1 Oct 2008

Must Read

2 important and related blog posts:

Shader Workflow - Why Shader Generators are Bad
Graphical shader systems are bad

Good arguments why shaders should be treated as code under programmer control, not as graphics assets under artist control.

4 comments:

eRiX said...

hehe :]
Yep quite controversial!
My opinion is: either extreme is bad. Absolute flexibility is crap, of course. Absolutely fixed and waiting months for shader features is crap as well. So I mean: plugged together Shaders have to be revised by a good programmer!

Isn't thats a nice "beetween the chairs" viewpoint? As I am between graphincs and technical stuff.

Coroknight said...

good read. and i'm glad you've started posting so regularly.

Floh said...

Yes, I think the best approach is to have a relatively small number of shader "layers" (like ReflectionLayer, LightmapLayer, AnimatedUvLayer, etc...) which are provided by the programmers and can be "stacked" by graphics artists. Each layer has a "cost" assigned and as soon as a "layer stack" becomes too expensive, an alarm goes off. It's a bit like in the old multitexture-days really... It's especially important that components like lighting/shadowing remain centralized and "invisible" to the graphics artists.

Coroknight said...

Here is something else you might be interested in. Direct3D 11!
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2008/09/17/directx-11-a-look-at-what-s-coming/