Would slope bias help with cases like this? http://i.imgur.com/SLTGKHs.png
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Dynamic shadows artifacts
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jonimake View PostWould slope bias help with cases like this? http://i.imgur.com/SLTGKHs.png
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zeblote View PostYes. Fixing things like that is what slope bias is for.
Comment
-
[MENTION=738]Daniel.Wenograd[/MENTION], Yes I remember we had to manually download resource compiler form the thread and copy it to it's location.
Regarding DFAO, CryEngine 2 (2007) had sky occlusion, very cheap and clean, without any artifacts regardless of mesh scale. http://docs.cryengine.com/display/SD...ient+Occlusion
And now CryEngine 5 has large scale AO + SVOGI. http://docs.cryengine.com/download/a...5668000&api=v2
What I don't understand is, Why Cryengine with 16 landscape layers, POM everywhere with 256 steps, Dynamic lights, Volumetric Lighting, Volumetric fog, Volumetric Clouds, Dynamic shadows with 7 cascades, Real time G.I, Large scale AO, SSDO and all that stuff, still runs -faster- than UE4.
I'm not pro crytek or pro cryengine, in fact I have very opposite thoughts with crytek. But when they do something with engine, they do it properly. But here when you say why this is slow, most answers are like Ooooch! you have 10 dynamic lights you should cut them down or turn off shadow casting! But nobody thinks about the fact that 14,716 dynamic lights were placed throughout Crysis 3's 8 levels, 54.55% of them were shadow casting (think about the numbers), meaning out of 14,716 dynamic lights around 8027 of them were shadow casting lights, divided by 8 levels it means 1 map had around -1000- shadow casting lights and -827- non shadow casting lights. In the same game, in an interior, -150- dynamic lights cost only 4ms and that's on an outdated GTX 680 that's way below the bottom of the barrel today. Just think about the numbers.
With that said, I have no idea why Epic does not try to improve dynamic lighting or even don't want to acknowledge there's anything wrong with it, let alone the improvement. At least can someone from Epic leave a reply on this 4 year old shadowing problem.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jonimake View PostWell then I'm quite astonished, since everything suffers from it. Directional lights look particularly ugly on relatively clean flat surfaces when the surface and light direction are close to perpendicular. http://i.imgur.com/pXwuHX2.png
Comment
-
Difference between using and not using slope bias is kinda appreciable.
Reference shot with a typical depth bias setting:
Removing acne from unshadowed surfaces with slope bias without increasing depth bias:
Removing acne from unshadowed surfaces using depth bias only for comparison:
Notice how the small sphere starts peter-panning and its shadow becomes smaller than it should be on the last shot, and compare it with a slight distortion near contact point on a second shot.
This is pretty much brief gist of all the thread up to this point, and as a conclusion I'd add that being able to adjust both slope bias and depth bias separately for each cascade is desirable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zeblote View PostHow did you take the screenshots?
Here is corresponding implementation and roughly the same test case for UE4(scale of objects might be a bit different):
Reference shot in UE4 with default depth bias setting (0.5) :
UE4 Depth bias(0.5), Slope Bias (10.0) :
UE4 Depth bias(4.0), Slope Bias (0.0) :
In shot 2 and 3 Slope Bias and Depth Bias respectively were increased until artifacts on background wall were not distinguishable anymore.
Once again, the shadow shape change is quite noticeable with same visual results between shots 2 and 3.
maybe you could upload a pull request with this?
Here is an answerhub feature request in the meantime.Last edited by Deathrey; 06-14-2017, 02:24 PM.
Comment
Comment