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.


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!