4 ms·

This is nice and all, but does anyone really want an ingame experience where only a tiny portion of the centre of the screen is in focus? The nicer parts of sh

This is nice and all, but does anyone really want an ingame experience where only a tiny portion of the centre of the screen is in focus? The nicer parts of shading are from the mods that he is using (in modified form), http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/120261-125-glsl-shaders-dof-bump-mapping-waving-wheat-dynamic-shadows-and-more/ http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/120261-125-glsl-shaders-... and http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/940974-125sonic-ethers-unbelievable-shaders-glsl-shaders-dynamic-shadows-more/ http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/940974-125sonic-ethers-u...

TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
It's for recording videos I'd expect. Although nobody wants to watch a video like that either.
jws 15y ago
What if it boosted your frame rate and saved your battery?[1] The blurry areas could be rendered at lower resolution then blurred to the final screen. I read an article where a 2D side scroller used this technique to good effect on its frame rates. 3D would require a serious mathematician to make the various edges match well enough to not be offensive. EOM [1] A Macbook Air that happily runs 6 hours on battery will run about 90 minutes playing minecraft.
- lifeformed 15y ago
  This looks far more computationally expensive than without shaders. That side scroller benefited because it could just draw the background/foreground sprites at a lower resolution before blurring. You wouldn't be able to get that luxury easily with a 3D game.
  - jws 15y ago
    I can't speak for all games, but I find my fragment shaders dominate. That is compute power related directly to the number of pixels rather than polygons. If I can render objects in the distance at 1/3 the spatial resolution, that is 1/9th the fragment shading, times a much reduced texture bandwidth since I'll be using a lower resolution mipmap. I'll still have to composite it back in to the full resolution frame, but if that operation is faster than my fragment computations it would win.

TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago

It's for recording videos I'd expect. Although nobody wants to watch a video like that either.

jws 15y ago

What if it boosted your frame rate and saved your battery?[1] The blurry areas could be rendered at lower resolution then blurred to the final screen. I read an article where a 2D side scroller used this technique to good effect on its frame rates. 3D would require a serious mathematician to make the various edges match well enough to not be offensive. EOM [1] A Macbook Air that happily runs 6 hours on battery will run about 90 minutes playing minecraft.

lifeformed 15y ago
This looks far more computationally expensive than without shaders. That side scroller benefited because it could just draw the background/foreground sprites at a lower resolution before blurring. You wouldn't be able to get that luxury easily with a 3D game.
- jws 15y ago
  I can't speak for all games, but I find my fragment shaders dominate. That is compute power related directly to the number of pixels rather than polygons. If I can render objects in the distance at 1/3 the spatial resolution, that is 1/9th the fragment shading, times a much reduced texture bandwidth since I'll be using a lower resolution mipmap. I'll still have to composite it back in to the full resolution frame, but if that operation is faster than my fragment computations it would win.