[quote="djb"]ok, might as well show you why...
My current build...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1132180/official-xspc-raystorm-club/580#post_19418818[/quote]Awesome build! I love that you keep the wife warm while you keep the computer cool.
[quote="helifax"]PS: Chiri if I can be of any help let me know! I am quite familiar with OpenGL and GLSL. I have also ported numerous shaders from HLSL to GLSL so I could also do it the other way around. Currently I am not familiar that much with Direct3D but I imagine there are alot of similarities between OpenGL 4.x and Direct3D 11. If I can be of any help let me know![/quote]
Actually yes. I just wanted to make some screenshots of Assassins Creed 3 with minimal shader fixes, but this game uses strange out of order offset values for shader const parameters:
[code] // Buffer Definitions:
cbuffer $Globals
{
float2 g_TexelSize; // Offset: 2256 Size: 8
float3 g_Forces; // Offset: 16 Size: 12
float g_SplashStrength; // Offset: 32 Size: 4
float4 g_PrevOffset; // Offset: 48 Size: 16
}[/code]
I have no clue at the moment on how to declare an offset in HLSL. If somebody knows this, it would help fixing AC3 a lot.
And a big thank you to all donators. We keep a list of all generous souls.[/quote][/quote]
I might be wrong..but by the looks of it I think the data is packed there. I haven't used it extensively in GLSL and the syntax might be different in HLSL but I have a feeling you are referring to this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb509581(v=vs.85).aspx
I might be wrong... or I don't quite understand the problem. Can you elaborate a little?
The general definition of an offset is a "base_address"+offset = "current_address" but I don't know if this applies directly in HLSL...
helifax said:PS: Chiri if I can be of any help let me know! I am quite familiar with OpenGL and GLSL. I have also ported numerous shaders from HLSL to GLSL so I could also do it the other way around. Currently I am not familiar that much with Direct3D but I imagine there are alot of similarities between OpenGL 4.x and Direct3D 11. If I can be of any help let me know!
Actually yes. I just wanted to make some screenshots of Assassins Creed 3 with minimal shader fixes, but this game uses strange out of order offset values for shader const parameters:
I might be wrong... or I don't quite understand the problem. Can you elaborate a little?
The general definition of an offset is a "base_address"+offset = "current_address" but I don't know if this applies directly in HLSL...
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="Foulplay99"]I would be interested to know how you came to your estimated figure for active 3D vision users. I know a lot of forum users are classed as the "Vocal Minority" and after reading these forums daily for almost a year (minus the downtime after the forums were hacked) its still the same relatively small group of guys regularly commenting.
In the steam forums for most games you might find a single thread asking about 3D Vision support with maybe 2 or 3 replies, the numbers don't suggest to me there are that many active 3D Vision users out there right now.
If the project reaches $20k it would make the argument a lot stronger, however with 500k active 3D vision users wouldn't we have more active users on the forums in general? I've pledged towards this project because I badly want to see it work, but my doubts still unfortunately remain.[/quote]Here is some food for thought.
When NVidia announced 3D Vision 2, they also said that they had sales of 500K of 3D Vision 1.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4966/nvidia-announces-3d-vision-2-and-3d-lightboost-technology[/url]
That was a year and half ago, and 3D Vision 2 has gotten more attention than 1 because of the LightBoost, better and cheaper monitors.
I take that as a starting point, and say that we know that there are 500K old kits in the field, and possibly another 500K of new kits in the field. We have no way of knowing how many are still in use, but this is not an impulse buy. A kit costs $150, and a monitor or projector another $400.
I make the reasonable assumption that these are likely still in use, because of the compelling nature of the gaming, and the high cost. Even if you stopped using it, you might be inclined to sell the kit to someone else.
I use the 500K figure as a rough estimate to assume that maybe half of the kits are no longer in use, or sales of 3D Vision 2 are not as good as expected. This is maybe more conservative than necessary, but I'm really after an order of magnitude number, not a precise number.
Order of magnitude sniff test:
Could it be 10x smaller at 50K kits? This seems extremely unlikely, that with 3D Vision 2 we'd have a mass exodus of people stopping playing. 10% of original sales. Can't see it.
Could it be 10x larger at 5M kits? This is also extremely unlikely. That would require 3D Vision 2 uptake to be 3M/year, and I think no one can accept that as reality.
So, it seems to me that 500K kits of active users is roughly right. We can go up or down to maybe 900K, maybe down to 200K, but I think this is clearly the right order of magnitude.
With regard to the number of forum posts- you have to remember that people typically only come to the forums when they have a problem, not when things work well. As a related example, here are the rough sales of AddInBoard GPUs:
[url]http://www.jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-report/[/url]
That's about 15M boards every quarter. Or roughly 60M boards a year.
Now every one of those boards is going to require drivers right? If we go to the forum specifically for drivers we see:
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/27/support/[/url]
30K topics, 200K comments. And I would suggest this is for the most problematic of all the technologies, and probably the most visited. Even if we take into account the entire forum, we are at maybe 1M comments over multiple years.
Now compare that 1M actual comments to that 60M boards/year.
My argument would be that you cannot use forum comments as a proxy for sales, or even active users.
Foulplay99 said:I would be interested to know how you came to your estimated figure for active 3D vision users. I know a lot of forum users are classed as the "Vocal Minority" and after reading these forums daily for almost a year (minus the downtime after the forums were hacked) its still the same relatively small group of guys regularly commenting.
In the steam forums for most games you might find a single thread asking about 3D Vision support with maybe 2 or 3 replies, the numbers don't suggest to me there are that many active 3D Vision users out there right now.
If the project reaches $20k it would make the argument a lot stronger, however with 500k active 3D vision users wouldn't we have more active users on the forums in general? I've pledged towards this project because I badly want to see it work, but my doubts still unfortunately remain.
Here is some food for thought.
When NVidia announced 3D Vision 2, they also said that they had sales of 500K of 3D Vision 1.
That was a year and half ago, and 3D Vision 2 has gotten more attention than 1 because of the LightBoost, better and cheaper monitors.
I take that as a starting point, and say that we know that there are 500K old kits in the field, and possibly another 500K of new kits in the field. We have no way of knowing how many are still in use, but this is not an impulse buy. A kit costs $150, and a monitor or projector another $400.
I make the reasonable assumption that these are likely still in use, because of the compelling nature of the gaming, and the high cost. Even if you stopped using it, you might be inclined to sell the kit to someone else.
I use the 500K figure as a rough estimate to assume that maybe half of the kits are no longer in use, or sales of 3D Vision 2 are not as good as expected. This is maybe more conservative than necessary, but I'm really after an order of magnitude number, not a precise number.
Order of magnitude sniff test:
Could it be 10x smaller at 50K kits? This seems extremely unlikely, that with 3D Vision 2 we'd have a mass exodus of people stopping playing. 10% of original sales. Can't see it.
Could it be 10x larger at 5M kits? This is also extremely unlikely. That would require 3D Vision 2 uptake to be 3M/year, and I think no one can accept that as reality.
So, it seems to me that 500K kits of active users is roughly right. We can go up or down to maybe 900K, maybe down to 200K, but I think this is clearly the right order of magnitude.
With regard to the number of forum posts- you have to remember that people typically only come to the forums when they have a problem, not when things work well. As a related example, here are the rough sales of AddInBoard GPUs:
30K topics, 200K comments. And I would suggest this is for the most problematic of all the technologies, and probably the most visited. Even if we take into account the entire forum, we are at maybe 1M comments over multiple years.
Now compare that 1M actual comments to that 60M boards/year.
My argument would be that you cannot use forum comments as a proxy for sales, or even active users.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
[quote="bo3b"][quote="Foulplay99"]I would be interested to know how you came to your estimated figure for active 3D vision users. I know a lot of forum users are classed as the "Vocal Minority" and after reading these forums daily for almost a year (minus the downtime after the forums were hacked) its still the same relatively small group of guys regularly commenting.
In the steam forums for most games you might find a single thread asking about 3D Vision support with maybe 2 or 3 replies, the numbers don't suggest to me there are that many active 3D Vision users out there right now.
If the project reaches $20k it would make the argument a lot stronger, however with 500k active 3D vision users wouldn't we have more active users on the forums in general? I've pledged towards this project because I badly want to see it work, but my doubts still unfortunately remain.[/quote]Here is some food for thought.
When NVidia announced 3D Vision 2, they also said that they had sales of 500K of 3D Vision 1.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/4966/nvidia-announces-3d-vision-2-and-3d-lightboost-technology[/url]
That was a year and half ago, and 3D Vision 2 has gotten more attention than 1 because of the LightBoost, better and cheaper monitors.
I take that as a starting point, and say that we know that there are 500K old kits in the field, and possibly another 500K of new kits in the field. We have no way of knowing how many are still in use, but this is not an impulse buy. A kit costs $150, and a monitor or projector another $400.
I make the reasonable assumption that these are likely still in use, because of the compelling nature of the gaming, and the high cost. Even if you stopped using it, you might be inclined to sell the kit to someone else.
I use the 500K figure as a rough estimate to assume that maybe half of the kits are no longer in use, or sales of 3D Vision 2 are not as good as expected. This is maybe more conservative than necessary, but I'm really after an order of magnitude number, not a precise number.
Order of magnitude sniff test:
Could it be 10x smaller at 50K kits? This seems extremely unlikely, that with 3D Vision 2 we'd have a mass exodus of people stopping playing. 10% of original sales. Can't see it.
Could it be 10x larger at 5M kits? This is also extremely unlikely. That would require 3D Vision 2 uptake to be 3M/year, and I think no one can accept that as reality.
So, it seems to me that 500K kits of active users is roughly right. We can go up or down to maybe 900K, maybe down to 200K, but I think this is clearly the right order of magnitude.
With regard to the number of forum posts- you have to remember that people typically only come to the forums when they have a problem, not when things work well. As a related example, here are the rough sales of AddInBoard GPUs:
[url]http://www.jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-report/[/url]
That's about 15M boards every quarter. Or roughly 60M boards a year.
Now every one of those boards is going to require drivers right? If we go to the forum specifically for drivers we see:
[url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/27/support/[/url]
30K topics, 200K comments. And I would suggest this is for the most problematic of all the technologies, and probably the most visited. Even if we take into account the entire forum, we are at maybe 1M comments over multiple years.
Now compare that 1M actual comments to that 60M boards/year.
My argument would be that you cannot use forum comments as a proxy for sales, or even active users.[/quote]
+1 Now I will not post at all here...for the next year and I will continue enjoying my 3D Surround setup:)) that way the number will go down by....1
:)))))
Foulplay99 said:I would be interested to know how you came to your estimated figure for active 3D vision users. I know a lot of forum users are classed as the "Vocal Minority" and after reading these forums daily for almost a year (minus the downtime after the forums were hacked) its still the same relatively small group of guys regularly commenting.
In the steam forums for most games you might find a single thread asking about 3D Vision support with maybe 2 or 3 replies, the numbers don't suggest to me there are that many active 3D Vision users out there right now.
If the project reaches $20k it would make the argument a lot stronger, however with 500k active 3D vision users wouldn't we have more active users on the forums in general? I've pledged towards this project because I badly want to see it work, but my doubts still unfortunately remain.
Here is some food for thought.
When NVidia announced 3D Vision 2, they also said that they had sales of 500K of 3D Vision 1.
That was a year and half ago, and 3D Vision 2 has gotten more attention than 1 because of the LightBoost, better and cheaper monitors.
I take that as a starting point, and say that we know that there are 500K old kits in the field, and possibly another 500K of new kits in the field. We have no way of knowing how many are still in use, but this is not an impulse buy. A kit costs $150, and a monitor or projector another $400.
I make the reasonable assumption that these are likely still in use, because of the compelling nature of the gaming, and the high cost. Even if you stopped using it, you might be inclined to sell the kit to someone else.
I use the 500K figure as a rough estimate to assume that maybe half of the kits are no longer in use, or sales of 3D Vision 2 are not as good as expected. This is maybe more conservative than necessary, but I'm really after an order of magnitude number, not a precise number.
Order of magnitude sniff test:
Could it be 10x smaller at 50K kits? This seems extremely unlikely, that with 3D Vision 2 we'd have a mass exodus of people stopping playing. 10% of original sales. Can't see it.
Could it be 10x larger at 5M kits? This is also extremely unlikely. That would require 3D Vision 2 uptake to be 3M/year, and I think no one can accept that as reality.
So, it seems to me that 500K kits of active users is roughly right. We can go up or down to maybe 900K, maybe down to 200K, but I think this is clearly the right order of magnitude.
With regard to the number of forum posts- you have to remember that people typically only come to the forums when they have a problem, not when things work well. As a related example, here are the rough sales of AddInBoard GPUs:
30K topics, 200K comments. And I would suggest this is for the most problematic of all the technologies, and probably the most visited. Even if we take into account the entire forum, we are at maybe 1M comments over multiple years.
Now compare that 1M actual comments to that 60M boards/year.
My argument would be that you cannot use forum comments as a proxy for sales, or even active users.
+1 Now I will not post at all here...for the next year and I will continue enjoying my 3D Surround setup:)) that way the number will go down by....1
:)))))
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
In terms of the offset, I found this on Google. It's probably useless, I don't understand a bit of it.
But maybe it isn't useless?
Have a read.
http://www.riemers.net/Forum/index.php?var=1817&var2=0
Pirateguybrush said:As an aside, does your fix do anything to AC3 automatically?
It should, but the shaders of AC3 can't be modified by the wrapper at the moment because it uses non regular offsets of attributes in constant buffers. Thanks for all the links, but I've already looked into pretty much all Microsoft documentation and books about HLSL and shader level 5.
Tomorrow is my free day and I'll fix some more Bioshock shaders and take a deeper look into the offset problem.
As you can see, the offset values are wrong. That's not a problem in Bioshock or other DX11 games I've ancountered because they use the default offset layout.
You can try yourself by compiling the above shader HLSL code using the command line compiler:
[quote="Chiri"]The compiler ist part of the Platform SDK for Windows 8. The DirectX SDK doesn't exist anymore[/quote]
I wish I understood more about all of this, but does that present a problem?
Not a problem unless you are making your own fixes. You need the fxc tool to compile the shaders. If you wanted to try Chiri's experiment, you'd need fxc, but otherwise not.
Not a problem unless you are making your own fixes. You need the fxc tool to compile the shaders. If you wanted to try Chiri's experiment, you'd need fxc, but otherwise not.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
@Chiri
First off, your idea of decompiling the ASM is genius. Awesome.
For the offsets, it seems to me that you will need to sort the definitions to match the Offset text in the comment fields. For example, the g_WorldViewProj is Offset 0, but in the middle of the documentation area.
When it's compiled to assembly, the compiler is unlikely to be required to maintain order, and that might be where the randomized offsets come from.
If you were to rearrange them before decompiling, you should get structs that match the original definitions.
Before doing that code though, it would be worth an experiment of manually reordering them to see if that fixes it.
@Chiri
First off, your idea of decompiling the ASM is genius. Awesome.
For the offsets, it seems to me that you will need to sort the definitions to match the Offset text in the comment fields. For example, the g_WorldViewProj is Offset 0, but in the middle of the documentation area.
When it's compiled to assembly, the compiler is unlikely to be required to maintain order, and that might be where the randomized offsets come from.
If you were to rearrange them before decompiling, you should get structs that match the original definitions.
Before doing that code though, it would be worth an experiment of manually reordering them to see if that fixes it.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Compiling that with fxc starts out OK, but doesn't match the original because of missing declarations in the middle. This technique would thus require padding as well to normalize the offsets.
Microsoft (R) Direct3D Shader Compiler 9.29.952.3111
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation 2002-2009. All rights reserved.
[quote="bo3b"]Manually reordered the ASM to make Offsets in ascending order, then manually reordered your decompiled file to match that.[/quote]
Thanks, but I finally figured out how to use the packoffset directive on globals. I'll update the wrapper tomorrow and test it with AC3 (as a side effect, the $Globals identifier is gone, but all games do buffer updates by using register numbers and not identifiers anyways).
bo3b said:Manually reordered the ASM to make Offsets in ascending order, then manually reordered your decompiled file to match that.
Thanks, but I finally figured out how to use the packoffset directive on globals. I'll update the wrapper tomorrow and test it with AC3 (as a side effect, the $Globals identifier is gone, but all games do buffer updates by using register numbers and not identifiers anyways).
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Actually yes. I just wanted to make some screenshots of Assassins Creed 3 with minimal shader fixes, but this game uses strange out of order offset values for shader const parameters:
I have no clue at the moment on how to declare an offset in HLSL. If somebody knows this, it would help fixing AC3 a lot.
And a big thank you to all donators. We keep a list of all generous souls.
I might be wrong..but by the looks of it I think the data is packed there. I haven't used it extensively in GLSL and the syntax might be different in HLSL but I have a feeling you are referring to this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb509581(v=vs.85).aspx
I might be wrong... or I don't quite understand the problem. Can you elaborate a little?
The general definition of an offset is a "base_address"+offset = "current_address" but I don't know if this applies directly in HLSL...
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
When NVidia announced 3D Vision 2, they also said that they had sales of 500K of 3D Vision 1.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4966/nvidia-announces-3d-vision-2-and-3d-lightboost-technology
That was a year and half ago, and 3D Vision 2 has gotten more attention than 1 because of the LightBoost, better and cheaper monitors.
I take that as a starting point, and say that we know that there are 500K old kits in the field, and possibly another 500K of new kits in the field. We have no way of knowing how many are still in use, but this is not an impulse buy. A kit costs $150, and a monitor or projector another $400.
I make the reasonable assumption that these are likely still in use, because of the compelling nature of the gaming, and the high cost. Even if you stopped using it, you might be inclined to sell the kit to someone else.
I use the 500K figure as a rough estimate to assume that maybe half of the kits are no longer in use, or sales of 3D Vision 2 are not as good as expected. This is maybe more conservative than necessary, but I'm really after an order of magnitude number, not a precise number.
Order of magnitude sniff test:
Could it be 10x smaller at 50K kits? This seems extremely unlikely, that with 3D Vision 2 we'd have a mass exodus of people stopping playing. 10% of original sales. Can't see it.
Could it be 10x larger at 5M kits? This is also extremely unlikely. That would require 3D Vision 2 uptake to be 3M/year, and I think no one can accept that as reality.
So, it seems to me that 500K kits of active users is roughly right. We can go up or down to maybe 900K, maybe down to 200K, but I think this is clearly the right order of magnitude.
With regard to the number of forum posts- you have to remember that people typically only come to the forums when they have a problem, not when things work well. As a related example, here are the rough sales of AddInBoard GPUs:
http://www.jonpeddie.com/publications/add-in-board-report/
That's about 15M boards every quarter. Or roughly 60M boards a year.
Now every one of those boards is going to require drivers right? If we go to the forum specifically for drivers we see:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/27/support/
30K topics, 200K comments. And I would suggest this is for the most problematic of all the technologies, and probably the most visited. Even if we take into account the entire forum, we are at maybe 1M comments over multiple years.
Now compare that 1M actual comments to that 60M boards/year.
My argument would be that you cannot use forum comments as a proxy for sales, or even active users.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
+1 Now I will not post at all here...for the next year and I will continue enjoying my 3D Surround setup:)) that way the number will go down by....1
:)))))
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
But maybe it isn't useless?
Have a read.
http://www.riemers.net/Forum/index.php?var=1817&var2=0
It should, but the shaders of AC3 can't be modified by the wrapper at the moment because it uses non regular offsets of attributes in constant buffers. Thanks for all the links, but I've already looked into pretty much all Microsoft documentation and books about HLSL and shader level 5.
Tomorrow is my free day and I'll fix some more Bioshock shaders and take a deeper look into the offset problem.
Here's a very simple shader from AC3
The wrapper takes this assembly code and decompiles it to HLSL, which results into:
Then the code is patched by a script or by a person and compiled back to assembly code which results in:
As you can see, the offset values are wrong. That's not a problem in Bioshock or other DX11 games I've ancountered because they use the default offset layout.
You can try yourself by compiling the above shader HLSL code using the command line compiler:
The compiler ist part of the Platform SDK for Windows 8. The DirectX SDK doesn't exist anymore ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee663275 ).
I wish I understood more about all of this, but does that present a problem?
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
First off, your idea of decompiling the ASM is genius. Awesome.
For the offsets, it seems to me that you will need to sort the definitions to match the Offset text in the comment fields. For example, the g_WorldViewProj is Offset 0, but in the middle of the documentation area.
When it's compiled to assembly, the compiler is unlikely to be required to maintain order, and that might be where the randomized offsets come from.
If you were to rearrange them before decompiling, you should get structs that match the original definitions.
Before doing that code though, it would be worth an experiment of manually reordering them to see if that fixes it.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Thanks, but I finally figured out how to use the packoffset directive on globals. I'll update the wrapper tomorrow and test it with AC3 (as a side effect, the $Globals identifier is gone, but all games do buffer updates by using register numbers and not identifiers anyways).