On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:03:11 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Command to run the system test:
>> `gradle -PFULL_TEST=true -PUSE_ROBOT=true systemTests:test --tests 
>> test.robot.test3d.PointLightIlluminationTest`
>> 
>> I ran all the tests, only above test failed:
>> Command to run all the system tests: `gradle -PFULL_TEST=true 
>> -PUSE_ROBOT=true systemTests:test`
>
> First of all, I found that the mistake was in the shortcut branch of the 
> shader: it was using the light direction instead of the vector to the light 
> (incident ray), so in the code I need to replace `dot(n, -lightDir)` with 
> `dot(n, -l)`, like is done in the full computation branch. Then the test 
> passes with the `0` input for no-attenuation. Thanks.
> 
> Then I looked at the computation some more and I found something in the 
> computation of the specular component. According to the theory, both in 
> online sources and in the `PhongMaterial` class doc, the computation should 
> be:
> `R . V` where `V` is the vector to the eye/cam and `R` is the reflection 
> vector computed by `R = 2(N . L)N - L`, or using the 
> [reflect](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/direct3dhlsl/dx-graphics-hlsl-reflect)
>  HLSL function, `R = -reflect(N, L)`. So the shader files should look 
> something like this:
> 
> float3 refl = reflect(l, n);
> s = ... dot(-refl, e); // e is the vector to the eye, like V
> 
> However, looking at the shader files, [already from 
> legacy](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/c420248b9b459efcfbd3657170d9be0b96b5fb38/modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/native-prism-d3d/hlsl/psMath.h),
>  the vectors are switched:
> 
> float3 refl = reflect(e, n);
> s = ... dot(-refl, l);
> 
> It looks like the specular computation was wrong from the start.
> 
> I tested the visuals on the `master` branch before and after swapping the `l` 
> and `e` vectors and I see no difference in the specular reflection. Rather 
> odd. Will need to look into this more.
> 
> The same mistakes are coded into the glsl shaders too, so I should fix the 
> one you found at the very least.

@kevinrushforth maybe you can take a look at this too.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/789

Reply via email to