Your buffer is small so try to match your spending. And when you're in for a long-term peasant revolt, the game will tell you why it. Due to the in depth. Using logarithmic depth buffer to get rid of Z-fighting and near plane clipping in large-scale planetary rendering. Game Closure — Mountain View.

I have an application that draw 2 sphere (one normal mapped, and one simply colour mapped) like this: In DirectX9 it works fine, but for some reasons when i use DirectX10 as renderer (while maintaining the same shader, same position, same EVERYTHING) it looks like this: What can this be? Z buffer disabled? (but the shader code is the same and the Z buffer is enabled.) How can i check if the Z buffer is enabled? Or this is another kind of problem? Thanks to all, i'm still rather unexperienced with DirectX.:(.

Texture2DDescription desc = new Texture2DDescription(); desc.Width = backBuffer.Description.Width; desc.Height = backBuffer.Description.Height; desc.MipLevels = 1; desc.ArraySize = 1; desc.Format = CurrentSettings.Direct3D10.DepthStencilFormat; desc.SampleDescription = CurrentSettings.Direct3D10.SwapChainDescription.SampleDescription; desc.Usage = ResourceUsage. DepthStencilStateDescription dssd = new DepthStencilStateDescription(); dssd.IsDepthEnabled = true; dssd.IsStencilEnabled = false; dssd.DepthWriteMask = DepthWriteMask.All; dssd.DepthComparison = Comparison.Less; DepthStencilState dss = DepthStencilState.FromDescription(device, dssd); device.OutputMerger.DepthStencilState = dss; I've experimented a bit, but still to no solution. Doing this as even the MSDN suggest i just get NOTHING onscreen. I tried other comparison values and with 'Comparison.Always' i get the same rendering as without DepthBuffer, with 'Comparison.NotEqual' i get 2 sphere without DepthBuffer AND not entirely visible, the other options just show nothing. I tried also using the stencil buffer, but no change. What i'm doing wrong?:(.

Quote: Original post by cameni Cool, I see I was unnecessarily afraid of the performance hit from disabled fast-z [rolleyes] Yeah. But of course it depends on the application (if the bottleneck is somewhere else, for example bandwidth, it won't show up) and the hardware, so I hesitate to say that it's no problem in general. Contoh rab rumah type 45.

Coolorus photoshop cc download. I need to do some more serious testing in a 'real' scene. Unfortunately my engine isn't in a stage to do this test right now (need to re-enable a lot of the pipeline), but I'm confident the benefits will outweight the costs (if any). Quote: Original post by cameni Btw. The log-z equation actually utilizes only half the z-buffer range because z/w will lie in [0,1] range and not [-1,1] as OpenGL would like.

But like you've said - it's almost magical anyway [smile] True, I forgot that. Couldn't it be solved by doing z = z * 2 - 1 at the end? The w shouldn't come into play as we're already in the pixel shader. Quote: Original post by cameni We are also thinking about using it for logarithmic shadow maps, see Cool, I'll have a look, thanks. By writting to the Z buffer in the pixel shader you lose Hierarchical Z which means more bandwidth usage.

This can get a notorious on bigger screen resolutions and the more pixels are covered by non-overlapping triangles. You also lose Early Z, which is a shame if you do a lot of overdraw and you were decreasing fillrate by rendering front to back. You lose that advantage. Early Z is not automatic, so you won't see a difference if you weren't already doing it. Early-Z is great when you're GPU-bound, but makes you more CPU-bound. So, if you don't have big screen resolutions, bandwidth-limited, don't consume lot of fillrate, and/or do a lot of overdraw, writting to the Z buffer won't hit performance. Cheers Dark Sylinc.