Deferred Rendering / Shading XNA

A deferred rendering/shading sample done with XNA. The render targets shown are for color (top left), normals (top right), screen-space velocity (bottom left), depth (bottom right) and lighting (center). Full source code soon at http://www.codeplex.com/xnacommunity

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• xna
• deferred
• rendering
• shading

[0ChrisDickson0]

Right, but how many people learning graphics programming are going to be porting to multiple platforms? And the reality is that if you really want to optimize your code, it will NOT be portable. XNA is a great learning tool. The concepts are the same whether your programming for XNA, OpenGL, or DirectX. It's all the same basic ideas so why make it harder for yourself when you're learning?

[daarong3]

I'm talking about PS3 vs 360 because they're similar in purpose and ability. If you're going to include all video gaming machines then the Nintendo DS is the most popular

[demiurghg]

@capoeiranewbie

GoW based on Unreal Engine 3 (which writen completly using C++), but not XNA.

[capoeiranewbie]

Most Microsoft games are coded with the XNA enviroment. Gow series etc. It isn't for beginners.. it opens the door to beginners. The only reason you don't see many 3D games etc. Is because the skillset required is a step up from 2D. It can be done, and done well. Plus it is easily portable to xbox 360 with a few changes of code and to windows 7 as a mini app. The fact that it is tied to windows only isnt so bad. DirectX is the way to go, that's why all the good games are on windows platforms.

[InterTubeClogger]

@vtastek they sure do. The uniform velocity field makes sense, since everything is (almost) standing still. The uniform depth must be a result of the demo room being much, much smaller than the front/back distance.

[utkua]

"portable code cannot be optimized" myth is a total bs, if you want cross platform, you go for opengl, and for every single target platform you optimize the base as the same, "render less, switch less" thats it. 

[viniciusvbf22]

I see your point, but you can make great playable games using XNA. Take for example Benjamin Nitschke games (exDream). I think that the answer to your question is: C# syntax is way more comfortable, simple and easier to learn than C++. Also, the XNA API is simpler than the raw DirectX 10 API. Besides, XNA runs over DirectX 9/10, so, at least in theory, there is no need to update your code to run on a newer DirectX release. But you are right: .NET will be always slower than native C++ binaries.

[WONandDONE]

@TheFXGuy wii is for chumps

[TheFXGuy]

@cyborgtroy HAHAHAHAHA that's hilarious

[zachary6996]

@xenol

C# compiles into CLR, which is interpreted( or compiled by the JIT ) by the .Net runtime. C is generally compiled into objectcode, which varries on different processors.

This whole "XNA is used by starters" is crap. A lot of people are using it to port to the 360. The "OH BUT YOU CANT PORT UR ENGINE TO PS3" is irrelevent because we'd never acquire a developers license to the PS3. Plus, It really isn't that hard to port a C# engine to C++, just time consuming.

[cyborgtroy]

I thought the Wii was the most popular console?