Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Volumetric shadows in Jedi Outcast
PostPosted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:29 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:47 am
Posts: 10158
Location: Between 32nd Notes
I just replayed Jedi Outcast and decided to max out the settings since I have a much better machine now than when I last played it.

But when I turn on volumetric shadows I notice that the shadows on characters, especially thier faces, are very sharp and map to the polygons precisely instead of a smooth shadow. (I'm using a Radeon 9600 Pro BTW.)

Is this normal for this game and/or video card?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Volumetric Shadows Rendering Errors In Jedi Outcast...?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:28 am 
8086
8086

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:47 pm
Posts: 32
Location: USA, CA, LA.
Yes this is quite very normal. :)

The volumetric shadows you refer to are actually called "stencil shadow volumes", consisting of 1-32 bits cached into the z-buffer unit known as a "stencil buffer" for your graphics card's memory to store and process, and is a graphical alogrithim technique of processing shadow calculations in real time(so shadows can cast onto and back upon the environment and occlude/interact with [per-pixel]dynamic lights in real-time). Stencil Shadows are usually sharp edged by default, creating an ugly appearance.

Aesthetically pleasing soft, indistinct edged stencil shadows are feasibile, but not without certain cheap hacks and a MASSIVE performance expense. It's not difficult to achieve either.

All you have to do is extrude two volumes: one for the inside where the shadow is solid black, and one for the outside where the shadow fades to white. Between the two you interpolate from black at the edge of the inner volume to white at the edge of the outer volume around the silohoutte.

Granted, this will require ~2.5 times the computational power of what's currently required, but it would certainly be a cool novelty and original technique in contrast to the current hard edged, plastic and ugly like looking stencil volumes.

Well that performance hit in stencil volumes is really because of such a huge graphical fill-rate count it requires to spend. Very fill-rate computationally intensive indeed.

As Jedi Outcast is powered by the Quake 3 Arena engine, early in Quake 3 developement it was originally destined to ship with radiosity based specular dynamic shadowmaps (for dynamic lighting) and stencil volumes (for shadows) but due to steep hardware requirements was tooken out.


As for games based on the Quake 3 Arena engine, not all developers of these games choose to support or worry about hidden graphical options.

So if you plan to enable stencil volumes for shadow rendering via other Quake 3 Arena engine games, you can't always anticipate desirable results(but rather erreneous visuals) due to buggy shadow volume support. Take RTWC(shadow volumes float above the character and stick like a laser onto the environment) for an example. As with MOD, there are plenty of volume rendering errors there as well(stencil volumes not properly casted/placed). As for the Jedi Outcast issue you're describing when enabling stencil shadows, that's ugly but not unexpected.

Next-generation games like DOOM 3 and Chronicles of Riddick make great use of per-pixel lighting, DOT 3 blending, and stencil volumes for real-time lighting and shadowing environment wise. Due to stencil volume z depth pass and z depth fail triangle optimizations, a decent frame-rate and no visual artifacts can come abound in these games with stencil volumes enabled. But what is DOT 3 blending for? Normal and bump mapping, basically, for specular(shiny) and a rather more rough, richly detailed, high-res, and realistic 3D packed appearance to textures without a performance hit.

The TNT+ level of cards support the stencil buffer anyways,(not at a decent frame-rate unless you're talking a GeForce 1 card or higher due to geometry acceleration abilities via HW T & L small engine)

So there...:cool:

Wester547


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:30 pm 
Smithfield
Smithfield
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:47 am
Posts: 10158
Location: Between 32nd Notes
Thanks Wester547.

Very thorough answer and appreciated. I was worried my card was flakey or something.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Volumetric Shadows Rendering Errors In Jedi Outcast...?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:48 am 
Sharptooth
Sharptooth
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:29 am
Posts: 379
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Wester547 wrote:
Yes this is quite very normal. :)

The volumetric shadows you refer to are actually called "stencil shadow volumes", consisting of 1-32 bits cached into the z-buffer unit known as a "stencil buffer" for your graphics card's memory to store and process, and is a graphical alogrithim technique of processing shadow calculations in real time(so shadows can cast onto and back upon the environment and occlude/interact with [per-pixel]dynamic lights in real-time). Stencil Shadows are usually sharp edged by default, creating an ugly appearance.

Aesthetically pleasing soft, indistinct edged stencil shadows are feasibile, but not without certain cheap hacks and a MASSIVE performance expense. It's not difficult to achieve either.

All you have to do is extrude two volumes: one for the inside where the shadow is solid black, and one for the outside where the shadow fades to white. Between the two you interpolate from black at the edge of the inner volume to white at the edge of the outer volume around the silohoutte.

Granted, this will require ~2.5 times the computational power of what's currently required, but it would certainly be a cool novelty and original technique in contrast to the current hard edged, plastic and ugly like looking stencil volumes.

Well that performance hit in stencil volumes is really because of such a huge graphical fill-rate count it requires to spend. Very fill-rate computationally intensive indeed.

As Jedi Outcast is powered by the Quake 3 Arena engine, early in Quake 3 developement it was originally destined to ship with radiosity based specular dynamic shadowmaps (for dynamic lighting) and stencil volumes (for shadows) but due to steep hardware requirements was tooken out.


As for games based on the Quake 3 Arena engine, not all developers of these games choose to support or worry about hidden graphical options.

So if you plan to enable stencil volumes for shadow rendering via other Quake 3 Arena engine games, you can't always anticipate desirable results(but rather erreneous visuals) due to buggy shadow volume support. Take RTWC(shadow volumes float above the character and stick like a laser onto the environment) for an example. As with MOD, there are plenty of volume rendering errors there as well(stencil volumes not properly casted/placed). As for the Jedi Outcast issue you're describing when enabling stencil shadows, that's ugly but not unexpected.

Next-generation games like DOOM 3 and Chronicles of Riddick make great use of per-pixel lighting, DOT 3 blending, and stencil volumes for real-time lighting and shadowing environment wise. Due to stencil volume z depth pass and z depth fail triangle optimizations, a decent frame-rate and no visual artifacts can come abound in these games with stencil volumes enabled. But what is DOT 3 blending for? Normal and bump mapping, basically, for specular(shiny) and a rather more rough, richly detailed, high-res, and realistic 3D packed appearance to textures without a performance hit.

The TNT+ level of cards support the stencil buffer anyways,(not at a decent frame-rate unless you're talking a GeForce 1 card or higher due to geometry acceleration abilities via HW T & L small engine)

So there...:cool:

Wester547


Damn. So why aren't you [PC] yet? Somebody nominate this man for [PC].


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 5:51 am 
Smithfield
Smithfield
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:47 am
Posts: 10158
Location: Between 32nd Notes
BRU_ce wrote:
Damn. So why aren't you [PC] yet? Somebody nominate this man for [PC].


I second that.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group