9

Yes, occlusion culling is still worth it. At minimum, a draw call that you skipped due to culling is a draw call that doesn't have to run the vertex shader. Triangle count goes up as quickly as GPUs start supporting more triangles, because why not? With unified architectures, vertex shaders use the exact same hardware that pixel shaders do, so every vertex ...


8

This quote sounds like it may relate to ambient occlusion, which is the shielding of a surface from the light approaching from all angles. Direct lighting requires that the light source have a straight line route to the surface being lit, whereas ambient lighting is the result of light approaching along many different paths. Imagine the whole of a cloudy ...


7

Given that I didn't miss anything, you can probably cut this down to a problem in the 2D space. Viewing onto the plane defined by the center points of the spheres and your camera origin, the scene looks like this: The spheres become circles with the center points $C_1$ and $C_2$, and the intersection circle is now only 2 points with only the closer one $P$ ...


3

This can be done analytically at least for polygonal meshes. You can convert points into polar coordinates and project on a sphere. Edges form planes that pass through projection circles center forming circles on the sphere. These lines are all great circles, because they must pass sphere center. Great circles form linear interpolations in polar coordinates. ...


2

It depends on the game style just how much culling is needed. For instance first person shooters benefit from this a lot, having a lot of stuff in the frustrum at any one time, while an overhead view RTS does not since you are effectively looking at a plane with things on that plane. Even in an RTS though, doing a "depth only render" to eliminate overdraw ...


2

Congratulations for having progressed so far. Context, first analysis Your explanation: I am using a z-buffer, with one stored length to a wall for the x coordinate of each ray. Means the z-buffer is currently one-dimension. One dimension is enough in the first case (your first two images) but not in the second case. To see why, imagine that the red tomato ...


1

The straightforward solution is to simple not render the high poly model at all. Have a lower detail model that you can switch to once the model is too far away for it to make a difference. There is no point in rendering 20 triangles that all end up in the same pixel. Next option is to partition the model and then cull the individual parts. You can also ...


1

I've also spent a good amount of time thinking about a solution for this problem. It seems like one those fundamental mismatches of taking a sparser, lower frequency structure (probe mesh, even if augmented with depth map) and lighting surfaces per pixel which themselves are occluders. If you look at the SIGGRAPH'17 Precomputed lighting in CoD:IW (http://...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible