I must confess I am kind of stuck on the caves. There are at least half a dozen ways to do it and none of them is without any disadvantages or easy to implement. Caves are the hardest task I have encountered up to this moment. Path-finding is hard, but I am not at the stage where it becomes tricky because I still limit it to 2D. Lighting is hard, but this comes down mostly to my inexperience with it. The real technical challenge is coding around the hardware limits on the number of lights. This will probably be the biggest issue that I will ever encounter, but for now that spot is resolved for caves.
I also read a lot about the marching cubes/tetrahedrons method. It is a very interesting method that mostly comes up in research projects and looking extremely promising yet meanwhile abandoned projects. It is also almost always either poorly documented or using a far too scientific language. Let's face it: with the wealth of information out there, if you are having serious and lasting problems with midpoint-displacement or Perlin noise terrain, then one probable cause could be that you are not cut out for programming (or are just a beginner). But not so for marching cubes. While the basics are fairly simple, solving the very common ambiguity problem and making seamless LOD switching is hard as ******** *** ******* ****.
So while I am not done yet with caves, terrain has been improved. Selection works again, there is a single cell focus "cursor" and mouse movement now tracks the top of the surface, whatever that is, making it a lot easier to navigate and select stuff.
Until I manage to do something meaningful with the caves, I need to write about something, so it's filler time again. This time: shaders!
I get the impression that Irrlicht's support for shaders is not the best in the world. Here are some observations:
- Still can't get global variables to take on the value they are initialized with. I have to set these values manually from C++ code. Not a big issue, but I see code out there that does not need to do this. Today we live in pretty XNA dominated era: the C# game centered library for Windows and Xbox. From what I saw, I really like XNA. It is like DirectX on crack (the positive interpretation of that statement; not the addicted to drugs one)! You can find a ton of XNA resources out there and a lot of what I have learned about shaders comes from there.
- There is no support for the "technique" section in the shader sources. This is quite problematic because you can't just use a shader file to create post processing effects, deferred rendering and other composition techniques.
- You set shader variables (actually they are called constants) on a shader type basis, that is you need tot specify the name and know if the variable is a vertex shader or a pixel shader one. Setting a pixel shader variable as a vertex shader one (and vice-versa) generates an error and wrong rendering. But what if the variable is shared between the two shaders? Experimentally I found that I need to set them both for it to render correctly. Again, there is little to no indication found in Internet samples about having to do this.
These caveats not withstanding, I managed to get per-pixel Blinn-Phong lighting working, but only with one light:
Above you can see a sample. Bottom left is a shaded table. Bottom right a shaded table with transparency. flying higher you have a non-shaded non-lit model. You can't see it here very well, so let's take a look at the same scene from another view-point:
It is not really fair to compare a non-shaded non-lit model to a shaded one, but you saw how these models look with fixed pipeline lighting in the past, either using a two or tree lights setup. BrewStew suggested to make the table more bright for outside lighting conditions, and this is as bright as it gets:
Now this is per pixel lighting, meaning that every single visible pixel should be effected by lighting. In the future front-to-back ordering for rendering should be implemented to speed up the rendering. Light can be directional, point or spotlight shaped, and have ambient, diffuse, specular and emissive components (emissive is ignored for now because I don't need it and no use slowing down rendering even more). Materials also have diffuse, specular and ambient reaction values, together with a global ambient color. So the lighting model should be compatible with both the fixed pipeline lighting system of the GPU and things you can get in a 3D modeling program. I tested the values a lot. Global ambient is a little bit weird and so is specular. Specular not only creates those very shinny highlights that everybody want from specularity, but also globally shades the object based on the direction of lighting. This means that you can't put shininess to zero if you want no highlights, but instead need to set also the specular parameter of the material zero too or risk having the object rendered incorrectly. Playing around with the parameters I managed to get this very ugly and hard pseudo-self-shadowing to render:
Very ugly, but it is free, as in it does not take more time to render like this.
The problem is that this is an one light setup. Having object textured helps reduce the problems with such a setup and some shapes are better suited than others. But take a look at this untextured column to see the problems with a one light setup:
The side that faces the light has shading, but the shadowy areas are completely "flat".
I played a lot around with the parameters and got a lot of results, like this one:
Except for the one light limit there is one more problem: vertex colors are too washed out. Let's try and use a pure red vertex coloring and see how it looks:
The unshaded object is very open about its coloring, blasting away with its very explicit red coloring. The shaded object only takes a hint about its reddishness, becoming slightly pink. You can improve this with lowering the ambient material parameters:
The problem is that this makes the unlit areas of the object too dark:
A solution is to modify the color of the light and make it red:
Now you can play around with brightness:
This approach has one serious disadvantage: performance! This engine has been about one think from day one, and one thing only: huge amount of objects in scene with smooth performance. My engine does not care about coloring: it is free. You can have all objects in the scene have a single color or all a random color (from a limited pool of available colors). Even if you distribute colors with the worst possible mathematical probability to maximize color change, the engine doesn't care. Now, if I were to shine a different light on each object to color it using pixel shader the rendering performance would become dependent on the color distribution. Having just a few colors with large chunks colored the same would have a minor impact. Using the above mentioned worse case distribution would reduce performance. And I am not talking about 2-3 times lower performance. More like 30-100 times lower framerate. And this if we consider that rendering per-pixel lighting is free. Just having a large number of colors with worst case distribution and zero cost shaders would drop the performance a lot.
So instead I'll try to implement a dual light shader and see if we can get vertex colors to shine though like that. Let's see how that works out first.
But still, I managed to get some interesting results. Here is a metal shader I created:
And seen from above:
So... yeah... filler...