|WikiProject Computing / CompSci||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This article seems entirely ignorant of the fact that shaders are not implicitly tied to GPUs or hardware rendering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to change anything you like. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This is for @ssholes
Instead of merging Vertex Shader and Shader articles, some issues presented here could be resolved by moving content from Shader --> Vertex Shader if it is about GPU programming or history.
Isn't this a way far bit too long sentence? Don't have a clue what it means. So not trying to edit. Possibly make it less geeky too?
- Shaders are used to program the graphics processing unit (GPU) programmable rendering pipeline, which has mostly superseded the fixed-function pipeline that allowed only common geometry transformation and pixel shading functions; with shaders, customized effects can be used.
the "triangles are turned into quads" part is misleading (Triangles I draw are turned into quads? How?). What was meant is that rasterized pixels are grouped into 2x2 pixel quads. Still, this behavior is specific to a single range of GPUs, and is an implementation detail rather than a shader concept. I believe it should be removed. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did this page ever get cleaned up!? The last I saw of it it was a hopeless and useless mess, and I notice the WikiP 'confusing' tag is still attached to it! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It still is confusing to me. This page still only focuses on hardware shaders in modern gaming machines, which is a relatively new development. "Shading" as a part of the computer graphics pipeline still refers to a broad section of a rendering pipeline which simply determines what color a given piece of geometry should be in a final rendered image, after taking into account surface quality, light location, shadows, color, diffuse, specular, reflection, etc. (and this is still what "shader" means to many computer graphics industry folks - e.g. visual effects in movies and tv, print ads, or anything else not involved in real-time hardware assisted rendering) . I feel like this article is the equivalent to if the "Car" article on wikipedia only covered hybrid vehicles and discussions of fuel cells, ignoring gasoline and diesel cars, not to mention vans and suvs and station wagons. Kjl (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article has been changed so many times now it's a mess. Look at the first versions and how they talked about shaders in general even there was an example of code, etc. I gave up. T-tus —Preceding comment was added at 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, would anyone freak out if a complete re-write was posted? I'm thinking of knocking one up as I am doing quite a bit of shader work and research at the moment. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort. I'll await your improvements!
MaxDZ8 talk 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- And please, lave Direct3D and OpenGL out of it -- that may be where most people will encounter them, but that's not the only thing to shaders and most definetly not the origin of shaders. Feel free to write what you think is best, and have a look at some of the early versions, which are a lot better written than the current one, has more information and less specifics to OpenGL and (in particular) Direct3D. FrederikHertzum (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort. I'll await your improvements!
I would also add that PLEASE, whenever Direct3D is mentioned can it be properly written as 'Microsoft Direct3D'. OpenGL is an industry standard with a huge number of implementations, and can thus be justifiably written simply as its generic name, 'OpenGL'. Direct3D is not a standard, it is a proprietary API, regardless of whether hardware marketing brochures give the illusion of it being a standard. Hardware has no concept of a high level graphics API, period. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please make this table better!
Taken from the section "Programming shaders"
The following table shows the relations between Direct3D versions:
|Direct3D version||Pixel Shader||Vertex Shader|
|8.0||1.0, 1.1||1.0, 1.1|
|8.1||1.2, 1.3, 1.4||1.0, 1.1|
|11 (in development)||5.0||5.0|
- That's actually incorrect. D3D 8.0(rev a) includes PS1.3 as well, the split for D3D 8.1 is PS1.4 , which is why GF4 is 8.0 not 8.1
What could be made better:
- What are the numbers in the "Pixel Shader" and "Vertex Shader" columns? Versions? Of what?
- Please add references to applicable OpenGL-versions (if possible?)
- Maybe an own section for Direct3D and OpenGL?
As the related articles for VS, GS and PS have been stubs for quite a while, I suggest to start a merging/refactoring process. This could help in reinforcing the common link among the different technologies. Given the length of the articles, I am confident this could be done with ease.
MaxDZ8 talk 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. This article also seriously needs to talk about other shader models besides the standard mass-market hardware GPU shader model. Things like Renderman Shaders and such. Korval (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since it has been over 2 years, I will start the merging. YumOooze (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Still needs a hammer taken to it
- Why the name "shader"? Was the original renderman form equivalent to just fragment shading (no altering of vertex positions) and the name stuck? Can we find a reference?
- Geometry shaders aren't suitable for tessellation. They don't scale. My interpretation is if you take 1000 triangles and split them in half then it'll handle each input triangle on a different core, but if you take 1000 triangles and split them 1000 times then the graphics card will actually wait for a single core to finish the first triangle, then move on to the second, then the third. Put another way, geometry shaders only parallelize input, while tessellation shaders parallelize output. Again needs a reference, both for being unsuitable and for why they're unsuitable.
- OpenGL 3.2 and geometry shaders are no longer high-end
- Needs to cover tessellation shaders. These are high-end, but it'd be better to say what year they became supported on the majority of new graphics card sold.
Merge information into Shader article and remove
I agree that the Shader (realtime, logical) article presents minimal information which is not already contained or could be contained in the Shader article. There are also numerous grammatical errors, and attempting to edit or revise the article in its current state would be less productive then moving the information into the Shader article and then continuing to develop the content of that section.
Is there any reason not to move any relevant information and then remove the Shader (realtime, logical) article? If not, is there a formal process to which to adhere when removing an article/merging? How can this process be started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R00stare (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently in the article is says: "Shaders are most commonly used to produce lighting and shadow in 3D modeling." AFAIK shaders are used in/for rendering, and that is it. User:ScotXWt@lk 09:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)