> De: "Frederic Bouvier"
>
> I have in my Rembrandt TODO list ...
BTW, this is not meant to refrain anybody to follow
this route or another ;-)
Regards,
-Fred
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. De
> De: "James Turner"
>
> On 4 Oct 2012, at 10:02, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> > The cockpit is the biggest potential gain, but due to the near
> > camera - far camera thingy, I don't see how this can be done on
> > the level of editing effect files - maybe a suitable edit of the
> > camera group co
On 4 Oct 2012, at 10:02, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> The cockpit is the biggest potential gain, but due to the near camera - far
> camera thingy, I don't see how this can be done on the level of editing
> effect files - maybe a suitable edit of the camera group code can pull that
> off, but I have
> I am pretty confident (and hope to test, but it sounds like you might
> beat me to it) that for either the classical (non-Rembrandt) render,
> doing a depth-write *only* pass of the entire scene will be a net win.
> (Again assuming the fragment shader is the bottleneck). Since this will
>
On 4 Oct 2012, at 07:42, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> What I do with the trees is render just the opaque bits early on as white
> with essentially no light and fog computations to set the z-buffer and
> discard all transparent pixels in the first pass, then render the rest in
> detail with lequal co
On Thursday, October 04, 2012 06:42:30 Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > You know that rendering a transparent object twice alter its
> > transparency.
> > Of course, you can avoid to render it in the color buffer using write
> > mask in one pass.
>
> What I do with the trees is render just the opaque bits
> You know that rendering a transparent object twice alter its
> transparency.
> Of course, you can avoid to render it in the color buffer using write
> mask in one pass.
What I do with the trees is render just the opaque bits early on as white with
essentially no light and fog computations t
> De: "Renk Thorsten"
>
> > To summarize, all objects having a pass of render bin -1 are
> > rendered before any object having a render bin 1. If an object have two
> > passes, it is rendered twice, once with the objects of the same render bin
> > than the first pass, once with the objects of the
> To summarize, all objects having a pass of render bin -1 are rendered
> before any object having a render bin 1. If an object have two passes,
> it is rendered twice, once with the objects of the same render bin than
> the first pass, once with the objects of the same render bin than the
> second
Hi Thorsten,
> De: "Renk Thorsten"
>
> I'm trying to understand why clouds can obscure hills and hills can
> obscure clouds properly.
>
> My individual bits of knowledge are:
>
> * clouds are drawn from outside in, because they are in a depth
> sorted bin, and this is why clouds obscure other
I'm trying to understand why clouds can obscure hills and hills can obscure
clouds properly.
My individual bits of knowledge are:
* clouds are drawn from outside in, because they are in a depth sorted bin, and
this is why clouds obscure other clouds properly.
* hills are not drawn from outsid
11 matches
Mail list logo
