Busy Man: Google Sites and points in DX 10
I've been busy between work and not work !
Recently I tried Google Apps for my father's web site. I like the Google Sites thing which is an evolution of JotSpot, a company that Google bought over a year ago.
Very easy to set things up, yet I still have to change th HTML to do certain things. All those WYSIWYG editors seem broken to me. It's usually very hard to place a cursor when one really wants, or to get rid of some formatting. Very hard to get rid of a link being assigned as text is typed and incredibly complicated to extend an hyperlink effect to text added before an existing hyperlink.
I also never quite understood the logic by which things get selected. For example even in MS Word, when I go select a line of text, the selection will snap to include the newline character. Or sometimes I select some text from bottom to top and a whole chunk of text gets selected !
In Google Sites I can't find a way to select a whole table while changing hyperlinks for a picture it doesn't really work with what I have.
Still it's nice to setup sites quickly, though I wish Google Apps would allow Google Sites to take over the domain, rather than redirecting to some complicated URLs.
Speaking of Direct3D 10, I've been using it for a while now. Nothing too special, but it's interesting the tendency to shift rendering properties, such as texture sampling and blending from the engine to the HLSL code. On one side it's a pain to try take over those stats over the shader (see Shader Reflection). Some complex passages need to be done to for example replace texture addressing.. but then again, maybe those things should be translated into shader permutations: even when starting from one generic shader, perhaps different shaders should be created depending on the material properties.
Recently I also tried to render a scene using points rather than triangles. Much to my surprise, points rendering (on NVIDIA GT8800 Ultra) was about 3 times slower.
I'm told that moder graphics cards are optimized for triangles but still.. rendering points should be so much faster !!
My goal was to speedup rendering of objects that are rather complex but that are being projected distant enough so that triangles are no bigger than one pixel.
Ideally then one would also take into account camera focus to use larger points in place of triangles when they are going to be smoothed by out of focus post processing.
mumble mumble
- Davide's blog
- Login to post comments


points
Also I found that when you render points in point mode, they dont always render at the same screen pixel as triangle vertices in triangle mode... I suspect its because of different rasterization rules..
More on points
Actually the reason why points are slower is because graphics hardware are draws them as 1 pixel quads in screen space, so it is 12 verts per 3 points as opposed to 3 verts per triangle (one vert per triangle if using tri-strips).
I suspected something like
I suspected something like that.. well' that's pretty lame indeed !!!
indeed!! i think they assume
indeed!! i think they assume that people only use points for debugging...
Partial-derivate this !
I've heard also that the reason it's stuck with 2x2 pixels per-point is that it needs two values horizontally and vertically to calculate the partial derivatives to address the mipmapping. Indeed ,rendering points I'm not sure which mipmap I'd select.. I guess one that seems appropriate depending on the dimension of the object, because that's the next possible primitive, considering that a point supposedly has no area.. But then again, one could pick and area for a point with a scalar value, considering the triangles of the original mesh geometry (if any !).. only all those individual parameters start making the thing look complex..
hhhmm, texture mapped
hhhmm, texture mapped points??? what would be the point of that?? hohohohohoho!!!!
eheheh right.. I guess at
eheheh right.. I guess at that point (ah ah) one could just go with one color per point, unless one takes those points effectively as cubes, spheres, anything with an area..
Am I mistaken or DX10 limits
Am I mistaken or DX10 limits available texture formats to less than nothing? Considering memory usage and also porting things from actual game engines is going to be a pain in case it is true.
There are quite a few
There are quite a few formats being supported: DXGI_FORMAT.
There is no explicit palette concept, but that's long gone anyway.
ole'
565/555 formats are gone. 8
565/555 formats are gone. 8 bit formats have been altered (ARGB switched to RGBA) and "uniformed" (whatever it means). For paletted formats I stopped to care with introduction of shaders as it is easier with shaders. But for other formats I really see no reason for them to be gone as the hardware supports them (expanding 565 to 888 in hardware is basically free).
Therefore I really wonder what is the reason for Microsoft to do all this. Just to cause pain for developers and force them to rewrite everything from scratch (including also all the tools previosly used for development)?
PS. Of course by developers I do not mean Davide San, as he is right now iResearch dude and therefore he is supposed to reinvent wheels.
Graphics in games is
Graphics in games is what evolves the fastest, so I don't think many people are crying over those 16 bits color formats.
As for the various combinations of RGBA.. it's a mess as it's always been. To this day I can't tell what's the actual order of color components. I guess depending on the endianness they can be flipped ? But sometimes it seems to me that they are really just intended to be guessed by the developer 8)
KazX10, sounds interesting
KazX10, sounds interesting (if it's true): Tim Sweeney, Part 2: "DirectX 10 Is The Last Relevant Graphics API
It makes sense.. both Tim
It makes sense.. both Tim Sweeney and Carmack seem to be ready to go back to software rendering.. in the meantime NVidia seems to be going the way of SGI. Going from overall leader, shifting to software and then to plain IP holder.
ummmmmm
Any links/info on Carmack's
Any links/info on Carmack's comments? I haven't seen anything lately.