> On Dec. 2, 2012, 9:23 a.m., Celierra Darling wrote: > > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class2/deferred/sunLightSSAOF.glsl, line > > 132 > > <http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/612/diff/1/?file=8137#file8137line132> > > > > Out of curiosity, why a minimum, instead of ex. "(angrel>0) ? distrel : > > 0.0" ? Seems odd in cases of 0 < angrel < distrel. (No longer using the > > sphere assumption?) > > Tofu Buzzard wrote: > The reasoning was that as a sample candidate draws nearer to the sample > origin, the relevancy of its relative angle becomes overshadowed (so to speak > :)), given that it's not really a point but a sampling of something (i.e. the > sphere) with size whose extents are also increasingly blocking off the local > area. Conversely, all distances being equal, the occlusion of the sample > origin is proportional to the directness with which the sample candidate > blocks its normal (the direction from which it *would* otherwise be drawing > the most light). > So the two relevancies modulate either other, the 'correct' mixing of the > two in my head would be sqrt(angrel*distrel) but max(angrel,distrel) seemed a > touch more pleasing and probably quicker. > > Celierra Darling wrote: > Thanks! You may want to put in that you're not presuming uniform > incoming ambient light like the old code was. (Also, you forgot the sqrt in > your comment if you were intending it to say the same thing as you said here?)
Er, to be clearer, the old presumption was that ambient light would be falling onto the sample origin equally from all directions if not for the occluders that were sampled - thus no use of angrel. In hindsight, that seems a little dumb - to me, the way you're doing it is like using a better prior in the Bayesian sense. - Celierra ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/612/#review1288 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 11, 2013, 1:34 p.m., Tofu Buzzard wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/612/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 11, 2013, 1:34 p.m.) > > > Review request for Viewer. > > > Description > ------- > > Use a different scheme for weighting SSAO samples, apply SSAO before fog is > applied, fix a bug in the screen-space shadow/ssao smoothing offset where the > 'checkerboard' stipple had been refactored incorrectly, change some default > settings in line with the resulting visual changes. Disregard samples which > are being taken from outside the screen extents - eliminates spurious SSAO > fringe at screen edges at some angles. Micro-optimize the shadow co-ord > calculation. Also, improve comments a bit. :3 > > > This addresses bug VWR-29083. > http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-29083 > > > Diffs > ----- > > doc/contributions.txt UNKNOWN > indra/llrender/llshadermgr.h UNKNOWN > indra/llrender/llshadermgr.cpp UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/settings.xml UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class1/deferred/blurLightF.glsl UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class1/deferred/softenLightF.glsl > UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class1/deferred/sunLightSSAOF.glsl > UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class2/deferred/softenLightF.glsl > UNKNOWN > indra/newview/app_settings/shaders/class2/deferred/sunLightSSAOF.glsl > UNKNOWN > indra/newview/pipeline.cpp UNKNOWN > > Diff: http://codereview.secondlife.com/r/612/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Been running with this for months on an assortment of nvidia hardware, linux > only. > > > Thanks, > > Tofu Buzzard > >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
