Norman3D
January 17, 2017, 11:26pm
14
Yes i’m affraid that’s the only way i have found so far. Removing the unneccessary downsample passes should help to reduce the cost of blending (even if you manage to ommit the draw on them, the empty RT’s would remain to be queued for blending at the last stag, so they had to go), and the downsample pass does a 1/4 instead of 1/2 operation. You were actually pretty close to get the downsample right, but did not aligned the Extent property to project a 1/4 instead of 1/2 which is why the bloom was appeared at the top left quarter.
There apparently was no consequences of forcing the downsample pass to do the 1/4 scaling, that is why i believe this is actually doable. I however was hoping to find a way to just kick the current bloom out of the postprocess graph, then fill in with a low cost bloom solution which would do the downsampling on it’s own.
What do you really need? I mean, i hardly believe that a nice epic personel just hop in here one day and write an exhaustive documentation of these postprocess classes. So it seems to me that they just gave us this great engine, that you can either figure out by yourself or you’re already done with it.
Anyways PP is an interesting part of the engine that worth to look into more, and i will do just that
Bumping the thread! I’m also interested in performance optimizations for the bloom effect. Konflict, would it be possible for you to recap what exactly needs to be changed in the source so that only one downsample is used at 1/4 the resolution?