Transparent objects aren't lit? So they don't receive shadows too, do they? That's weird/surprising...
In that particular case, that's right, post-process would be the best choice.

2013/9/15 Lauri Kasanen <>
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:25:57 +0200
Lionel Fuentes <> 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).

No, it's mainly for shader complexity.
Practically _every_ shader had duplicated fog logic, and it was
different in some, due to obvious reasons of someone only changing some.

> 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.

It would have the exact same weakness, as transparents aren't lit, only
solids are. Lights cannot separate sky from transparents either.

> 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
> artists...

As it would have the same limitation in lighting pass too, I don't see
how it would improve anything?

- Lauri