On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:25:57 +0200No, it's mainly for shader complexity.
Lionel Fuentes <email@example.com> wrote:
> To me, the only advantage of doing fog in a post-process is to reduce the
> number of pixels treated (as would happen with a Z-prepass).
Practically _every_ shader had duplicated fog logic, and it was
different in some, due to obvious reasons of someone only changing some.
It would have the exact same weakness, as transparents aren't lit, only
> Being able to tune the formula for how height influences fog can be done
> during lighting as well, but without the weakness you mention, so I don't
> think having it as a post-process is the best way to go.
solids are. Lights cannot separate sky from transparents either.
As it would have the same limitation in lighting pass too, I don't see
> So I suggest we keep going with post-process for now but would benefit from
> having it in the lighting pass later on. Except if the limitation for
> transparent objects ends up not being too much of a burden for the
how it would improve anything?