Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

DarkBASIC Professional Discussion / Blooms, depth of field, and motion blur

Author
Message
Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 04:24
Are these possible in dbpro?
Really just concerned about blooms, it'd be a nice effect to have.
QuothTheRaven
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 06:18
define a bloom.

Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 07:58
@Tangent

"Are these possible in dbpro?"

Yes. You would need an appropiate shader to do it but they are possible.

I have a semi-working motion blur shader at the moment. I need to implement the lighting part of it better and experiment around still but I'm planning on releasing it to the community when I'm done.
las6
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Sep 2002
Location: Finland
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 12:06
don't you need 2.0 pixel shader support for those effects?
Bloom is a nice effect for sure.

Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 15:27
... what is a "bloom" effect?
as for shader specs, everything is possible to achieve in 1.x
however 1.4 easier because it has alot more builtin ops for things and better definition (1.3 for GF3 compliance)
2.0 just futher adds to this as it just simplfies everything futher with more op codes and data interaction.

Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 16:35
http://www.hardwaremania.com/reviews_eng/3dmark03/3dm03-2.shtml

Has a few examples. A bloom is like a realtime glow effect, or like light reflecting in metal... it's a nice effect.

Now, shaders in Dbpro, is there a shader 'editor' out there, or are they done in script/basic/whatever?
David T
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 23rd Oct 2003 19:46
http://www.davidtattersall.me.uk/db/images/spacertssc6.jpg

Does the planet in the above have a bloom effect? If so I can give you a shader for that.

Fishie says:
"Those who fail to prepare prepare to fail"
"Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obdeniency of the fools"
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:00
What an odd bunch of people, i've never in my life heard it called that before.
most of the time i've heard this referred to surface/light accentuation, sometimes an ambient glow. The only thing i thought Bloom stood for whas when a flow does it and spreads its petals.
street terminology pisses me off big time.

They're all post processing, processes David. Once the scene is rendered you'll then go over it with the shader editing the final rendering. For Surface Accenting all you do is take the highlights of the scene, Multiply them and Blur them out replacing the overlay back. It's not even close to as a good a Reflective Shining, its better for Soft Lit area's - for just accentuating the light is there rather than for showing a reflected light. Especially if the scene isn't using GI because it just looks weird ...

The accenting the Space Ship for example looks weird and pretty tacky (infact the entire Proxycon ship looks crap and the players do too), however in the Mother Nature demo it looks pretty awesome and just makes the scene

Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:09
@las6

"don't you need 2.0 pixel shader support for those effects?"

No you can do motion blur with 1.1(the majority of that shader is really in the vertex part not the pixel part actually).

As for glow, just check in the directx 9 sdk. There is a tool that comes along with it called "effect edit". There are 4 shaders that work with effect edit in the DXSdk. One of them is a glow effect and it runs just fine on my geforce 4 ti 4200(which doesn't support 2.0).

Bloom can also, apparently be done with 1.1. Just in 3 passes(I think. The article that was in the link above posted by Tangent said so but I haven't looked at any code for it so I can't be sure.)
Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:12
@Raven

"however 1.4 easier because it has alot more builtin ops for things"

I thought you didn't like ps 1.4.

" and better definition (1.3 for GF3 compliance)"

I'll bite my tongue on this one. I'm feeling nice today.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:27
i don't like 1.4, it doesn't mean it hasn't got better definition than 1.1

and what exactly are you biting your tounge over, i know that 1.4 and 1.3 are different but GF3 doesn't support 1.4 - and 1.3 still have alot more op codes than 1.1

i'm sick of this s**t from you people, firstly DON'T simply repeat what i've said as if you posted it first ... secondly my preferences have nothing to do with the technical abilities of something, it has everything to do with what i feel more comfortable using.

and yes for a Glow effect in 1.x it takes 3 passes - Multiply, Blur Horizontal, Blur Vertical. This is because you cannot apply the pixel changes in RT in 1.x, you must wait until the current pass is complete for all the pixels then work on the next level.

Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:38 Edited at: 24th Oct 2003 01:44
Random screenshot with an example of the effect I found with a google search.
Not so much street terminology as what nvidia called it when they were showing it around, and it seems to have stuck, all the artists/programmers where I work just call it a bloom effect. Yeah, it get's overused a lot right now. I, in particular, want it for holographic vidscreens to have some ambient glow to them. Tacky, but it'll look neet in the scene. Also, has anyone got corona's working on lights? I'm all about cheap, cool looking, FX.

Regardless of what you call it, if someone has a working shader, I'd love to take a look at it. In fact, any working shaders at all while I wait for my delivery.

Anyone thought to make a shader editor for DBPro? It'd be a great artist tool. You could bake out your layers in max, assemble them in the shader editor, and apply them in game or what have you.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 01:51
might throw something online later when i get home ... i've not heard it called blooming at nvidia either - and worked for them most of the past year.

Probably more likely a buzzword concocked within Cgshaders.org, there are quite a few i've seen come outta of there.
hate the buzzwords for things, especially as over the net - one persons says something wrong then the next person says it and before you know it everyone is using the wrong bloody word for it.

Facet/Flat shading is a very good example of this, so mane people claim that flat shading is what technically Facet Shading is ... and quite frankly its annoying to hear because Flat shading is actually something totally different. But if you call Cartoon Shading a Flat Shaded model people go "No thats a Toon Shaded model", but it isn't the outline effect with flat colour is a Cell Shade effect ... the Flat Colour is known as Flat Shading as the Shade is a single FLAT Colour there is zero depth. Not because its Angle of Shading is 0°

Sorry but, if people don't use the real names for things then it just completely pisses me off.

Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 03:19
@Raven

"and what exactly are you biting your tounge over, i know that 1.4 and 1.3 are different but GF3 doesn't support 1.4 - and 1.3 still have alot more op codes than 1.1"

You said Geforce 3 for 1.3 compliance. Geforce 3 cards don't support 1.3, only 1.1. That was what I was biting my tongue over not that 1.3 is different than 1.4(obviously, why else would they be different version numbers if they weren't?). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you ment Geforce 4 and that you had simply made a typo. I'm not out to correct every little mistake you make.

"i'm sick of this s**t from you people, "

What s**t? I didn't say anything negative. Hell, I was being nice.

"firstly DON'T simply repeat what i've said as if you posted it first "

Why not? If I didn't do this then how would you know what I was talking about specifically? And in what way is quoting what you said acting as if I said it first? I seriously don't understand how you could view this as that. I mean, if it were true, and I was pretending that I said it first, then that would make for some really wierd conversations because it would look like I was arguing with myself.

"secondly my preferences have nothing to do with the technical abilities of something, it has everything to do with what i feel more comfortable using."

Fair enough. (I bet you wouldn't have know what I was talking about just now without the quoting you would you )
Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 03:23
@Tangent

"It'd be a great artist tool. You could bake out your layers in max, assemble them in the shader editor, and apply them in game or what have you. "

If you use 3DS then you might be interested in this.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/IO_3dsmaxCgFXPlugin.html
Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 04:15
Very cool.
Very well might have origionated there, Raven, but that's how it was explained to us. Blame the rep.
Could be worse, he could have been like the karma/math engine guy and spoke in this monotone voice, kinda like the teacher from the wonder years.
The wonders of tech demo's.

Nothing to get too bent out of shape over, just another tool in the aresnal of artists to irritate programmers, and you know that's what we live for.

Anyways, very, very cool link. As soonas I get my new home system up and working, I'll have to install that. Currently, I don't have a card or computer capable of showing the effects.
Soon though.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 04:30
sorry neo... i'm just getting sick and tired of everyone pulling apart my posts recently, specifically conserning the graphics cards.

the GF3 is capable of PS1.3 the GF4(ti) is capable of PS1.4
your welcome to ask anyone to check thier GF3 card if you don't believe me.

that said it doesn't matter as no one uses 1.3 over 1.1 anyways because it is nvidia only.
1.1 / 1.4 / 2.0 are the currently used specs

that said if you use a DarkBASIC-FX (HLSL .FX) then really the specifications matter less unless your actually using ASM within it. there is a good example of Field of Depth within the DirectX SDK, and actually you could extremely easily adapt the 2.0 Seven Lookups to create a very nice motion blur if you cap the FPS
Get the shader to take every 5th frame from each second (60fps cap)
would turn out nicely.

Glow Effects & Accentuation is also a very simple effect to achieve.
For glow use the texture alpha - For accentuation your using a greyscale multiplication of the texture & diffuse colour, Blur Horizontal, Blur Vertical ... et voila a nice soft Accentuation/Glow.

wednesday
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Apr 2003
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 04:36
Just to clarify things bloom, otherwise known as specular bloom (and many other things), isn't street terminology but a proper way of defining "ambient glow"(I've never heard it called this).

It's not a natural effect, it's a photographic technique, or style, whatever you want to call it.

It's not wrong. Anyone with real experience with 3d rendering would have heard of it. I've been doing it for years in my non-realtime work.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 04:52
well i've majoritively heard it called Surface Accentuation when your refer to it within 3D ... this is within the Game/Machinima/CG circles that i happen to be within.
Perhaps it is a Specular Bloom in photography, but i've never heard of it within my line of work.

wednesday
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Apr 2003
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 05:02
That's fair enough. Many ideas are adapted from photography and film and renamed.

Game programmers probably like more technically correct ways of saying things.

I guess whatever lingo you use depends on your background.

I wasn't trying to doubt your expertise. Apologies if it came across that way. Working for nVidia would be a buzz.
las6
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Sep 2002
Location: Finland
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 09:17
oh great, another good thread ruined by a single, annoying person who doesn't know what bloom effect is? I mean, that's been on for years now.. and longer in the photography and film area.

I'm not gonna start arguing about the bloom effect, as you don't seem to know what it even is. And I'd rather see this thread without your posts.

hmm, odd. I remember Depth of Field working for me (although it did look crappy) but not the bloom effect, so I assumed it was 2.0 shader. Guess there are alternative ways.
I did check the DX9 SDK last night, and it had some neat examples. Wonder if those are ready-to-use shaders. Oh, and the effect edit program.. can I use that to create DBpro compatible HLSL (.fx) effects? at least it opens some of them...

Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 09:21
@Raven

"sorry neo... i'm just getting sick and tired of everyone pulling apart my posts recently, specifically conserning the graphics cards."

Its alright. We all get a little stressed sometimes.

"the GF3 is capable of PS1.3 the GF4(ti) is capable of PS1.4
your welcome to ask anyone to check thier GF3 card if you don't believe me."

I'm debating with myself whether I should argue with you on this or not. I have a Geforce 4 ti 4200 and I know for a fact that it doesn't support PS 1.4. I don't, however, have or ever had, a Geforce 3. So I think I'll take your advice and post here asking if anyone could use PS 1.3 on Geforce 3 hardware.

To make it easy, I'll include a shader and some source code for everyone to test. So here is the shader:



Instructions:

Copy and paste this into Notepad and save it as "testShader". It doesn't matter if you rename it to .fx or leave it as .txt so don't worry about it. Next, copy the following code in the source button and paste it into DBPro. Make sure you have the correct path set to
the shader in question else it won't work. If your hardware isn't capable of PS 1.3 you should see a gray sphere. Just to show that it isn't a problem with my code, comment out the line that says "PixelShader = compile ps_1_3 main();" and uncomment the line underneath it(basically the only change that has been made is that the shader is now being compiled to the 1.1 spec and not the 1.3 spec). After you have made that change save and try the code again. You should see a green sphere.

"that said it doesn't matter as no one uses 1.3 over 1.1 anyways because it is nvidia only. "

I don't have a Radeon so if any users would like to test my code(and it should run first time for them because the first Radeon card that was capable of shaders was the 8500 which came out six months later than the Geforce 3 so it supports PS 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 last time I checked) feel free. Though I will credit you with with one thing, you are right that nobody uses 1.3. I've yet to see an example where it was used instead of 1.1.

"that said if you use a DarkBASIC-FX (HLSL .FX) then really the specifications matter less unless your actually using ASM within it."

Ok.

"there is a good example of Field of Depth within the DirectX SDK, and actually you could extremely easily adapt the 2.0 Seven Lookups to create a very nice motion blur if you cap the FPS
Get the shader to take every 5th frame from each second (60fps cap)
would turn out nicely. "

I know, but thanks for the info anyway. I'll look into trying to get that to work with DBPro later on when I have the time.

"Glow Effects & Accentuation is also a very simple effect to achieve.
For glow use the texture alpha - For accentuation your using a greyscale multiplication of the texture & diffuse colour, Blur Horizontal, Blur Vertical ... et voila a nice soft Accentuation/Glow."

There is a Glow shader in the DX9 SDK that is next on my list of shaders that I want to get working in DBPro. If I ever get it ported then I'll probably post it here for every one to use.
Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 09:23
@las6

"Oh, and the effect edit program.. can I use that to create DBpro compatible HLSL (.fx) effects? "

Yes, though I wouldn't to hasty to condemn someone for not knowing what bloom is when you aren't so knowledgeable about shaders yourself.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 09:36
Neo you must have a cut down 4x00ti then, because mine have ps1.4 and quite a few others (suchas Bulleyes) also have which there are screenshots on the site that prove it.

EffectEdit will produce Ready to use .fx shaders for DBP, infact it is currently the ONLY shader program that you'll be guarenteed the .fx will work with pro (or DirectX come to that matter).
There are known issues with Rendermonkey which aparently ATi aren't being particularly forthcomming in thier helpful information to fixx. CgFX Viewer, i've not yet come across anything that won't work straight off ... but i know how the compiler for it works and who made it so i can guarentee there are bugs in it

Quote: "There is a Glow shader in the DX9 SDK that is next on my list of shaders that I want to get working in DBPro. If I ever get it ported then I'll probably post it here for every one to use. "

Must be the 9.02 SDK, i'm still using the 9.00 because it has the best compatibility. Doesn't have a Glow effect, however the Cg Toolkit 1.1 does which even comes with a PDF on howto achieve the effect.

Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 24th Oct 2003 11:31 Edited at: 24th Oct 2003 11:32
@Raven

"Neo you must have a cut down 4x00ti then,"

Its a Geforce 4 ti 4200 128mb.

" because mine have ps1.4 and quite a few others (suchas Bulleyes) also have which there are screenshots on the site that prove it. "

I'd like to see that.

[edited to add]

Yes I have the 9.02 sdk.
Chenak
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th Oct 2003 14:51
ive got a gf4ti4600 128MB, no ps1.4 support for me

Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny...
Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2003 19:41
Hmmm. are .fx nvidia only? IE will not work on my radeon 9700 at work?
I'm currently putting together a new system for home, and am choosing hardware, I was going to go with the ati, basically because we've put them through a lot of testing at work.

For that matter, if I make effects, I'd like them to work on both the major cards. Ya'll seem to be the best to ask over this, so I'll interupt the current argument and see if I can drag it down to a "Ati vs Nvidia" one.
Just kidding, just need to know if the .fx will work on both cards, if they don't, is there a shader effect type that will?
Big Arth
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jan 2003
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2003 21:59
i have a geforce4 and neither the 1.3 or 1.1 entries in the .fx effect work for me.
David T
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 25th Oct 2003 22:27
I have a geForce 4800ti and it works for me

Fishie says:
"Those who fail to prepare prepare to fail"
"Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obdeniency of the fools"
Neophyte
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 00:42
@Tangent

"Hmmm. are .fx nvidia only?"

Nope. You can use them on both Nvidia and ATI cards(the ones that support shaders anyway).

@Inferno

"ive got a gf4ti4600 128MB, no ps1.4 support for me "

Thats what I thought. Don't know why Raven thinks it has 1.4. I even think we argued about this before.::sigh::

@Big Arth

"i have a geforce4 and neither the 1.3 or 1.1 entries in the .fx effect work for me. "

Is it a MX? The Geforce 4 MX series don't have any Pixel shaders whatsoever.

@David89

"I have a geForce 4800ti and it works for me "

Sweet.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 02:31
Well i have a Creative Blaster4 4800 Titanium ... maybe its only the 4800's that have it, or maybe its the more expensive versions.
There were alot of ti's released that the hw developers cut down, but i wouldn't of thought like that.

in DBP and DirectX for Pixel Version i get 1.421 or something like that
the Whitepapers on the cards said that the entire 4x00 range supports 1.4 - as i no longer have my 4200 (gave it to my brother) I can't physically check again.

no matters though, still have this little demo to write using the Accents, DepthField & Motion Blurr
Got home installed 52.16 Milkshape stopped working, tried to go back and it screwed XP - which seems odd.


To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!
Tangent
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 17:12
Cool. I'll probably go with a 9700 then. Call me overly cautious, but we've been running them through the grinder at work, and they're holding up fine.
Thanks for the info.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 18:29
9700 / 9700PRO?
it makes a HUGE difference which one you go for...
the 9700 is slower than the FX5700 whereas the 9700PRO is slightly quicker.

However thier prices are around $150 difference, and the FX does have more features.

if you wanted a fast Radeon withn get the 9800XT, if you need it on the budget then the 9600XT ... however the 9600XT is still more expensive than the FX5700 and is also a bit slower.
Plus compatibility issues with older and 2d titles.

unless your going for the top end 9800XT/PRO personally i'd strongly suggest the FX5700 instead.


To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!
Genesis Rage
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 18:44
well as you can see i have a 9800pro... but ive read this thread and there is a lot of numbers... 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.4... WHAT DOES ALL THAT MEAN... im new to the shader thing... and where do you find these numbers?

==Main Computer==
Athlon XP 3000+, 1024mb, Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb 8xAGP, XP Pro
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 18:54
get maximum pixel shader version()
get maximum vertex shader version()

both should give you '2' as the answer... the bigger the number the more complex and better shaders your card can use.
(makes the developers life easier, nothing more than that really atm)


To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!
Genesis Rage
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 18:58
if i make something using 2.0 shaders... they have to have 2.0 shaders right?... also is there a way to to only use like 1.3 version... so it is compatible on more systems?

==Main Computer==
Athlon XP 3000+, 1024mb, Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb 8xAGP, XP Pro
Cassi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 19:03 Edited at: 26th Oct 2003 19:04
@Raven

I've read many post in the past complaining about you and trying to get you kicked off the forum and yet, nothing i had read suggested that should be the case. I've read many threads where you have helped people.

That aside. Reading your posts above I think you are an arrogent stuck up son of a CU#T and you deserve many bad things to happen to you.

I hope all of your children have tiny d!cks - including the girls.
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 19:06
yup, its all about what your use and how you design them.

for FX you declare what pixel and vertex shader version you use upon compile, infact you can add in lines which will compile based on what you input into the shader itself.
Kinda like a mini-program.

whereas an ASM Shader requires you to make a new shader for each version.

1.1 is the most comptible, however it only has around 10% of the commands an abilities that 2.0 has.
this doesn't mean that you can't achieve the same goals, it just means you have to do it in a more round about way - oftenly with several smaller programs rather than a single large program

perhaps if I made a tutorial on creating basica shaders and the differences it might clear a few things up for the newbies?
i've got some physics to finish first, then I was going to get onto the shader protion of the quick dbp shader project.
might look into setting up some simple effects though just to show an explain how they work in basic


To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!
Cassi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 19:13
There you go again - being all helpful and nice.

You need some consistency in your life and maybe a few 'chill pills'
Genesis Rage
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2003
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 19:22
where can you get info on what versions have what commands... so i dont accidently use a 2.0 command when all others are 1.1?

==Main Computer==
Athlon XP 3000+, 1024mb, Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb 8xAGP, XP Pro
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Oct 2003 19:55
DirectX SDK has it... if i get time i'll upload the Dx9 Helpfile, it has all the information on the Shaders

infact its the only place i know with 100% information on them, unfortunatetly its 11.4mb so you'll have to wait a while
but in about 30-40mins it should be

http://raven.puffinteractive.com/DirectX9.zip <- there


To Survive You Must Evolve... This Time Van Will Not Escape His Fate!

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-26 15:29:44
Your offset time is: 2026-07-26 15:29:44