Just curious. I'm using the w-buffer and it works fine on my pc. Is this a common feature on gfx cards today? Is it reasonable to expect that any pc bought in the last 2 years will have w-buffer? Can I assume that it's present, or would it be wiser to have some kind of z-buffer fallback plan?
w-buffer - is it a common feature?
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/w-buffer - is it a common feature? Make it "user selectable" feature?
Okay, I'll do that.
Thanks.
Thanks.
W-buffer's been around for yonks, even B3D supports Z/W-buffer and it worked wayyy back when b3d first came out on all the systems I tried it on :)
However, the fact that one is better than the other seemed a bit flawed, some systems worked better with Z buffer, some with W buffer, and some times it didn't matter what colour bit.
But where Z buffer had fighting, I could usually fix it with a W buffer. IIRC.
However, the fact that one is better than the other seemed a bit flawed, some systems worked better with Z buffer, some with W buffer, and some times it didn't matter what colour bit.
But where Z buffer had fighting, I could usually fix it with a W buffer. IIRC.
Thx for the info Cygnus.
I've got a landscape and a waterplane. I've got camera above and below water working good. The point where the transition occurs is giving a few z-buffer fighting issues which are greatly reduced with w-buffer. It's not perfect, but a lot better.
I've been adjusting the height of the camera slightly up or down to eliminate the fighting completely. Is that the way it's normally done with above/below water transitions or is there a better way? Without this slight adjustment, the transition point looks a bit freaky sometimes.
I've got a landscape and a waterplane. I've got camera above and below water working good. The point where the transition occurs is giving a few z-buffer fighting issues which are greatly reduced with w-buffer. It's not perfect, but a lot better.
I've been adjusting the height of the camera slightly up or down to eliminate the fighting completely. Is that the way it's normally done with above/below water transitions or is there a better way? Without this slight adjustment, the transition point looks a bit freaky sometimes.
I find adjusting the cameraRange helps alot with Z-fighting, more-so if you got a small near Range.
Adjusting the near range helped heaps. Thanks!!
Is that the way it's normally done with above/below water transitions or is there a better way?
Water transitions were the subject of the very first thread I got involved in here - I think, eventually, most people end up coming to the same conclusion as I have seen other users arrive at the same solution independently and you can spot the telltale signs of the method in a lot of commercial stuff, from Stranger's Wrath to Tomb Raider Legend.
Simply, you render the scene with the water masked out, render the distorted scene with the water back in, then composite the masked image back over the top.
I see what you're doing there but I'm sure we're talking about a different thing. I think you're talking about distorting objects which are on the other side of the water plane. What I'm referring to is the glitchiness and buffer fighting which occurs when the camera is half-above and half-below the water surface.
I getcha. You need a low near value for the camera range in order to stop the water getting clipped, and that means reducing the cam's far value in order to keep z accuaracy acceptble over the distance it covers I guess. I was under the impression that wbuffer was to be avoided these days - :/
It could have also been an alpha issue too if he has his water done that way, which Z-buffer seems to have issues with sorting objects in the distance with. Although there are functions & routines posted to get around said issue in the archives.
It could have also been an alpha issue too
That's a good thought - a screenshot of the glitch would be handy.