Search Unity

Feedback Wanted: Lightweight Render Pipeline

Discussion in 'Graphics Experimental Previews' started by Tim-C, Feb 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MythrilMan51

    MythrilMan51

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Posts:
    120
    Unity Firing.png
    To turn this...
    Ideal Firing.png
    Into THIS!

    Or What I meant....
    Orange Phong.png
    THIS...
    My light.png
    To THIS!
     
  2. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,219
    Try multiplying the color by another color.
     
  3. MythrilMan51

    MythrilMan51

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Posts:
    120
    I DO have a idea on how to go around it... darken the texture, Hardlight(b < .5 ? (2 * a * b) : (1 - 2 * (1 - a) * (1 - b))), and multiply it with the texture... Now if I can find the script that generates the lighting in LWRP... and bloom's next after that..
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
    hippocoder likes this.
  4. dienat

    dienat

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Posts:
    278
    Both images had the static batching on and postprocessing on
     
  5. Tim-C

    Tim-C

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,087
    As LWRP is still a preview / in development feature we constantly changing API and similar. This means that we are not able to backport all changes to the 2018.2 / 2.x.x stream (we are porting critical fixes). This means that until we are out of preview mode the latest and greatest LWRP will be whatever the cutting edge version is.

    Once we leave preview this will change and we will aim to backport more fixes / stability changes so that you can lock in a specific stream for your project.
     
  6. Tim-C

    Tim-C

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,087
    News:
    In LWRP land we are switching from feature development to stabalisation / bugfixing / documentation mode for the next few months. This means that what is in the git repository is a (close) to scoped version of LWRP as it will be in the 19.1 release. We are switching modes as we want to ensure that what we have of LWRP is production ready and can be used by everyone out there in the real world. Once we finish the 'making it awesome' work we will switch back to feature development for LWRP (deferred LW anyone?), but that probably won't be until next year.

    How can I help?
    Log bugs, tell us where our API sucks, tell us what is lacking in docs, tell us what would help you be successful with LWRP.

    Looking forward to the feedback.
     
  7. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    That's great news! I was thinking it would take 2018.3 at least to stabilize LWRP API, but you just convinced me to use it in my current project. LW with deferred would be great, but I would kill for making standard PBS base performant on Intel GPU, that's really my main goal for trying out LWRP (less complexity and better control on trade-offs).

    On the subject of bugs, I am hoping it's easy to confirm bug 1062911 on fogbugz (I understand QA are busy): but I observe the same issue in both Scene view and Material preview with Metal API using 3.0.0-preview/2.0.6-preview, not sure I should open another ticket on this or try some other version of LWRP (like the latest 2.0.8-preview).

    Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 21.00.37.png
     
  8. Andre_Mcgrail

    Andre_Mcgrail

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Posts:
    142
    There is currently a PR waiting to fix the cascade shadow issue thats been plaguing the latest version of LWRP, we are hoping to get a new package out next week that will contain the fix, currently just waiting for out automated tests to give us the green :)
     
    sand_lantern likes this.
  9. friuns3

    friuns3

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    262
    Whats the advantage over deffered rendering path? i see no perfomance increase, they both work very similar way..
     
  10. Reanimate_L

    Reanimate_L

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Posts:
    2,351
    increased Light count limit
     
  11. friuns3

    friuns3

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    262
    hows that? i create 2000 spheres with 8 lights (LRP limit)
    with deffered i get 40 fps
    with LRP i get 10 fps

    both have same ammount draw calls

    here is the test if you want test yourself https://pastebin.com/neWWK5aZ
     
  12. Reanimate_L

    Reanimate_L

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Posts:
    2,351
    Hang on, i think i missread your previous post. are you asking about what is the advantage of the current LWRP over built in deferred? or the opposite ?
     
  13. friuns3

    friuns3

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    262
    yes i'm asking what is the advantage of the current LWRP over built in deferred? its seems 4 times slower with 8 lights, i will test it on android now.
     
  14. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    LWRP is still forward rendering, it's not going to magically make it faster than deferred lighting.

    But it does:

    - Gives you more control when working with different devices, as quality setting is now an asset.
    - In real-world project it's likely going to give better result than current built-in pipeline due to specialization and less overall complexity (LWRP for mobile, and HDRP for console/pc).
    - Mobile has troubles working with deferred pipeline, so a better forward rendering is also desirable (better trade-offs).

    But at the moment:

    - If you read this thread and you will see it's not all success story, mostly because of bugs and because built-in pipeline has been optimized for so long.

    TL;DR, you might want to watch this video:

     
    friuns3 likes this.
  15. Reanimate_L

    Reanimate_L

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Posts:
    2,351
    Yeah i totally missread then. the current LWRP actually are not faster than built in deferred. basicallt what bitinn said.
    Just ignore my first respond, sorry :D
     
  16. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,219
    Eh?

    LWRP is much faster than builtin, but probably you're not seeing it because you're capped in other ways. SRP allows you to spend a lot less CPU time. Bandwidth of LWRP is way, way less than builtin deferred so it should be faster there too.

    Can clarify your claims there's no perf difference between LWRP and Builtin deferred? because that's nuts.

    Bascially, if you're using standard shader then I would probably agree that for some platforms the performance would be based on how good the GPU is, but if you're not, I can't see a single situation where builtin would ever be faster.
     
  17. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,219
    This is because you should be using HDRP not LWRP. Your test is designed to break LWRP and is illogical until LWRP has a deferred-lite option.

    If you use Builtin with the same feature set as LWRP you will find LWRP performs as expected.
     
  18. friuns3

    friuns3

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    262
    yes its using same feature set as Builtin. LWRP works 4 times slower with 8 point lights than deffered. Perhaps because its early preview so developers didn't optimize it yet as @bitinn said

    If you think its faster, please give us demo with same setups, where LWRP works faster than deffered, you can edit my source code or make your own setup
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  19. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    There are tons of things you can't test easily with a simple test case though:

    - Deferred lighting performance is dependent on number of pixels it illuminates, forward rendering does it per-object. How much care did you take to make sure it's a fair comparison?

    - LWRP is supposed to help you spend less drawcalls, but not magically reduce drawcalls, if it still take the same number of drawcalls as deferred, I argue you need to take more care to set things up (after all, it's a trade-off between quality and performance).

    - Actually, I highly recommend people to try converting some demo scenes from Unity official tutorial, and see how LWRP would performance in a simple game. (And I think Unity engineer will be glad to improve them, as they are much closer to real-world examples).

    - We are really talking about pipeline changes here, which means, under the same condition that's preferable to forward rendering, the LWRP should perform better given appropriate quality settings (where the pipeline asset comes into play). And it should minimize quality lose, and save you from manually changing the core rendering of Unity.

    That's I think what LWRP would do, and to be honest, what I need (I am not developing for mobile, but I would love to spend less time in Intel GPA just to get a stable FPS in Intel GPU...)
     
  20. Reanimate_L

    Reanimate_L

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Posts:
    2,351
    I mean in term of per pixel light counts, since the current LWRP are forward shading
     
  21. Immu

    Immu

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2013
    Posts:
    128
    Hi,
    So I'm glad to see the issues that had mysteriously disappeared from the issue tracker are now back. Now though, I do wonder about something else. Your severity and priority system.

    I've been told in this topic that directional light culling issue isn't even in your roadmap yet.
    https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/issues/lwrp-light-layer-culling-not-working
    But its severity is '3' and very high priority '7' ?
    I'm already quite lost (I mean, 7 is higher priority than 1 or 2 right ?)

    Then I see these two.
    https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...-render-texture-causes-ugui-disappears-on-ios
    https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...nder-texture-gives-black-screen-only-on-build
    Which have both similar strong consequence (unable to play in standalone) and that have a very different severity level (3 against 0, even if the one with 0 has more votes than the light layer culling one).

    Is there any reasonable explanation of what all of that means ? I don't see much logic there and it's very confusing.
     
  22. Tim-C

    Tim-C

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,087
    You are comparing two very different things here. A better comparison would be to compare built in forward rendering with lw rendering as they are both forward renderers.

    There is a reason that deferred rendering exists and that is because it decouples lighting and scene complexity (which is awesome), but it has other costs (texture memory / bandwidth). In deferred mode you get a pretty simple g-buffer shader that will populate the g-buffer then a nice decoupled lighting pass that is also a simple and fast shader. In forward you don't have this luxury and everything is pushed into the per object passes.
     
  23. Tim-C

    Tim-C

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,087
    If it's in the issue tracker it's on our radar and being tracked for fixing. Different teams internally use priority differently. Generally on our team we don't use priority (so almost everything will just have a priority of 7) and instead talk with our QA to determine what the highest priority issues are.

    Severity looks like this:
    upload_2018-7-28_13-2-41.png
     
    bitinn likes this.
  24. friuns3

    friuns3

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Posts:
    262
    @Tim-C so in what scenarios i should go for LWRP?
    If i don't need forward rendering features, and i make game for low end pc/mobile phones should i stick with deffered or go for LWRP for best performance?

    LWRP using 10mb VRAM and deffered 20mb seems not big difference. With 1 directional light they both give same performance on low end pc.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  25. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,219
    I think you'll find that's a very contradictory statement. If you are designing a game for mobile it's in your best interests to avoid deferred and change your design so that it uses as few lights as possible, baking what you can.
     
  26. MythrilMan51

    MythrilMan51

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Posts:
    120
    I mean... If anything... If you're doing, like, other effects... I would bet a projector or a texture would be more your speed.
     
  27. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,219
    Sorry didn't understand a word you said.
     
  28. MythrilMan51

    MythrilMan51

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Posts:
    120
    upload_2018-7-28_13-15-1.png
    LIKE what you see over here? How many vertex lights could you have, by the way? That could help too.
     
  29. Play_Edu

    Play_Edu

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2012
    Posts:
    715
    Hi,
    I created new projects with unity 2018.2.0f2 with LWRP for VR template. it's work. but I update rendering pipeline to 3.0.0 then it's not Work. also, Empty projects with LWRP 3.0.0 with unity 2018.2.1f1 not work. When I run app In oculus -go then device get a freeze.

    I'm not using any postprocessing or anti-aliasing script and also disable option MSAA in camera.

    Please suggest me can I use LWRP for production (Gear VR / GO ).

    Best_regards,
    Play_edu
     
    Perceval1190 likes this.
  30. phil_lira

    phil_lira

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    376
  31. phil_lira

    phil_lira

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    376
    Forward and Deferred are completely different paths and the performance impact differs if you are testing on mobile or PC (even a low end PC). I'd be surprised if after 1-2 minutes you get decent performance with multiple lights. Most likely the device will overheat very fast and throttle CPU/GPU clocks down due to bandwidth cost.

    We will work on a mobile friendly deferred renderer for LWRP. Meanwhile, it's worth comparing:
    1) Builtin Forward vs LWRP Forward
    2) Buitin Deferred vs LWRP Deferred (when we have it)
     
    friuns3 likes this.
  32. phil_lira

    phil_lira

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Posts:
    376
    To all,

    If you have a scene that's performing worse compared to builtin pipeline (assuming both forward). It will be of great help to share with us. You can open it as a bug in our ticket system. Also let us know what target hardware you tested it.

    Given the amount of devices and different games is possible you are hitting some cases that dont' perform well and we want to check and improve it. This will be of great help.
     
    Deleted User and bitinn like this.
  33. dienat

    dienat

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Posts:
    278
    When i tried your demo of the village used as lighting tutorial lw get much more fps than standard but when i tried it in my own project i get about the same fps and with much worse graphics, in my project i use VR with htc vive. I use 2018.2 lw 3.0 and forward rendering
     
  34. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    Quick question 1, if I happen to observe performance lost when trying to convert Unity tutorial scene, does it count?

    Quick question 2, I saw 3.1.0 is up on GitHub, generally how long does it take to publish on package manager? I want to test it out, as it potentially fixed one of my issue.
     
  35. Tim-C

    Tim-C

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2,087
    It will be in package manger very soon, but it has dependencies on unity 2018.3 so it won't show up unless you have a 2018.3 install (beta is not out yet though).

    We made a mistake when we published 3.0.0, it was meant to be tagged for 2018.3, but this got missed. If you are on 2018.2 you should stick to the 2.x.x releases
     
  36. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    Thx, but we are trapped in this situation:

    - We want to use 2018.2, but LWRP bug fixes are only landing in 2018.3 branch.
    - I know Unity team will eventually backport fixes to 2018.2 branch, but they depend on the severity of bug.
    - So far, we have been "living through" these issues. Basic problems like "not able to preview any materials/models" on 2018.2 with macOS and Metal Editor.

    I interpreted this quote as LWRP would be leaving preview soon (API stabilizes). So I was thinking: great, maybe we can stick with 2018.2 for now, and wait for the bugfix to drop.

    But if LWRP team is still working on 2018.3 issues, I just don't know when that fix would come... It made convincing people much more difficult.
     
  37. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    I know it is unfortunate really, but the following reply a little earlier in the thread does make it fairly clear that the time when things can settle down and you can stick with a certain version of Unity without missing out on a lot of important pipeline developments is not here yet.

     
  38. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    Ah I was wondering about that, because up until very recently I had assumed that major pipeline package versions did have a strong relationship to Unity versions. Then recently because 3.0.0 was available for 2018.2, I thought I was wrong, but now I guess I was right after all.

    Speaking of which, what happens to pipeline version numbers when we move on to the Unity 2019 cycles? Do the package versions just keep increasing in a normal way, so that for 2019.1 the suitable pipeline versions will be version 4 or 5 (and will LTS unity versions have their own version, eg pipeline v4 for 2018.4, or do .4 LTS unity versions stick with version 3 of pipelines)?
     
  39. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    Thx, I know, he was replying to me in that quote; but read Tim-C's next reply right after it. I thought they have made some adjustment on roadmap. I realize there are a lot of development to be done, and I don't blame them. But the current 2.0 branch isn't workable for me, at least.

    So my feedback is, if you want people to adopt early, you probably need to maintain 2 branches and not just fix on master as it depends on a 2018.3 beta that isn't released yet (even if it did, I am more wary of using a beta version editor for production, given my experience testing beta 2018.1/2018.2)

    Basically, a lot of things are changing, that's both good and bad: good for future of unity, bad if you want to make a decision now.
     
  40. GameDevCouple_I

    GameDevCouple_I

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Posts:
    1,535
    Make it run on the hololens, right now any build using LWRP even a cube will crash.
     
  41. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    Ah I see. I think his subsequent post did include news and a change of plans, but really this change is about their focus for the remainder of 2018, not what they can give you straight away, and far more likely 2018.3, not what you need for 2018.2, at least not for a while. And by the time they are nearly done with this, 2018.3 will probably be final release anyway.

    Personally I treat the pipelines this year in a very similar way to how I treat editor betas, they are not production ready and although Unity want people to try them, they are in preview state for a reason. And whether it makes sense to use the pipelines for a real project now, really depends on intended release date of the project. Unless I was very confident that a pipeline already does what I need and works on the platforms I need already, I dont think I would consider using them for a product that is intended to be released before 2019.1. If things go really well in the coming months then maybe I could be more optimistic and target 2018.3 instead, but there is more risk with that, and I certainly wouldnt target 2018.2, sorry.
     
    Tim-C likes this.
  42. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    Oh one last comment from me on this. I cant quite tell from some of your posts whether you are talking about specific things that havent been backported to 2018.2 branch of pipelines yet, or whether you are not seeing any activity at all on this front?

    eg if I look at the following list of commits for the 2018.2 branch on github, I do see some LW fixes backported earlier in July.

    https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/ScriptableRenderPipeline/commits/release/2018.2
     
  43. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    Certainly there are updates, but here are things I think can be improved (without adding more code):

    - Changelog update: there are so many branches on the SRP, it's impossible to know which one is the latest 2018.2 branch, AFAIK, quite a few recent 2.0-preview release doesn't have changelog item, I have no idea what's changed, all I know is they don't include the fix I am looking for.

    https://github.com/Unity-Technologi...ity.render-pipelines.lightweight/CHANGELOG.md

    - Document known issues: sure, they are up on issue tracker, but even when issues are marked as fixed, it's impossible to know they will be included in 2.0-preview release due to current backport policy (only critical fix).

    - LWRP feature roadmap: I wonder about this myself, are there any known missing features for LWRP forward rendering? To me, the LWRP asset seems to offer a complete set of features for mobile and low-power device already.

    - Will LWRP for 2018.2 be useable and supported? The team already suggest it would, but many people think otherwise. I think this demonstrates a communication gap.

    That said, I am not mad about LWRP team working on features. I just want LWRP team to commit on 2018.2 support, and if they must go for 2018.3, I can totally understand too. I just have to plan accordingly, as you suggested.
     
  44. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    Well, the concept of useable is quite broad, and its not the same thing as supported. It will be useable for some people/projects/requirements/levels of experience and not for others.

    As for supported, in terms of supported as in a fully supported system that people should expect to work as well as full releases of other parts of Unity, no. There are multiple indications that show that although there are people from Unity here who are responding to issues and backporting certain fixes, the system is not considered production ready or fully supported:
    • The releases are still tagged as preview
    • Ongoing API refactoring has been mentioned
    • Both 2018.3 and 2019.1 have been mentioned recently in terms of achieving certain things and reaching certain milestones
    Really the preview tag is the biggest guide, with the subsequent points I mention just providing clues about expected timescales of when things will go beyond preview release.
     
  45. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    Thx for your suggestion but this is reading between the lines and I will refrain from further argument :)
     
  46. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    I dont consider it an argument and honestly the preview tag means something specific and really isnt reading between the lines. Some of my other points involve a little reading between the lines but honestly not much, and the 2018.2 blog post was quite clear about both pipelines being in preview state.

    Now if I could just find the proper official explanation of exactly what preview tag means, I could more easily demonstrate what I am on about, but right now I cannot.
     
  47. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    OK I found what I was looking for to help explain:

    https://blogs.unity3d.com/2018/05/09/unity-packages-life-cycle/
     
  48. bitinn

    bitinn

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2016
    Posts:
    520
    I see your point and blog post, but I am going to disagree on 2 parts:

    - Since there are only 2 states: preview and released, a binary choice, there are always going to be users asking, "is this closing in on release yet?" aka "is it going to be officially supported?"

    - Now, we know this package has some issues that are fixed or being fixed. We want to try out the fixes, but we can't, because this branching politics.

    What you are saying comes down to: don't use a preview package if you want support or are unable to just fork your own code. Cool, I get that.

    But here is the thing:

    - LWRP has been in preview for a long time.
    - LWRP team said they want to feature freeze.
    - LWRP team wants people to test it out and report bugs.

    So here we are, trying things out.

    TL;DR: If LWRP team want to stop people from trying out LWRP on 2018.2, they could say it, or close 2.0-preview branch, but they didn't. Preview is the status quo, but I am asking about the roadmap.
     
    sand_lantern likes this.
  49. elbows

    elbows

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Posts:
    2,174
    Honestly I want people to try things, but whether it makes sense for a person to do so, especially with the main project, really comes down to what they mean by support. I dont believe it helps anyone to lure them into a false sense of security when it comes to important topics like support.

    I dont mind nuanced details either, I just dont think concepts like support are a great fit for that, and it is sensible for them to be clear about what preview release state means in terms of support and promises to users. I myself often have a wonderful time with HDRP, but I know what the risks are and I really dont see it as that much different to being prepared to risk using a beta of the Unity editor. In fact in one sense it is even more risky, because at least we usually know roughly when a beta will turn into a final release, whereas some packages might remain in preview for a very long time.

    Honestly, I'm not even really disagreeing with you much about any details, I just wanted to explain how I see the situation, and to try to understand exactly what sort of support you need and are hoping for with 2018.2 and LWRP. I dont see any reason to think they would want people to stop using LWRP with 2018.2, or close the 2018.2 branch. But I think, without going into every detail, they have given clear indication that plenty is still going to change in the months ahead, and that in some respects the 2018.2 branch of LWRP will be left behind. I dont think its simply a question of 'branching politics' either, sometimes its because there are things in the next version of Unity (in this case 2018.3) that they actually need to make LWRP work, sometimes its a technical matter. But yes, in other regards it is probably a question of resources, and certainly a decision has been made in the past that they arent going to try to port all the changes in a packaged system to the previous version of Unity, at least not during this phase of big changes to pipelines. Maybe this picture will change a fair bit next year, and I can see some reasons why you want the reality to be different now. But I have honestly seen no indication from Unity staff that it will change to the extent you require, and I dont think there is much of a communication gap about this broad point.

    But a lot of the reason I keep responding to you is not to argue, its because I share your interest in technical communication between those who are developing Unity and those that use it. I like the amount of communication we get from various Unity people on this forum in relation to pipelines, but there is always room for more, especially when we are trying to learn about the timescales etc of very specific things, as opposed to the broad points I have tended to make here in recent posts. I'm afraid I do usually end up having more to say about areas where I disagree with something someone said, than all the things I do agree with them about. I am sorry about that, it just ends up this way because there is no real need for me to make any points if I already agree with every detail! So yeah, I would love their to be a pipeline-specific roadmap, and some way to cover backporting stuff better in the changelog and stuff like that.

    Speaking of detail, I think if you mention the specific things you need to be backported to 2018.2 in order to use LWRP how you want in the next few months (while 2018.3 is in beta) then there is probably a better chance of you getting official responses that give you the exact answers you need. Because without getting into that level of detail, I really think the most likely responses are more like the stuff I have been droning on about today, that preview != full first class support, that some big changes are planned as part of the mission to concentrate on getting the current features stable and production ready, and that backporting is only planned for certain classes of bugfix.

    edit - and very sorry for the long post. I dont think there is much left I could possibly say now, so you will finally get a rest from my opinions!
     
  50. ivank

    ivank

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Posts:
    37
    @phil_lira , @Tim-C To address the request for LWRP feedback -
    from my humble point of view the following two features would be very welcomed:
    - fully working combination WebGL2 - LWRP - PostProcessing(within limits given by WebGL2, not LWRP)
    - some kind of AO (or similar AO-faking effect) supported by LWRP as a part of PostProcessing package

    Again, its from my very personal point of view - we are working on interactive architectural visualizations of historical buildings, where the above mentioned features (AO!) would help us;
    however I believe there are many like us out there :)

    Of course I can not resist to ask - can we hope to see this fit in 2018.3?

    Thanks for a good job so far and happy summer holiday coding :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.