Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
6
Forward + with frustum culling
Forward + with 2.5D
Deferred
5
4
3
2
1
0
1024
2048
3072
4096
Number of Lights
Figure 5.10. Comparison of computation time for the light-culling stage of Forward+
using frustum culling only and frustum culling plus 2.5D culling by changing the number
of lights in the scene shown in Figure 5.7(a) . Computation time for the light accumu-
lation in compute-based deferred lighting is also shown.
previous scene, the proposed method could reduce the number of overlapping
lights on tiles.
Figure 5.10 compares the computation time for the light-culling stage for the
scene of Figure 5.1(a) as measured on an AMD Radeon HD 7970 GPU. This
comparison indicates the overhead of additional computation in 2.5D culling is
less than 10% of the time without the culling; when there are 1,024 lights, the
overhead is about 5%. The 2.5D culling is effective regardless of the number of
the light in the scene.
Figure 5.10 also contains the light accumulation time of the compute-based
deferred lighting. We can see that the light-culling stage with the 2.5D culling in
Forward+ is much faster than its counterpart in deferred lighting.
5.6.2 Shadowing from Many Lights
Shadows from a light can be calculated by a shadow map, with which we can get
occlusion from the light in the pixel shader when the forward-rendering pipeline
is used. We can calculate shadows in the same way for Forward+.
Because Forward+ is capable of using hundreds of lights for lighting, it is
natural to wonder how we can use all of those lights in the scene as shadow-
casting lights. One option is use a shadow map for each light. This solution is
not practical because shadow map creation—the cost of which is linear to scene
complexity—can be prohibitively expensive.
We can reduce the shadow map resolution, but this results in low-quality
shadows.
 
Search Nedrilad ::




Custom Search