A student of mine (Andreas Kirsch) just recently finished his implementation of light propagation volumes. His implementation is available under the very liberal BSD license, so be sure to grab it while it's hot. There's also a bunch of corrections in there, so it might be also interesting if you've just read the paper so far. The implementation is based on the updated I3D 2010 paper, and not directly on the 2009 SIGGRAPH paper. Of course, feel free to ask in the comments here or at Andreas' page if you have any questions.
Do you have one-click-builds for your whole project? That's a good question (so good that you should ask it before you get employed), but if the answer is no, chances are high that your team has not dedicated enough time to build engineering.
So what's that, build engineering: My take on it is that it's basically everything until you can actually start working on your code. That's a quite weird definition, so let's give me an example: A build engineer should take care of the SCM solution, track all dependencies, write docs, write all build-related tools and make sure that any developer can get up & running very quickly. Moreover, the build engineer should take care that it is easy for developers to add new tests and files to the current project without having to synchronise anything.
Interestingly, most teams don't seem to consider this too important. Running a test requires this huge command line, so what? Adding a new file means editing the Makefile and the Visual Studio project, breaking Linux half of the time ... and similar issues. Bigger problems crop up as well, like project 23 being compiled with slightly different compiler settings, causing weird runtime bugs. Worst of all, the time to get up and started from scratch is measured in hours, as you need to set up huge amounts of dependencies and/or system settings (environment variables, anyone?) In this post, I'll describe my take on build engineering, and how I cope with typical problems.
SCM and dependencies
The first thing you need is a good SCM solution. I'm using Bazaar for this, which is easy to learn, fully distributed and comes with nice UI tools. At work, I'm stuck with SVN for some projects, which is decent, but I really like the new features that distributed SCM provide. All of the source code of the project is available from a single repository, so this is what every developer has to check out. However, I have not checked in all dependencies into the SCM: For Boost and Qt, developers have to build it on their machines. In order to make this as simple as possible, I've documented the exact build command lines on our local knowledge base. There's always a trade-off here; what might be useful is support for external repositories (basically, they seem to be part of the repository, but are stored elsewhere.) Both Boost and Qt compile to huge amounts of binaries, so I think this is a reasonable trade-off here.
However, there are still some dependencies left; for instance, in one project we use Cg, which comes as binary-only. Checking in the binaries is possible, but I wouldn't recommend this, especially for DVCS systems where each client will have to store the fully history of each binary ... so we're using a lightweight tool which fetches the binaries off our server. They're packaged manually into a compressed file, downloaded during the build (if they're not already installed on the target machine) and cached on each developer's machine. All other dependencies (zlib, etc.) have been integrated into the source tree. On Linux, the system libraries are also ignored to avoid version mismatches.
I'm using CMake as my build system everywhere now. If I get legacy code with another build system, I convert it to CMake right away. To make this simpler, I typically keep some "sample" projects around and copy new projects into it (for instance, I have a very simple DirectX 10 app from which I derive the CMakeLists for new DirectX applications.) CMake has one major advantage over competing systems: It allows you to use your normal IDE without problems. You can still use Visual Studio 2010, with IntelliSense and debugging working, which is typically a large hassle with other build tools.
No matter how great your build system is, at some point you're going to run into cases where you have to extend it to get some functionality. For instance, I have one case where I need to scan
.cpp files for
TEST() macros and generate a test registry from that. This is where the build "glue" comes into play.
I used to have the "glue" tools written in C#, but I've totally switched to Python-based scripts now. Having the tools in C# has the nice advantage that development time is pretty low (after all, you can use the full .NET framework as well as Visual Studio), but I had to check in binaries at the end so the user didn't have to fire up Visual Studio first, then CMake, then Visual Studio again ... and despite Mono being available on Linux, I ran into quite a few issues where something wasn't supported or required a newer Mono build.
Switching to Python turned out to be a good decision here, and I even believe now that there isn't too much difference in development time between C# and Python. For command-line tools, I would even argue that Python is easier -- for instance, there's a built-in option parser in Python, but none in C#. I'm also using Python for code generation using a small custom template engine (I hope to find time to get the source code public some day.) There's also a bunch of helper tools which are not directly invoked during the build, but still useful (for instance, I have a small tool to generate a header/source file skeleton) -- all of them are in Python as well. For the record, I'm using Python 3.1, so the build tools should continue to work for the next few years at least ;)
Never underestimate how much plumbing your build process will need. Over time, your build requirements will grow, as your project(s) becomes bigger, and the more tools and utilities you can re-use, the easier it'll be. Ideally, you should have at least on dedicated engineer on your team who is responsible for building, and who keeps track of everything necessary to get started. Most developers should have only very small parts of the build system which they modify (i.e., add source files to a project), while the rest should be managed by a dedicated group. This way, you can usually avoid the situations where an innocent looking modification to a high-level build script breaks someone else's work.
For building Qt, you typically have to reserve an hour or so. There's a much faster way to build it though (besides the optimisations I already described) -- build it using jom. Jom is a multi-threaded nmake replacement. The only thing you have to keep in mind is to configure without
-fast for versions before 4.6.3; if you configure with
-fast, there's a bug which will lead to Qt being build with a single thread. So just configure as usual, and run
jom instead of
nmake, your build-times should be drastically reduced.
In case you're a computer graphics enthusiast, you should really take a break and look at the Deus Ex 3 trailer. It's a really excellent 3 minute CGI film which shows what can be done with the proper people and a lot of money. Also notice how well the action is synced with the music (this is something I always envy the film guys for, they can really make sure the sound is in sync and also spend huge amounts of money on great composers.) I also like the voices of the characters, they fit very well.
Some things to look at:
- Extremely nice depth-of-field, notice the bokeh effects.
- The skin is pretty flat, look at the scene at the beginning when Adam is smoking. The skins looks really weird there (no subsurface scattering?)
- Super-cool metallic and plastic shaders (look at the ship starting at around 1 minute or at the cybernetic implants)
- Very nice hair (especially in the fight scene)
- There seems to be some ray-tracing on the police' riot shields (hard to guess)
- Funny: The blinds cast a solid shadow in the trailer (correct, as the shadow blurs out), but in the in-game shots, they cast a line pattern.
- Nice matte-painting (the cities seem to be 2D with some 3D models added to them to increase depth perception.)
I've seen some estimates on the web which puts the trailer cost at several million dollars; at 2.5M$ it would result in approximately 500$ per frame ... however, I'm not totally sure about this extreme estimates, as there is a lot of matte painting going on. Most sets are also barely visible, so they saved on props and environment modelling. Notice how they use depth-of-field and fog/smoke so you can't see the full sets. The fully modelled characters are relatively few, so I would assume that the vast majority of the money went into animation and character modelling. For the latter, they might have been able to reuse parts from the game (high-polygon models for the characters?) So it might have been a bit cheaper in the end; anyway, it's amazing work which you shouldn't miss!
The GPU Pro book is available now, including my article about virtual texture mapping (it's called "Virtual texture mapping 101"; I'm one of the authors. Thanks to all colleagues who helped with it, and in particular J.M.P. van Waveren for taking a look.) The book is actually "Shader X8", but in an improved version. It's a very nice edition with full-colour pages throughout. Make sure to grab your copy while it's hot ;)