPSC453W11.Lab12
Wikipedia says this is a problem with Gauraud shading. But as I understand it, by interpolating the normals and running my lighting calculation per-fragment, I'm using the Phong model, not Gouraud. Is that right?
If I were to use a much finer mesh, I presume that these starbursts would be much less noticeable. But is adding more triangles the only way to solve this problem? I would think there would be a way to get smooth interpolation without the starburst effect. (I've certainly seen perfectly smooth shading on rough meshes elsewhere, such as in 3d Studio Max. But maybe they're doing something more sophisticated than just interpolating normals.)
It is not the exact same effect. What you are seeing is one of two things.
The result of not normalizing the normals before using them in your fragment shader.
An optical illusion created by the collision of linear gradients across the edges of triangles. Really.
The "Gradient Matters" section at the bottom of this page (note: in the interest of full disclosure, that's my tutorial) explains the phenomenon in detail. Simple Lambert diffuse reflectance using interpolated normals effectively creates a more-or-less linear light across a triangle. A triangle with a different set of normals will have a different gradient. It will be C0 continuous (the colors along the edges are the same), but not C1 continuous (the colors along the two gradients change at different rates).
Human vision picks up on gradient differences like these and makes them stand out. Thus, we see them as hard-edges when in fact they are not.
The only real solution here is to either tessellate the mesh further or use normal maps created from a finer version of the mesh instead of interpolated normals.
You don't show your code, so its impossible to tell, but the most likely problem would be unnormalized normals in your fragment shader. The normals calculated in your vertex shader are interpolated, which results in vectors that are not unit length -- so you need to renormalize them in the fragment shader before you calculate your fragment lighting.