might be some other issue going on as well idk like mentioned with very high intensity values, idk. i just know the recursive refraction issue is inherent to any ray or path tracer
#archived-hdrp
waxen lantern
turbid matrix
I didn't have issues with recursive rendering
oh right, I might have not had high light intensity when I even tried that
noble osprey
Hi. Do you know why I can have this errors after Unity open ? Unity 2019.3.0b11 HDRP 7.5
scarlet hull
I don't remember having encountered this. If it is project specific and you can share it, it would be interesting.
noble osprey
I can't share this project :/ I used SRP package in ver 8+ from your github and switched to 7.5 directly from package manager. Maybe this is a source of problem? Game works correctly. I have this errors only after launch Unity
turbid matrix
@noble osprey if you haven't done already, close project, wipe library folder, open again
when things break the library cache at times when upgrading, I can't think anything good would come out of downgrade
turbid matrix
well... this is a thing https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/pull/5107
altho I somehow doubt it takes 13 lines of code to add the full skinned mesh support on DXR 😄
ok, 2020.1 here I come
glad tartan
Been using 2020.1 since the first publicly available alpha.
No problems so far although I'm still on a11 and not the latest. Will be updating tomorrow if a15 is released
ripe fable
I got everything to work except "leap motion", won't compile somehow, no errors
turbid matrix
I just tested it on 2020.1
it doesn't work yet on a13
hmmm, this doesn't work even without the commit
so, I'm guessing latest hdrp staging isn't fully compatible with a13?
getting black screen with DXR and spammed with IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array. UnityEngine.Rendering.HighDefinition.HDRenderPipeline.AddInstanceToRAS (
I also see that 2020.1a14 has been on issue tracker for a while
I tried 2020.1 for some first public alphas but there wasn't really any "killer" feat on it that wouldn't have been on 2019.3 as well
so less motivation to test it
@glad tartan you mean a14?
I mean a13 was out last friday
or was there some note about a14 getting skipped?
glad tartan
yea, a14 my bad
turbid matrix
just checking if I missed some note 🙂
glad tartan
My mind was already on a14 so when I was typing I automatically skip to a15 😄
glad tartan
Transparency for path tracing coming soon. I remember seeing a few messages about it
https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/pull/5123
fading rose
I am still not convinced HDRP is worth it over standard with some excellent shaders. The only benefit I see, and it is a very important benefit, is the DOTS support.
question:
What am I supposed to do with this?
"Detail rendering shaders not found for the active render pipeline, falling back to default shader.
UnityEditor.Experimental.Rendering.ScriptableBakedReflectionSystemWrapper:Internal_ScriptableBakedReflectionSystemWrapper_Tick(SceneStateHash)"
scarlet hull
I don't know where this error comes from ...
As for HDRP vs standard : What about performances ? Have you tried comparing standard "with some excellent shaders" to HDRP with the all the feature that it has ?
cerulean wolf
Hello! There I am with another project matrix question!
I'm trying to figure out how to get the correct Stereo Projection matrices
I have tried the method:
Camera.GetStereoNonJitteredProjectionMatrix(Camera.StereoscopicEye.Left/Right);
However, the matrix that it gives me is actually different than the one used on the GPU. For a comparison, I used a GPU readback to get the projection matrix from the Vive Pro, and compared that with the matrix that the camera method gave me:
// Camera method, left eye:
0.77925 0.00000 -0.05615 0.00000
0.00000 0.70090 0.00480 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 -1.00060 -0.60018
0.00000 0.00000 -1.00000 0.00000
// Camera method, right eye:
0.78300 0.00000 0.05547 0.00000
0.00000 0.70472 0.00192 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 -1.00060 -0.60018
0.00000 0.00000 -1.00000 0.00000
// GPU Readback, left eye:
0.77925f, 0.00000f, -0.05615f, 0.00000f
0.00000f, -0.70090f, -0.00480f, 0.00000f
0.00000f, 0.00000f, 0.00030f, 0.30009f
0.00000f, 0.00000f, -1.00000f, 0.00000f
// GPU Readback, right eye:
0.78300f, 0.00000f, 0.05547f, 0.00000f
0.00000f, -0.70472f, -0.00192f, 0.00000f
0.00000f, 0.00000f, 0.00030f, 0.30009f
0.00000f, 0.00000f, -1.00000f, 0.00000f
These are somehow different, so I'm wondering which additional calculations Unity does before sending it to the GPU. if anyone knows or has some pointers that would be fantastic! If I know the steps then I could implement those steps myself and be able to overwrite the Projection matrix in for VR.
turbid matrix
https://unity3d.com/unity/alpha/2020.1.0a14 out now btw
at least it doesn't give the same error on latest staging as the a13 did 🙂
ripe fable
Can't seem to open my projects in a14 editor, the unity splash screen shows, then goes back to the hub.
Creating a new project works, but has the same problem after closing the editor once
fading rose
Depending on the scale of your project, I am not sure you should start it on a version in the Alpha stage. Things may change that will complicate your work unnecessarily. Is there a feature that is absolutely a must for your project and can't be achieved otherwise?
ripe fable
yeah they are basically small projects to test alpha compatibility, I need the future DXR updates, like the current skinned mesh renderer PR that's only compatible with 2020.1
fading rose
If DXR is so crucial for your project it is understandable that you need to test it, but even then, I would not be counting on the 2020 implementation of DXR either. I feel we should be waiting for at least 20.2 for a decent implementation. Still feels hacked. I even uninstalled 2020 completely it was a waste of time even for tests.
ripe fable
I like it, with a lot of tweaking I'm getting acceptable performance and good visuals
fading rose
yeah the same applies for regular methods without so much tweaking and hit or miss situations.
turbid matrix
I don't really see issue on testing early
it's gives you headsup on where things are going
fading rose
there is no issue with testing early, in fact it is great.
ripe fable
I did a lot of proof of concepts this year, I want to start developing the actual game/sim on 2020.1, I don't want to be in for a huge surprise with lots of shit breaking when it lands
turbid matrix
and you also get to give feedback on issues early on
fading rose
but we are talking about DXR in particular here.
fading rose
Well I am not one of those people, I am working mainly on early versions of every tool I use 😄
turbid matrix
but if I've learnt anything during all these years, is that if you don't make sure your own use cases work properly, the chances of things shipping in broken state is just way bigger
especially if it's more niche feat
fading rose
Many of my tools are not in the market yet. They will release in one or two years.
turbid matrix
I've actually had surprisingly few actual showstoppers on unity's alphas and betas
most issues are just related to api changes and me not having compatible engine/package combo
(when using bleeding edge)
fading rose
Agreed. But some need major rework.
turbid matrix
also I'm not really talking about bleeding edge feats now
most new feats are somewhat broken at first
fading rose
Well, it is the bleeding edge features right now that make Unity still worth working on.
Who cares about low impact features? Most serious developers make their own tools or buy improved versions from the store.
It is the bleeding edge that Unity is marketed on.
DXR, DOTS, etc.
turbid matrix
what I mean, people say alphas and betas are risky to use in production (which is true) but what I mean is that I don't really have experience where they are totally unusable in production if you use them like you'd use the stable versions
dxr is experimental
dots is barely functional
you can't really use either properly yet
dots core is getting there
I'd guess dxr will be usable to some extent at some point next year
fading rose
Alpha and beta are not an issue if you use old features that mereley get some maintenance rounds and minor usability improvements.
Yup, that is what I already said 20 lines up 😛 we could have saved some typing effort 😛
turbid matrix
one issue with DXR right now is that it relies on DX12 and apparently HDRP is currently a lot slower on DX12 on windows vs with DX11
they said they plan to fix this by 2020.2
so... 2020.3 earliest
fading rose
I know. That is also why I said we should expect a working versionat least in the 20.2 version 😄
for me the real timeline for a fully featured and performant DXR implementation looks sometime in 2021. Unity couldn't say that, when some other engines already fully support production ready raytrace. It would appear lagging behind, hence the rushed DXR implementation which is good enough for some static tests, but that is as far as it gets.
turbid matrix
sure, if you really need something polished, it's not realistic to expect it next year
it can be frustrating to look so far into the future at times
there are tons of cool things coming up in upcoming years but wait is long
fading rose
well that is what production ready means. otherwise you might as well implement it yourself.
turbid matrix
I don't personally really recommend new users to jump to Unity atm all because people who want to get into it, have seen all the DOTS, HDRP etc hype
and I try to tell them that the whole engine is in huge transition right now
fading rose
yeah that is why i often say right now Unity is riding on a lot of "aspirational wind". 😄
turbid matrix
and not were friendly to newcomers if you want to actually use the bleeding edge stuff
fading rose
That is not good. (for Unity that is)
turbid matrix
I see it as a necessary evil
ripe fable
Got everything to work on a14 now, even the libraries (leap motion) that wouldn't compile on a12 🙂 I need to reboot my PC after every time I close the editor, will report that
turbid matrix
the other alternative would just be that they did all the same things but behind the curtains
I'd rather have devs have feedback loop to them while they dev
fading rose
well depends on how you see it and what game you want to play in terms of marketing strategy.
turbid matrix
@ripe fable huh 😄
I didn't have that issue when I tried earlier
I dunno, I'm all for more transparent development
ripe fable
yeah, could be a hub thing, no idea. Not even a new library folder is created after wiping, so seems like some event isn't firing
fading rose
@turbid matrix there are ways to do that without putting your product's reputation on the line.
turbid matrix
to be fair, Unity has always had quite mixed rep
being mobile game engine, engine what people make shovelware with etc
in past Unity was quite conservative even
now it's going on more bleeding edge than ue4 even on some parts, and ue4 used to be the one that did that in past
sure there are feats on both that still do that
but there's been a ton of new unity feats recently where epic only started revamping their system once Unity came up with their new counterpart
all in all, it's great that the competition makes this happen
fading rose
It did, until version 5.
2017 and 18 were excellent and much promising, the Unity teams worked hard to reach a point where many of us would see it as a viable solution that was not just easier to use.
The SRP strategy really ruined a lot of this painstakingly stacked good faith for many people. In the grand scale of things graphics are not so significant, but it unquestionably is what sells games and engines. Unreal is riding primarily on that for ages.
turbid matrix
SRP at least gave us way to modify part of the render loop better
of course I'd rather have full c++ source code for the whole engine
like you have with ue4, cryengine, lumberyard...
but that was not going to happen with Unity
so that kinda led to this "we share full c# source code of the packages" path
I really hated the black box everything on Unity 5, 2017
when using Unity 4, I simply didn't know of anything better and it didn't bug me yet :p
fading rose
There was no immediate need for that really. There are so many amazing things built using that black box. It is one of these cases where the vocal few misled strategic decisions. but anyway. That is becoming a very long irrelevant discussion that we could have over a beer 😄 Tweaking a minor rendering feature rarely produces anything of significant importance.
One of the best Unity demos ever was not using SRP. By far one of the tighter and most crisp visuals that have come out of Unity. Sharp lighting, excellent surfaces, wonderful reflections. A bit dated now, but had they kept pushing that engine and shaders, we would have something amazing today and without confusing anyone with a multitude of art pipelines and feature support puzzles.
unkempt nest
@fading rose
I am still not convinced HDRP is worth it over standard with some excellent shaders. The only benefit I see, and it is a very important benefit, is the DOTS support.
But what about the graphical upgrades? (Better physical rendering, volumetric lighting, etc)
glad tartan
Just the material and lighting quality alone is a huge upgrade over the default render pipeline
turbid matrix
big difference here is that Adam was running on custom engine
if you look at the latest tech demo, it's mostly same stuff we got now with stock HDRP
of course the assets themselves make a huge different
Unity's demo team is really good at stretching the limits what the engine can do
glad tartan
Seems that custom passes are being added to shader graph.
https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/commits/custom-pass-sg/2019.3
ionic remnant
HDRP feels like it will always be the equivalent of Crysis, really advanced features, but a bit finicky, an enthusiast level product. Like it feels like the assumption is you are going to be capable of rolling your own solutions to any holes in it. Maybe it should be rebranded the Advanced Render Pipeline, but that's just how I've kind of viewed it.
turbid matrix
there was draft of custom pass SG before the current code setup
it's nice that the actual SG version is coming now
because it'll be way more artist friendly
@ionic remnant I don't really think HDRP is meant for most users
URP is for that purpose
HDRP is there to attract AA and possible AAA productions in the future
and industry visualizations
HDRP being more featured than URP is an issue with that tho
because users always want the thing with more feats
light crest
so trying to convert my VR game to HDRP, im getting "single-pass (double-wide) is not compatible with HDRP." which is suppose to be supported in 2019.2, couldnt find anything about this specifically, does anyone know?
light crest
interesting - so i tried SPI, which kinda works, but one eye sees some things the other doesnt
ripe fable
I've had that issue with some complex shaders in single pass instanced mode. You should be fine by switching to single pass. 🙂
light crest
does HDRP have a significant performance over default?
im debating if i should commit to this conversion or just stay where im at lol
ripe fable
It depends, I use HDRP because it's more "correct" in many ways, I'd recommend the standard/legacy pipeline if you want a lot of asset store compatibility.
quasi mulch
@turbid matrix I'm big into VR now and require vulkan :P
next gale
Hey there any news on hdrp / shadergraph Light nodes?
jolly gust
@quasi mulch can give a bit explanation? Why vulkan is better and why I should use it?
turbid matrix
both Vulkan and DX12 have many gains over DX11 and opengl
but atm, neither DX12 or Vulkan works as good in HDRP as DX11 (not because they would be worse API's, HDRP has just focused on DX11 more so far)
and I have no idea if Vulkan + VR works at all? (haven't tried it)
in HDRP that is
@jolly gust
ripe fable
I can try it right now.
I just noticed my directional light shadowmap doesn't work in DX11 (does work in Vulkan & DX12), other light types are ok.
Vulkan + VR
turbid matrix
@ripe fable btw are you using the new XR package?
or the old setup?
I haven't touched the new thing yet so I don't know where it even stands with HDRP
ripe fable
Old I think, is it easy to upgrade?
ripe fable
All I did was enable XR, add the Oculus SDK, set to multi pass (works in most cases, easier for testing), add the Oculus package from the asset store and use the default rig.
turbid matrix
I thought multipass wasn't even supported at all
jolly gust
@turbid matrix thanks! Btw my project on urp now. Does urp have benefits from changing APIs? Or current state of vulkan support can be an obstacle in production?
ripe fable
Single pass crashes too, just tried. 😛
turbid matrix
with hdrp
@jolly gust I have zero idea on vulkan + urp
also vulkan gains you'll have totally depend on your art assets and scene
if you got tons of drawcalls now, it can have a bigger impact
but if you're already optimized to fewer drawcalls, you are not likely to get any notable gains
usually VR games have way simpler asset setup to begin with
jolly gust
@turbid matrix with urp i've got like 1600 to 150 drawcalls reduction. Thats huge, and my fps around 150 right now
You are right
turbid matrix
with 150 drawcalls, you are totally fine already 😄
jolly gust
Love that urp per shader batching, rathrr than per material
ripe fable
https://forum.unity.com/threads/vulkan-crash-with-vr-enabled.719942/
I guess it's just not implemented yet at this point.
turbid matrix
that frankly doesn't surprise me one bit 😄
I wonder if they even launch HDRP officially with stable vulkan + dx12 support
or if they just label those as experimental still
or preview
ripe fable
I really wish DX12 performed like DX11 so people don't have to switch graphics API's to play in VR. How would I even do that? Ship two binaries or restart with a flag/parameter or something?
turbid matrix
@ripe fable latter
or make a launcher exe that passes that data
(via commandline param
I'm not sure if you can save the preferred API somehow to file or if the commandline param is the only option
but yeah, it's not ideal for games that have both VR and desktop modes
fading rose
Many games offer both options, so it is not a problem really. Of course the features change and you need to restart the game for the switch to happen between the two APIs but still not an issue.
exotic robin
hey there! I try to use a custom post process effet in HDRP, it works well, but it looks like the depth texture is not giving me linear values (the 0-1 range is not linear across the far plane). Any clue why? followed this tutorial to create my post process: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/pull/4484
I tried to compensate using a log(depth) but it's not working either
simply used a multiplier on the depth and modulo the result in order to be able to see all the values
the same exercise done in legacy with Amplify shader, looks like each line is offset to about 1m on the terrain
I use this line to get the depth on the shader in HDRP:
float depth = LoadCameraDepth(input.positionCS.xy) * _Distance;
light crest
does anyone have experience with partners.steamworks?
exotic robin
oh maybe I need to convert it to linear!
exotic robin
yes that was it!
float depth = LinearEyeDepth(LoadCameraDepth(input.positionCS.xy), _ZBufferParams) * _Distance;
turbid matrix
is there similar thing for HDRP? 🤔
or... is there some place to see all product boards Unity has there?
drifting vault
what if HDRP already completed? 0_o
turbid matrix
I've seen few for various techs but I have no idea which all have those
@drifting vault they have targets for 2020.2 even
trim bone
is this gonna go the way of the staging repository? 🙂
turbid matrix
What is, @trim bone?
trim bone
Ignored for internal solutions when they find out too many prying eyes looking at it
undone crow
Hello, does anyone know what this means?
"Detail rendering shaders not found for the active render pipeline, falling back to default shader.
UnityEngine.GUIUtility:ProcessEvent(Int32, IntPtr)"
indigo summit
@turbid matrix what do you mean by they have targets for 2020.2 even ?
turbid matrix
that they have at least some plans of things that will happen by individual 2020.x releases
you can see this on the comment HDRP lead made about DXR here: https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-experimental-hdrp-dxr.656092/page-8#post-5005706
- DX12 is in preview state and have some functionnality not supported as this one:
d3d12: generating mipmaps for array textures is not yet supported.
This will be fix for 2020.1 and performance will be fix for 2020.2. Both DXR and DX12 should be out of preview in 2020.2
it's pretty common in sw dev to have longer term goals in general
you can always somewhat estimate how long it'll take for certain things to land based on a) how much work they are b) how big priority they are
wicked pawn
Hey guys, quick question about 2019.3 URP
I've just upgraded my 2019.2 LWRP project to 2019.3 (don't worry, I made a backup 😉)
I uninstalled LWRP and switched the project to URP
I switched out the materials on some things and everything seemed to work
However, some of my 2D LWRP features are now missing, namely the old experimental 2D renderer data and 2D lights.
How can I re-enable them?
Thanks in advance!
(I've reposted this from #archived-art-asset-showcase, not sure where to post 😕)
indigo summit
oh i see
turbid matrix
@wicked pawn it should be there in URP as well
If you have the experimental 2D Renderer enabled (menu: Graphics Settings > add the 2D Renderer Asset under Scriptable Render Pipeline Settings), some of the options related to 3D rendering in the Universal RP Asset don't have any impact on your final app or game.
I can't comment if the initial setup is still the same, but worth double checking everything
wicked pawn
@turbid matrix Thanks! I'll double check that tomorrow
indigo summit
@scarlet hull is this normal?, i'm not seeing any distortion using box refraction mode
scarlet hull
The "box" model is more meant for hollow objects : https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/com.unity.render-pipelines.high-definition@7.1/manual/Refraction-in-HDRP.html
indigo summit
hmm in that page the example for the box refraction have distortion on that sphere
scarlet hull
What I wanted to point here is that in box mode the refraction is way different and more subtle than sphere
sharp hatch
Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but the post processing stack is throwing:
NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
UnityEngine.Rendering.PostProcessing.RuntimeUtilities.get_copyStdMaterial () (at Library/PackageCache/com.unity.postprocessing@2.2.2/PostProcessing/Runtime/Utils/RuntimeUtilities.cs:269)
UnityEngine.Rendering.PostProcessing.PostProcessLayer.BuildCommandBuffers () (at Library/PackageCache/com.unity.postprocessing@2.2.2/PostProcessing/Runtime/PostProcessLayer.cs:605)
UnityEngine.Rendering.PostProcessing.PostProcessLayer.OnPreCull () (at Library/PackageCache/com.unity.postprocessing@2.2.2/PostProcessing/Runtime/PostProcessLayer.cs:440)
at me, non stop
uncut root
@sharp hatch Downgrading to 2.1.7 fixes this, 2.1.8 introduced a bug that causes these errors
sharp hatch
@uncut root so just select 2.1.7 and then 'upgrade to' (even if it's a 'downgrade') ?
or update to maybe the button says
uncut root
Yep 🙂
sharp hatch
never downgraded before lol 😄
wicked pawn
@turbid matrix Where the heck can I find menu: Graphics Settings > add the 2D Renderer Asset? What menu? I'm not finding anything like that in the Graphics section of the Project settings
I'm an idiot 🤦♂️ I didn't install URP. I thought it was preinstalled in 2019.3
turbid matrix
did you get it going?
it should be relatively straight forward
basically you need to create 2d renderer data asset and then assign it to your URP assets renderer list
(and have that urp asset assigned on your project settings->graphics
also urp is only preinstalled if you start with URP template when you create a new project
@wicked pawn ^
turbid matrix
URP uses it's own PP
wicked pawn
So I should remove the old stuff?
turbid matrix
I'm not sure if it supports 2D renderer quite yet
turbid matrix
well old postprocessing package does absolutely nothing with URP
same with HDRP since 2019.1
(as HDRP moved to it's own PP then)
wicked pawn
Ahh
turbid matrix
no I mean, URP does support 2D renderer for sure
wicked pawn
So I should uninstall postprocessing, then? Right?
turbid matrix
but I'm not sure if URP's own PP does work with the 2D renderer itself yet
if it's not there, it'll be there soon as they kinda need it to be there
yes, you can uninstall postprocessing packge on 2019.3 now if you use URP or HDRP
wicked pawn
Ok
turbid matrix
built-in renderer is now only thing that uses the PP package
the built-in PP probably works on regular volumes now
like, you don't put PostProcessing volume there, the component is just named volume
altho don't quote me on that, I just expect it to be like that as it would make sense to format it same way as on HDRP
wicked pawn
@turbid matrix Ok, got PP working! The new system is a lot more intuitive than the old one for sure
wicked pawn
@turbid matrix If I wanted to assign Sprite-Lit-Default as a material in the inspector, how would I do that? The packages folder in the project explorer is empty for some reason 😰
wicked pawn
Ah ok
It's really weird, because "default" GameObjects have it
So if I add Sprite to scene then it has Sprite-Lit-Default, but I can't find any way to add it myself 😕
wicked pawn
@turbid matrix Everything working in URP now
marsh owl
Are there any news about Custom Post Processes in URP?
wicked pawn
@marsh owl Not sure. I haven't done custom post processes before 🤷♂️ Try asking on #💥┃post-processing
fading rose
just a tip: better ask your questions instead of asking if you can ask questions 😄
fading rose
HDRP Performance Experiment Results
While previewing my VR project using HDRP 7.1.5 on 19.3 0b11 I decided to make an experiment and see what affects my scene performance most, in order to devise an optimization strategy.
My scene renders at average 40ms per frame.
Turning off the Terrain reduced 10ms
Turning off the shadows and reflections, 5ms each.
Turning off post effects barely had any effect at all. In fact after turning it all off it started spiking upwards. 2-3ms higher than previously
Turning off generic geometry, even entire batches of it barely had any impact. around 2-3ms.
Turning off Hero models buildings that constitute about 40% of my scene had a relatively moderate impact, around 5ms.
Turning off everything but the sky, left me still with 20-23ms rendering time per frame.
How does that make sense?
Is this the WMR/SteamVR overhead?
If so, how can one reach the 11ms per frame that it considers optimal.
I have a modern machine, quite powerful one, 2070 RTX GPU, intel i7 etc.
It runs the latest Star Wars locked at 60fps on the highest graphics settings. (Epic level) My application is not even near that complexity level yet. It's all static geometry, no scripts no nothing.
ripe fable
Are you on DX12?
fading rose
Nope. DX 11
ripe fable
I can't run an empty scene (with 1 directional light + shadow) in VR on 75hz, also on i7 + RTX 2070
Hmm.
fading rose
yeah same here. 1 Directional Mixed light + shadow (shadowmask.)
turbid matrix
using single pass instanced?
fading rose
yup
fading rose
it crashes the scene 🙂
turbid matrix
but I doubt that would make much difference
fading rose
It's crap
turbid matrix
well, it's still coming up
fading rose
well it should stay in their offices until their QA finds no issues with it.
They are actually suggesting it to people and say that 20.1 the legacy mode will be removed.
turbid matrix
then we'd be still using Unity 2017 here 😄
well, to be fair, 2020 LTS is still one year away
fading rose
if you want full asset store compatibility yes.
turbid matrix
and you should treat tech streams as betas IMO
fading rose
not LTS
they will remove it in 2020.1
so that means it should be pretty robust by now.
turbid matrix
yes, I got it but I mean, 2020.1 is basically move toward 2020 LTS, they drop support asap when 2020.2 is out and 2020.2 gets limited support too
it's not production software if it has like 3 months of support total IMO
so I totally treat these as betas
fading rose
2020 LTS is 2020.4
turbid matrix
yes
fading rose
that is not what Unity promotes.
turbid matrix
it's not
but they promote tech streams totally wrong
they literally give them like 3 months support total each
fading rose
we are moving fast to a repetition of our previous discussions LOL
fading rose
the question is why does an empty scene render at 20ms per frame?
fading rose
That is what you see, and practically you are right, but that is not what Unity tell us.
turbid matrix
I've never cared to profile HDRP VR because when I last tried it, it was super early
are the releasing HDRP's VR support as stable with 2019.3?
I haven't followed on that
fading rose
They better change their tune or a lot of people will get fed up if they continue this way 😄
turbid matrix
I know they've marked already some things that still remain in preview state
turbid matrix
anyway, if HDRP VR is a bust, I'll definitely just do URP + HDRP hybrid to get VR mode in
fading rose
URP is a bust too 😄
turbid matrix
it does run faster simpler scenes tho
fading rose
no PP for instance, no AO...
turbid matrix
no PP?
fading rose
it only has basic post support.
turbid matrix
they redid it for URP, so it could still be wip
it took a while for them to get PP done for HDRP too
fading rose
wip is no go, hence bust.
fading rose
then it is of no use, 😄
fading rose
yeah
turbid matrix
as for AO, I feel that they put it on a timeout while focusing on more pressing issues for the release
at least https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/tree/universal/ssao haven't had any activity for a month
fading rose
but this is also going to be buggy. 😄 the proper release version is f2 😄
fading rose
They are not doing anything about it. it is frozen.
turbid matrix
but I guess their release systems don't have letter for RC's
turbid matrix
there was 7.1.6 SRP releases today btw
probably more of a hotfix for upcoming 2019.3 release
fading rose
yeah I am going to try it. although someone said they said 7.1.5 would be the release version. so it is like these files. image.final.reallyreallyfinal.absolutlylastone.psd
turbid matrix
considering 7.1.6 made to bintray already, it's looking like the version they'd go with atm
they haven't pushed all recent releases to bintray even
long wagon
Does anybody know if there a problem with URP 2D renderer and SpriteRenderer component? Neither default Lit one nor the one I've created with _MainTex property does not set actual sprite. (through code)
I can see it appearing in the material but not in the actual sprite. And the same code work perfectly in the Line Renderer, am I missing something?
turbid matrix
@long wagon are you on recent URP packages?
fading rose
i have never used 2D. so I can't say.
turbid matrix
there's been a lot of activity on 2D fixes on github but I haven't checked if they all landed on 7.1.x releases yet
long wagon
on the 7.1.5
turbid matrix
ah ok, so fairly recent
yeah, I can't really speak from experience either I'm afraid, I mainly see the activity on github and know the promoted feats
long wagon
Ugh, I'll have to swap the whole material, thanks.
turbid matrix
oh, the material setting from code has some special thing
it's probably not just 2D more but in general
long wagon
in LineRenderer it swaps only when property name specifically "_MainTex"
doesn't work in sprite though
turbid matrix
I think docs should give a hint on that
long wagon
URP 2D manual only list those properties, no examples with code. And property named the same
fading rose
try to stay away from SRP. I am sad to say that but for your own good. I have been a huge supporter of SRP, used it a lot, but after so long I am getting on the frustrated side.
fading rose
if it is something very simple that you do ok, but if you are going for the advanced SRP features better not bother.
long wagon
I move 200+ sprites and text elements without falling less than 58 FPS on the phone, I really would like to keep using it 😦
fading rose
yeah performance is trully great, that is for sure.
and if you only do sprites you are fine.
3D SRP leaves a lot to be desired no matter which one you use. Unless you have Unity's demo team and their top technicians to support you 🙂
Everything turned off, only a blue flat color to render and still 13-14ms 😄
sorry after running for a bit, 17-18ms 😛
long wagon
Setting material didn't work either. But, using "sprite" property and assigning sprite from the texture reference worked.
digital mesa
Not having surface shader support in URP is really frustrating. It seems like all the tech pieces are present to allow for it (you can make a single node, with shader variants mapping to an output node). Is there some reason URP doesn't have Surface shaders set as a future feature?
empty star
Do you mean shaderlab syntax? Under the hood urp uses a surface struct for the final shading
indigo summit
Hmm URP and Mobile VR doesn't have support for HDR it seems 🤔
turbid matrix
nor does HDRP
I was actually surprised it's not there yet for HD
HDRP is going to be the thing higher end console titles will be using
and HDR support is needed there more than with PC
turbid matrix
btw, this is a thing now: https://forum.unity.com/forums/hdrp-ray-tracing.431/
DXR subforums
this is going to get so confusing now
because we have PP, URP, HDRP forum sections now + under betas graphics subforum which has HDRP DXR subform 😄
I do get why these things went this way but I don't think it works at all
people still would seek for HDRP DXR thing under HDRP forums
despite it's a preview feat now
like, we have Vulkan and DX12 in preview for HDRP, but nobody would go to beta forums to talk about them, they'd still use HDRP forum section
upbeat copper
Not sure if this is a suitable question for here but:
Does anyone know how to get the thumbnail asset previews in the editor to not be crazy blown out with HDRP?
I can fix it by changing my colour space to gamma instead of linear but i really don't want to do that.
Is there a way to force the colour space of just the asset previews?
indigo summit
@turbid matrix Ah i mean HDR Buffer, not HDR Color Display output
turbid matrix
ah 😄
I'd really want the output support myself
ue4 has had support for that for few years already
indigo summit
ah yeah, now that you mention it. I always thought that unity Support HDR Color output 🤔
turbid matrix
built-in renderer has it https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/HDR.html
oh wait, that's the buffer only
indigo summit
wow, unity really doesn't support HDR Color Output??!!!
well, i don't think i need them for now though
turbid matrix
it would be more important on consoles
but I'd love to support it on windows too
I have hdr monitor here so I could test it as well
I know I've asked about that before and gotten answer that it's not there
but since HDR gives me mainly HDRP on every search, it's close to impossible to find 😄
indigo summit
oh i know that feeling 😄
turbid matrix
and unity forum seach doesn't even let you search for three letter word
it's super annoying at times
like when you want to search for VR for example
you just can't
this and bunch of other things are reasons why I usually don't use built-in search tools at all
and just use google
indigo summit
yeah i use google sites search mostly
turbid matrix
@scarlet hull you know what the status of HDR monitor support is right now? (edit: apparently it's supported on consoles, just not on windows)
is it even on some backlog ? 😄
also sorry for the ping, I try to avoid tagging staff but couldn't find anything while searching for this
turbid matrix
yeah that came up with my google search as well
indigo summit
umm https://forum.unity.com/threads/hdr-support-talked-unite-austin-support-coming-in-2017-3.499059/
it mentioned that HDR already available for xb1 and ps4 🤔
HDR Color Output or HDR Buffer?
turbid matrix
HDR is already available now for both XB1 and PS4.
output probably
because that's what people need
I do wonder if they plan on doing it for windows at all
altho the win 10 hdr support is super sketchy
I only have one game where it's easy to swap it enabled
well, I guess it's not a priority
like mentioned, consoles are main target for it
as most HDR displays out there are tv's
indigo summit
hmm i guess it's not main priority then
turbid matrix
so this is how the version check works
I saw the commit, just first time seeing it in action
indigo summit
2020 only isn't?
turbid matrix
could be
indigo summit
no i mean 8.x.x
turbid matrix
there's some weirdness with DXR too here
I get this black circle on the reflection the more I look directly to the mirror
and its all blown out
indigo summit
the reflection sucking your soul
scarlet hull
NaNs ?
turbid matrix
probably
because if I lift the material base color from pitch black even slightly, it renders again
but if I put that mirror to have white base color, it acts as huge emissive light despite me having no emissive setup for this
it's just default HDRP Lit shader with metallic and smoothness to the max
that being said, I'm on a14 for this
I dunno if it's even supported by recent hdrp staging
indigo summit
say, is current master compatible with a14?
turbid matrix
I have a faint memory I saw a15 requirement somewhere :p
indigo summit
dangit
turbid matrix
"unity": "2020.1",
"unityRelease": "0a15",```well, removing checkbox from stop nan didn't change a thing
so, I'll just wait for new alpha at this point (mainly wanted to test the skinned mesh support on dxr)
upbeat copper
Man unity forum search is frustrating I will agree with you there
turbid matrix
https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/commit/d05f29a15f741c10f6d1810f6a3eac4c6f7c5830
Added a Threshold setting to Bloom. Setting a value higher than 0 will break the energy conservation rule.
sharp hatch
Is there any combination of render pipeline/post fx that renders properly in VR now?
turbid matrix
they all should render in VR now
but user experience on HDRP perf hasn't been anywhere near acceptable apparently
I haven't tried it on my end recently so can't speak from experience
so, that pretty much confirms no skinned mesh rendering with DXR on 2019.3
but that was expected at this point
it's kinda downside of the current unity release schedule
they gotta freeze the changes at some point and then it's only fixes and sdk updates from that point forward
nothing new coming up for 2019.3 anymore (or 2019.4 LTS for that matter) unless we count package updates
fervent yew
O see what you are doing @sharp hatch . We could ask bitcake. Vr is their bread and butter
sharp hatch
I'll ask
indigo summit
i'm really curious about the Refraction model on the builtin Lit Shader
where do you guys get that technique tho?
and what is the advantage of using those technique rather than just distort the color pyramid ?
digital mesa
@empty star yeah under the hood it's all the same, but I can't just write a surface shader without making a shader graph as far as I can tell. If that's not the case I would be super happy 🙂
On the features page they list surface shaders as unsupported
The shader graph stuff is really great for empowering more people to contribute to shader design and tinkering, but it's very cumbersome for complicated math heavy shader authoring.
Writing surface shaders is awesome. They light uniformly with other surface shaders, they survive upgrades and have the minimal amount of code in them.
ionic remnant
I'm curious do custom nodes not meet most of the needs of a surf shader?
digital mesa
I can write a custom node that maps into the output node, which is the current work around. It's inconvenient to have to create one of those for each shader, and to have to add parameters through the UI instead of through code.
That's the reason I'm confused surface shader support was dropped, all the technical pieces are already present to put it in.
ionic remnant
Yeah I guess it adds a layer of encapsulation and complexity that wasn't there with surf shaders
digital mesa
Surface shaders were a very nice improvement over having to write vert/frag for everything. They really make writing shaders in Unity a lot more approachable.
The shader graph is also amazing, it's just not a replacement for the more complicated shaders that sometimes need to be written.
jolly pelican
It's so hard for me to get into the Shader Graph, it was so easy to write a simple formula... now I have to drag around nodes for each component (ugh) ... I guess I write the custom nodes, but again it's a bit cumbersome.
digital mesa
Yeah it certainly slows down my iteration on a certain style of shaders I need to write.
I started converting over some relatively simple shaders (simple to understand, few number of lines, but not necessarily low instruction count), and the graph started to become confusing right away.
jolly pelican
I don't understand why they aren't supporting coded shaders better (I mean it's doable), but they really are forcing everyone through the shader graph.
digital mesa
The examples provided make shader graph look amazing, like the URP example where they add a stipple. It seems like magic. But that's because they basically had the exact shader you wanted already done up in a node. Again- awesome for artists and creative types to start to dabble in shaders, but not engineer friendly.
So I would love surface shader support, but don't know how to really surface that request to Unity in a constructive way.
jolly pelican
Yes, exactly
I'm forever going back and forth on using the URP and standard pipeline because I want features from both!
waxen lantern
@turbid matrix I hope they do finally rip off the band aid soon and freeze "legacy" Unity into some kind of LTS branch so things are no longer so fragmented. letting devs "have it all" and infinitely configurable with old and new can end up causing more complaints than it's worth vs a "clean break" to a new engine
because honestly, when you consider SRP and especially DOTS, and the new UI, Shader graph, Vfx graph, Visual scripting graph, new physics, it's an entirely new engine.
it's comparable to the difference between UE3 and UE4 ( which didn't give devs the same sort of legacy support and package manager for only the new features you want that Unity is doing now.) and people didn't complain about it nearly as much, you're just on engine X or the newer engine Y.
clear separation = fewer people complaining about their edge case not providing some more specific permutation of old and new frameworks they perhaps should have never been allowed to start hacking together to begin with.
sure you will initially upset a bunch of people all at once. but you get it over with quickly and move on with the new engine being a greenfield project vs straddling everything, relying on permutations of conversion and compatibility workflows and overall slowing development. (hence the bandage 🩹 removal metaphor)
indigo summit
Wow, HDRP really perform bad in vulkan isn't
turbid matrix
well at the same time, that is both not happening and also planned 😄
their plan is that pure dots will run with dots runtime which has nothing to do with the old unityplayer anymore
but for editor and hybrid, they'll keep the old stuff around as long as people keep using it
old setup is still their main income, and many old users are not happy about new development in the first place so they can't really piss them off even more
buoyant solar
Anyone updated to 7.1.6?
scarlet hull
Yes !
turbid matrix
and yes
@scarlet hull what's up with the HDRP 7.1.6 defaults?
I mean, this is bit of a mix now
box and plane are using hybrid rendering
but it's otherwise stock HDRP new scene after I've ran hdrp wizard
that goes away if I add bloom and put the intensity to 0
but you'd assume bloom was totally disabled by default if you don't add it anyway
which is just... weird
scarlet hull
We don't support combining HDRP with hybrid renderer for the moment (hybrid is still preview)
turbid matrix
also it glows like that only on 2 sides of the default cube 😄
scarlet hull
And depending how you did set it up (wizard), HDRP now has a default bloom
turbid matrix
I thought the dots shooter was using HDRP tho?
it's supposed to release soon
oh it has?
I did use wizard but I'm not seeing the bloom on volumes
scarlet hull
it contains default frame settings, and default volume
turbid matrix
I guess we get used to this
but having things scattered around IS going to confuse people a lot
I know UE4 does it like this, but I don't really like that either 😄
scarlet hull
turbid matrix
yeah, I get what's happening now 🙂
I wonder what's going to happen to the DOTS shooter they told was coming up about... now... in the Unite Copenhagen keynote
because it uses HDRP and hybrid, right?
scarlet hull
AFAIK, it's a fork of HDRP
ripe fable
ouch
turbid matrix
it would explain things
also
hybrid used to work better with HDRP in past
I never had these issues until now on 7.1.x
of course before this, there was a long period that hybrid was just unusable with HDRP due to the shadow API change in HDRP
but before that it did work with stock HDRP
indigo summit
wait 7.1.6 released?
turbid matrix
it's in github and bintray but not exposed in package manager
you can manually mod the manifest to use it
young drift
Hey, so I'm learning about the LWRP, and I'm a little confused. So, I added a Pipeline Asset to my scene. But, when I go to my materials to try to select it, I don't see the option, but instead a huge list of other things. How do I tell the material to be rendered by the pipeline?
Or do I have the wrong idea?
candid basin
In Quality settings of your project, have you assigned the pipeline asset?
young drift
I have not; let me try that.
Hm. I'm in the Quality settings, and I'm not seeing it
Ah! I found the documentation. Lemme read this first
candid basin
Um it's somewhere under project settings. Maybe graphics. Just a slot for a pipeline asset.
young drift
Ok, found it. It's under graphics as you say. But, I have added it, and I'm still not seeing it
I've got the material selected, and clicking on the Shader dropdown
candid basin
You don't see lwrp?
young drift
I see the LWRP, but not the asset I made
candid basin
What do you mean the asset you made?
Lwrp has a set of built in shaders, lit, unlit etc
young drift
I made a Pipeline Asset -- and I'm not quite sure how it fits into the broader context of making a LWRP
candid basin
Ah alright so you have the pipeline asset right, in the inspector there is a renderer assigned
You can also make a custom renderer
And assign it to the pipeline
A forward renderer that is
And the renderer has a lot of settings
young drift
yeah, I see "Render Type" which is set to "Forward Renderer"
I see now the custom one tho
candid basin
Ah right, if you want, right click in project view and you can create a forward renderer
And then assign it to the pipeline
young drift
Aaah, ok
What is a forward renderer? Is it the thing that basically displays / culls things for a camera?
(thank you very much for taking the time to explain all this to me, by the way 🙂 )
candid basin
Forward rendering is the default - you render each triangle to the screen, one after another, using whatever full quality shaders you need. This has the advantage of being simple. Disadvantage: overdraw. If you draw several triangles on top of each other, you're wasting a lot of effort.
Deferred rendering is a way to prevent this. Your first pass, where you render each triangle to the 'screen', just involves pushing the raw data into a screen-sized buffer. So you'll record at least the pixel's color, normal, z position, and other information the shader needs.
Then you take this buffer and, essentially, render it as if it was a single 'forward rendered' textured triangle. You use the proper shaders, and take information from the buffer about what each pixel should look like.
Advantage: no overdraw. Each pixel on the screen gets its final lighting processed exactly once. Disadvantage: you need a very large buffer, and one single "uber shader" to do all the final processing. There are some techniques you can't do this way, transparent objects are tricky to handle, and in general it's a lot of work.
This is copied from someone else but should explain it, so you have 2 types of renderers. Right now lwrp/urp only has support for forward renderer BUT deferred is planned for the future.
candid basin
Yup
young drift
There is a lot to this 🙂 (as there would obviously have to be)
candid basin
If you go to window>analysis>frame debugger you can see this drawing order btw, opaques, grandparents etc. And also, catlikecoding has a great tutorial on creating your own renderer. He has even updated the tutorial for unity 2019. Following that you'll learn a lot about rendering in unity in general
Transparents* not grandparents haha
candid basin
Best of luck, graphics rendering is super interesting and so so much to learn. I myself have only scratched the surface.
young drift
Indeed. It's a lot of fun. It's a very big topic
And I'm trying to do something that's probably super simple, so hopefully I can wrestle it into working
buoyant solar
@scarlet hull upgrade process failed for me. I had to erase Library for it to properly reimport assets. Before that it tried, but failed with corrupted something. Unity bug reported also crashed, so no specific info… I had 7.1.5 before that.
candid basin
Also the srps are constantly evolving. Personally if you're not working on something in production but just testing, I would update to unity 2019.3 and URP
young drift
srps?
candid basin
Scriptable rendering pipelines (hdrp and URP/lwrp)
young drift
Oh gotchya
I'm not sure what I'm working in yet. I'm a jack of all trades going into hobbyist game design, though primarily I'm an animator.
Alright, I shall return later. Must do family things. Thanks again. 🙂
candid basin
Glad I could help
scarlet hull
@buoyant solar That's surprising. I did upgrade tests on some projects, but maybe a specific combination of settings caused your issues.
Sorry but our only way to find a fix for this is to have more informations, and the best for this would be that you send us a repro-project 🙂
dawn sorrel
Quick question from an inexperienced experimenter, colors dont show under shadows. Why not, and how does one change this?
buoyant solar
@scarlet hull I will try it now. Downgraded to 7.1.5, wiped Library, and as soon as it reimports, I will upgrade to 7.1.6 and see if it reproduces
buoyant solar
@scarlet hull sent you info I have in DM
dawn sorrel
(I assume this is something to do with the HDRP, since before adding it my cubemap was perfectly fine.)
Is there some specific way to add textures to cubemaps in projects with the HDRP? Everything works fine with the Volume and stuff, but when I add the cubemap it refuses to work and goes back to a solid black skybox.
(I've already tried fixing everything with the Render Pipeline Wizard.)
scarlet hull
iirc, I already saw something like this. I don't remember precisely the reason, but cubemap assets like those are not supported in HDRP.
It's better for you to pack your 6 texture in a single one and import it as a cube texture
prime basalt
7.1.6 broken for everyone?
scarlet hull
Can you develop ?
scarlet hull
@prime basalt ?
prime basalt
huh?
you asked me? no since prefab scene doesnt render meshes
weird question anyway
"don't you guys have phones" kinda
lyric ravine
You mean Prefab Isolation Mode? Can you try disabling URP camera / all post effect volumes and Open Prefab again? I reported that as major bug.
prime basalt
ok i just wanted to know it's not on my side. i reverted to 1.5 for the time being im on hd
lyric ravine
Could you still try that workaround (disabling camera and/or volumes on HDRP)? (I could add that it doesn't work on HDRP either to the bug report if you can verify)
scarlet hull
To be clear : Is it the prefab isolation mode that is not working on your side ?
lyric ravine
Yes. It's one of the sub cases of (Case 1197599). Also see https://forum.unity.com/threads/prefab-workflow-issues-overrides-are-back-undo-broken-scene-hierarchy-weird.775388/
drifting vault
where is 2019.3 ? hmmm
remote forge
kerfuffle in release process. I'll grab you a link. (it's RC, not final release btw)
prime basalt
@scarlet hull at least, seems something is broken with lighting as well, as it's completely different but i didn't care about that.
remote forge
drifting vault
@remote forge oh thanks!
buoyant solar
Was looking into HDRP package, stumbled upon ShaderOptions.BarnDoor – what is this? 😄
turbid matrix
it's in the package already?
I only recently saw the branch for it
I'd assume it's to simulate light barndoors
like
dawn sorrel
Sorry for not responding last night, thank you very much for this!! I was trying to fix it for about 2 hours before I finally asked here. Gonna try it now.
dawn sorrel
I finally managed to make it work, something to do with the DefaultSceneRoot settings was screwing with it. Copied the Render Settings out of it, disabled the prefab, and made a new camera and I can see the cubemap perfectly fine.
Turns out bloom, even though only at 0.2, was apparently way too much for the scene and my cube just destroyed the lighting because of it.
unkempt nest
Hey everyone, do you think HDRP is ready yet to be used in a game project that's going to be released?
I've heard from some people that there are significant performance issues in many scenarios
Also, there isn't much support from Asset Store (which Unity is heavily based on) for HDRP
Do you think it's better to stay in Built-In Render Pipeline in this stage?
drifting vault
i did two games with HDRP 6.9 Unity2019.2 , waiting for release
@unkempt nest
and upgrading to HDRP give to us more optimization that standart render with custom effects from Asset Store
unkempt nest
Okay, thanks for the answer!
Do you have any discord server / webpage where I can follow your development progress?
indigo summit
Finally i can get a decent water in HDRP by using Lit Tessellation shader + CRT, and now i have to deal with this nasty cutoff for the refraction. . . . 😶
why can't we just get a basic refraction mode? //sigh
unkempt nest
Other than the refraction problem it still looks very nice!
drifting vault
@indigo summit what is your FoV on camera and with method for reflection are you use? static reflection or screen space reflectios?
indigo summit
built in refraction that included in lit tess shader
so i'm guessing screenspace refraction
drifting vault
im about reflections 🙂
drifting vault
hmm, do you tried planar reflections?
indigo summit
not yet
hah, what do you know
planar reflection broke the refraction
😄
there's always a wall to hit
i see, so it work with sphere refraction, but Box refraction broken when using planar reflection
indigo summit
Well i got the box refraction to work with planar reflection, turned out i need to increase the refraction thickness.
But now it make the Refraction Cutoff even worse than before
i think i'm going to stay with cubemap reflection tho :/
tulip leaf
im playing around with dxr and i noticed that the characters legs are not being reflected on the surface (i have ray traced reflections on)
turbid matrix
@tulip leaf skinned meshes are not supported by 2019.3 on DXR
there's a list of things that it doesn't do there
2020.1 will support skinned meshes
and that feat can't be backported to 2019 as they've locked 2019 cycle already (no need feats coming in anymore)
turbid matrix
hmmm, enviro now supports URP/LWRP for the cloud part
foggy plaza
cd project_root
git clone https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline
"com.unity.render-pipelines.core": "file:../ScriptableRenderPipeline/com.unity.render-pipelines.core",
"com.unity.render-pipelines.universal": "file:../ScriptableRenderPipeline/com.unity.render-pipelines.universal",
"com.unity.shadergraph": "file:../ScriptableRenderPipeline/com.unity.shadergraph",
@candid basin that's for master' tip though
turbid matrix
github master or hdrp/staging branch from that repo
staging got newest stuff but could be even more unstable
also I think you need a15 for current master
(also for hdrp/staging)
candid basin
ah so through github
alright thank you
when do these releases show up in package manager?
when the actual Unity version is released?
candid basin
because I'm right to say 6.0 -> Unity 2019.2, 7.0 -> Unity 2019.3 and 8.0 -> Unity 2020.1
or not?
turbid matrix
yeah, that's how it goes
candid basin
oke!
turbid matrix
woud expect first 8.0 package some time after 2019.3 is out of the door and 2020.1 goes to beta
also for that skinned mesh support on DXR, it's currently only on HDRP/staging
altho I haven't verified if it's fully functional yet
ripe fable
I'll give it a shot tonight
stable dune
I think you can just replace the renderer
turbid matrix
@tulip leaf you wouldn't get animations then
tulip leaf
oh
turbid matrix
I also don't think 2019.3 supports vertex animation by shader for DXR either :p
I mean, you can use animations if you have just joints and meshes and no skinning
like, you could do robot animation like that
it's the mesh (skin) deformations that are tricky for DXR
ripe fable
I think they receive some of the DXR effects like GI/AO, but they don't appear in reflections, so it depends on what you need I guess
turbid matrix
I wouldn't expect those effect to be all correct on them
and they don't contribute to raytracing
ripe fable
I just tried 2020.1.0a14 with latest HDRP/staging. My skinned mesh renderers still don't cast shadows or appear in reflections. (just for info)
turbid matrix
well, technically that version requires a15
altho I dunno what's the reason that requirement
ripe fable
Ah didn't know that, will give it another try when a15 is available. 😄
turbid matrix
I'd expect them to announce it monday
fading rose
@ripe fable 🙂 Why do you even bother. Even semi-decent DXR support should not be expected before 20.2.
Seems like the 19.3 implementation was just a static hack meant to save some face and grab some marketing space. So unless you absolutely can't move forward with your project unless it has raytrace lighting and reflections in it, I would suggest you move on and add it later during polish. Perhaps work on a way to fake it for the lower end devices.
ripe fable
Current DXR support works well enough for my use case really, I was curious, would have been a nice addition to see trees/characters raytraced in the current dev blog/vlog
fading rose
Not sure I understand. How is it well enough if it does not support the trees and the characters you want to have in your game?
turbid matrix
well, if 2020.1 gives those, you can use it to some extent
HDRP's DX12 perf in general might be bigger issue than the DXR
ripe fable
yeah it is.
turbid matrix
I'm in the same boat here
skinned/vertex animation aren't the main attraction, cars and regular meshes that don't need to bend are
and I'm sure the skinned mesh rendering will be sorted out
because frankly, it has to
ripe fable
Exactly what I just wanted to write, I don't expect it to take long before it arrives either, I can just do some more networking/physics until then
fading rose
Sounds like you have no time constraints for what you do. That can both be great and not so great depending on the case.
drifting vault
When will be blog about Unity 2019.3 ? #497866432277643275
true zealot
When it's actually released
turbid matrix
I really hope unity fixes the hub
I posted to forums about this too, that RC is not clearly marked at all and now people keep assuming and telling 2019.3 is out on all unity communities I'm at
true zealot
It's clearly marked, no?
turbid matrix
it was marked as full release for some
and then it was also missing from hub at some point too
and it's not clearly marked at all
they should do "Unity 2019.3.0f1 (Release Candidate)" instead there
because people will otherwise just assume hub failed to place it in right bin :p
you have to be super specific when you deal with this large userbase, never underestimate how many could misunderstand you if you don't label your stuff properly
jolly gust
Emission color changing not showing at runtime. Changes appear only if I deselect the object and select it again in scene window. URP 7.1.5 and 2019.3.b12 though. Any thoughts?
candid basin
what does this error mean?
I have no idea how to resolve it
it's just that text, no link to any code
waxen lantern
@turbid matrix they just fixed that issue and mentioned it in unity hub release notes (that 2019.3f1 / release candidates were incorrectly shown as final release in hub)
turbid matrix
@waxen lantern yes, I'm aware
but it's still misleading
I put improvement suggestion to the forums: https://forum.unity.com/threads/hub-should-state-editor-versions-more-clearly.786890/
if you only look at the hub and editor, it's not clear at all it's release candidate
and if you've installed it already, it looks 100% same as full release on the list
so that's still an issue
one of these is alpha, one is RC, one is actual release
but yeah, this topic is getting quite offtopic on rendering now
waxen lantern
aha i suppose that's true it's ambiguous. well it was definitely an oopsie
waxen lantern
how about that updated RP package documentation coming alongside 2019.3 though? @turbid matrix
turbid matrix
@waxen lantern I have no idea what you are asking now 🙂
turbid matrix
ah, they've really started to polish the docs for the release
it's actually been going on throughout 7.x cycle but way more after summer
scarlet hull
We decided to remove distortion from the HDRP/Lit shader.
It is still available in the HDRP/Lit master node for shadergraph
But a UI bug introduced with this also removed the distortion UI from the HDRP/Unlit material inspector. Expect a fix in next release.
turbid matrix
was this to reduce shader compilation times?
I'd be fine without most special feats on the main lit shader if Unity actually exposed boolean toggles for enabling shader feats on the material for shader graphs
I at least still assume that's still an issue
I mean those feats you can now only toggle on and off from the master node itself
we should be able to configure those so that user could toggle those from material as well
not being able to do that results in tons of copy/paste for things where we want to have option to use the feat x
as my best example, I couldn't make generic particle shader graph in past because each fancy effect would have required their own shader graph due to the master node toggles
scarlet hull
Removal of distortion from HDRP/Lit master node indeed does reduce shader compilation, but we also made it from an UX point of view : a lot of persons were using it for refraction, instead of using the refraction inputs.
indigo summit
yeah there's a reason for that
turbid matrix
have you covered refraction vs distortion on docs or blog post?
people using these are not all technically minded people who can tell there's actual difference betweent the two 😄
I have no idea what these do under the hood either
indigo summit
well even UE4 have the same cutoff when using their physical base refraction (PBRfr?)
i'm just looking for the tessellation on the built in shader 😒
turbid matrix
tessellation missing from HDRP Lit shadergraph is still going to dissappoint so many people
indigo summit
if it's available on Shadergraph i promised i'm not going to use distortion for refraction 😆
turbid matrix
so... I've seen this on 2020.1 alphas but now also on HDRP 7.1.6 on 2019.3... somehow the raytraced reflection exposure is all wonky now
it used to work just fine in past
there's no emissive material there
but having metallic + smoothness on 1.0 and nonblack base color will result in that
putting 0.0 on base color (full black) makes the surface appear like unlit black material
once I put the material base color almost black, it's showing the reflection but it's still getting blown out if I look at it in an angle:
that screenshot was from DXR tier 2 but same happens on tier 1 as well
also as totally separate note, a lot of people will be confused now when they jump into HDRP, it's settings are scattered all around the project settings
you'd think these could be unified somehow so it wasn't that way
scarlet hull
We already know that the settings are ... confusing.
As an (shame) explanation : this was done in a rush because we needed to have a link between quality settings and HDRP (you can assign a HDRP asset per quality level), while retaining a default (in the graphic settings).
We have plans for a better and more clear UI, but it needs a lot of rework (while here a lot of the editor UI code has been reused)
turbid matrix
oh I can see what lead to this, considering all the legacy setup there, it's just.. super confusing now 😄
you know anything about that DXR reflection issue?
I'm curious if I'm missing something here
because I've seen this same happen now on new and old projects where I setup DXR reflections
scarlet hull
No sorry, I have no idea about that.
turbid matrix
normally it would be quite easy to backtrack commits to see where it broke but it's been a while since I've tried this on 7.1.x
a lot has changed recently as well
no more raytracing volume for one
I'm basically trying to update the DXR sample project I shared to others who stuggled to setup DXR in the earlier 2019.3 betas
but DXR reflections are totally broken now on this
scarlet hull
leme check
indigo summit
one question, didn't you guys fixed the blocky artifact around reflection probe blending area already?
i see this artifact happening again
scarlet hull
I think I saw some thread about that ... But it seems to be project/setting specific, as I was no able to reproduce it ...
turbid matrix
hmmmm
it's actually working perfectly when I load the project... until I hover the mouse over scene view
that's so weird
I've tried new template, 2020.1 from hdrp/staging and 2019.3 with 7.1.6 from pacman
it's also broken on game view if I hit play in editor
also once I've hovered mouse over scene view, it'll stay like that until I restart editor again
can't make raytraced shadows do anything on 7.1.6 either
(for directional light)
scarlet hull
Don't forget to enable screen space shadows for this
turbid matrix
they are enabled
from both HDRP asset and the directional light
this same scene used to work on older HDRP
scarlet hull
And the frame settings ?
scarlet hull
Hum ... sorry, can't answer, I'm a bit lost to know when some stuffs were added
turbid matrix
btw, I tried toggling off all possible frame settings for the reflection issue, but couldn't make it not happen
and yeah, the shadows definitely work now on DXR
but no idea on contact shadows as I can't see any difference on this scene
denoiser is still too laggy to be used with it tho
there was that hack Auzaiffe shared here that fixed that
I was hoping it would have been dealt on the actual release already 🙂
scarlet hull
Hum, I wanted to try ... and for some reasons, I have shader compilation issues 😄
Need to investigate on this
turbid matrix
I did get some weird errors at times but I assume it was me disabling the frame settings that should have been there
I did push the 7.1.6 change to https://github.com/0lento/Unity_DXR_Test, this still fails me on the reflection with the HDRP Sample scene like mentioned, rest appears to work
turbid matrix
hmmmmm, it still worked on 7.1.5
so something broke between 7.1.5 and 7.1.6
looking at the commits between... this looks like one possible cause for this breakage: https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/pull/4685/
scarlet hull
Sooo ... I managed to get it working : I can reproduce, and it's a known issue
turbid matrix
lol
just got the issue report done
Case 1202843
@scarlet hull has this been known for long?
mainly curious when to expect fix for it
also is there public issue # for it?
I tried looking for one briefly but didn't see any
nor any user reports on the forums
as a sidenote: I also tested this on newest hdrp/staging from github using 2020.1 and it's broken there as well
turbid matrix
I replaced 7.1.6 with 7.1.5 on that DXR Test repo for the time being, at least it still works there
lyric ravine
anyone an idea what causes this on HDRP DXR?
scarlet hull
@turbid matrix The issue was introduced with a fix on SSR : We changed how exposure is applied on SSR to allow for high intensity reflections, but as a consequence, the exposure is breaking DXR reflections. It was indeed introduced with 7.1.6 and you can expect a fix for 7.1.7
turbid matrix
Yay :)
slim wolf
Hi. I use URP, when I move away from an object it greys out pretty soon instead of rendering the material anymore. As this might have reasons due to performance, in my case it feels much too early to be greyed out. I sadly didn't find the right property, to control the distance for this.
candid basin
grey out how?
slim wolf
Material rendered
greyed out
There is only one directional light shining exactly from the top down
slim wolf
@candid basin This is what I meant
turbid matrix
sly ferry
Has anyone here successfully got the Path Tracing to work with the ambient lighting for the skybox, or is it currently impossible?
tardy eagle
A bit confused, i'm trying to build my project and currently all it has is a cube with the camera facing it. But when using the built version of it I cannot see the cube in the scene but in the editor I can. I'm using the HDRP. Any ideas?
Editor
Built version
Unity 2019.3
outer wigeon
I wish I could tell you, that's got me puzzled.
tardy eagle
Yeah me too 😦
outer wigeon
Is it literally just a cube? Does it have physics on it? Maybe it fell down? Heh.
tardy eagle
Nope lmao, just a straight cube. No rigidbody
outer wigeon
What if there's more stuff in there, perhaps it's getting culled, try things closer to the camera, perhaps?
olive needle
Just to clarify, if you run it in the Editor (not scene view, actually running it in the Editor) it does show up normally, correct?
tardy eagle
Yes, game view it shows up correctly
olive needle
The one thing I can think of now, if that's the case, might have to be with the game's quality settings, since those do affect draw distances.
Or rather, can affect depending on how you set them up, I believe.
Although that cube does not SEEM like it is distant enough from the camera for that to matter, to be fair.
olive needle
Yeah, that might be a good idea
turbid matrix
DOTS?
tardy eagle
Odd, if I move the cube around (in the built version WASD) I can see the color show up but it fills the whole screen with no 3D.
I haven't messed with dots yet
still not sure what it is lol
turbid matrix
I got that on HDRP when I had havok package installed
tardy eagle
Oh
Yeah, i've got havok installed
Is there something in havok that messes with rendering?
olive needle
That sounds so exceptionally weird, considering you don't seem to have any physics running on your objects
But hey, I've seen weirder things happen
turbid matrix
told ya 😄
outer wigeon
Maybe havok is making it fall down.
tardy eagle
How would that explain being able to see the color of it when I move it around but not the full 3d render of it?
turbid matrix
I dunno why but it feels like the camera is on some 1000x zoom
you clearly see colors from your scene
but only one color at a time
tardy eagle
Exactly
dreamy bronze
Does anyone know how to use point lights in the universal render pipeline. It's kind of crucial for the look of my game.
turbid matrix
earlier it just outputted white screen on build
I mentioned this to the havok dev at last Unite
he wasn't aware of it at the time
tardy eagle
Oh 🤔 Hopefully they fix it soon
turbid matrix
I first thought it was some protection scheme for havok not working on builds before it's out of beta 😄
but it's not
Unity Physics does work and uses same api
outer wigeon
Deja Vu for some reason.
shrewd oracle
Hi guys, I have a problem with HDRP shaders.
When I play my game within the Unity Editor (in play mode) everything is correct, but when I build my project and I execute it, gameobjects with "HDRP/Lit" shader are not rendered.
Should I think about a configuration error? Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance!
slim wolf
According to earlier posts ... due you have Havok installed? You can check posts from yesterday, sounds related
turbid matrix
can you be more specific?
there are hundreds if not thousands of messages on Unity communities each day 😄
there were crashing issues with the Havok package that got fixed by newest entities package, and now there's new unity physics package as well
these might or might not help on the havok issue seen here but it's completely random at this point, would need to try it out
slim wolf
Sry, my bad @tardy eagle Just posted yesterday here, that his cube is not rendering. And @elder merlinnto answered😛
turbid matrix
ah, I have a good memory
can't remember what I did half a day ago :p
I don't know if that's related if it's only certain materials that are excluded
but if there's DOTS involved in any way, there are multiple things that can happen
@shrewd oracle can you explain what all you have on your project
slim wolf
Yeah, probably need to look up how to cite in the discord app. That would have you linked to the exact post. Sry
shrewd oracle
@slim wolf yeah, actually i saw that post but i don't use DOTS or Havok packages in my project (just checked from package manager to be sure)
@turbid matrix what do you mean by explaining what all i have on my project?
turbid matrix
@shrewd oracle it's just hard to make any educated guesses on what's going wrong when there's almost no info about what you've done on that project
oh wait, one thing that can make things just straight up dissappear is the SRP Batcher... there's been a lot of bugs with it that have resulted in situations like that
make sure you are on newest HDRP for the engine version you are using
and if there's SRP Batcher option on your HDRP asset, try toggiling it off and see if it helps on the built version
you'd really want to keep it enabled but at least this way you can test if that's the reason for what you're seeing
shrewd oracle
@turbid matrix if i select my HDRP asset, the inspector panel shows different sections but it doesn't show the "advanced" section in which "SRP batcher" is supposed to be
shrewd oracle
@turbid matrix problem solved, srp batcher option still not present but it was sufficient to update hdrp from the package manager and now it seems to be okay
no other modifications, only updated
before the update, the upper part of the window, marked by the arrow, was empty...
dense brook
Hi,
Is there any replacement for old GrabPass for URP and HDRP? I know there is _OpaqueTexture, but what if I want to create a custom distortion that will affect all objects, not only opaque ones.
I know there is distortion in HDRP, but they work only if you have Alpha = 0, so it is impossible to lerp between distorted image and original one.
sullen marsh
hey has anyone had any trouble changing the render scale in the URP
whenever I change it my unity starts spewing errors about color surface does not match dimensions of depth surface
remote forge
which version are you on? I'm using it fine on 7.1.4
turbid matrix
tbh, I thought they already did a draft like half a year/year ago
so frankly surprised to see it still on draft level now
just to put this in context, draft is usually similar to a prototype, so it's more of a proof of concept before they actually start fully implementing it
at this point, the actual feat could be year+ off
candid basin
you think so?
turbid matrix
based on the previous drafts I've seen on SRP repo, yes
candid basin
ow
turbid matrix
it all depends on the priorities they have tho
if it's high priority, they can make it happen faster
but despite what users who want this feat try to message, having camera stackingi isn't something I'd put high on prio list
it's more of those would be nice to have things
cerulean wolf
Ooh that would be nice
turbid matrix
there are many way more important things still missing
like the deferred renderer for URP
candid basin
what would you say is most important?
turbid matrix
SSAO is still not in
turbid matrix
nor are dynamic point light shadows
candid basin
flares
turbid matrix
those point light shadows are quite bad to not be there
cerulean wolf
I didn't know they were planning to go deferred on urp?
candid basin
they are adding it
candid basin
says 2020.1
turbid matrix
and it's not "going deferred" in a way it'll remove forward mode they now have
it's going to be just alternative mode
cerulean wolf
No sorry thats not what I meant
turbid matrix
yeah, just trying to be specific to not give people wrong ideas 😄
cerulean wolf
But I thought they wanted at least for LWRP it to be forward only
candid basin
LWRP is the past
turbid matrix
it makes sense to have forward for low end devices
cerulean wolf
Alexander do you have the link in to that post?
turbid matrix
there's way less overhead
candid basin
yeah one sec I have good link
turbid matrix
URP is basically what came from LWRP
cerulean wolf
I mean for the camera stacking
turbid matrix
technically it's just a rename as LW doesn't describe the thing that well anymore
cerulean wolf
I know, but I thought it was basically a rename, not a change of stance for features
turbid matrix
there was a google doc about the camera stacking
you can probably find it from the forums
candid basin
cerulean wolf
Didn't that one just say "We won't do it because its hard to sync"
candid basin
idk how up to date this is
but both deffered rendering and camera stacking is roughly next 6 months
but grain of salt
cerulean wolf
Ooh I didn't know they had a roadmap. That will be very interesting. Is their estimate when it will be released or when it will be ready for testing though?
turbid matrix
well, LWRP was production ready
cerulean wolf
I mean LWRP is, and there haven't been many core changes right?
turbid matrix
biggest change on URP is the post processing
as it uses it's own dedicated PP now
old pp doesn't work with it
candid basin
the volume stuff?
turbid matrix
ye
cerulean wolf
Aah okay, what does LWRP use, the PP stack?
cerulean wolf
oh the volume stuff that HDRP has?
candid basin
it's nice to use
turbid matrix
yes, it's similar setup
cerulean wolf
It looks nice, sadly have never used HDRP before, but it looks impressive
turbid matrix
it's easier to setup for sure