Comparison of FX Composer VS RenderMonkey

In fact, there are many methods, methods, and tools to edit a shader to debug it.

Currently on the market, RenderMonkey and FX Composer are the most famous among them, no matter whether they are charged or free. some users also choose shaderFX, while others choose notpad + 3 dmax/maya. it can be said that each tool or method is very convenient for some shader, but it is not easy or even impossible for other shader. I browsed the information on the network and found that there was little discussion about the tool. I was confused when I chose the tool. So I talked about the experience or my experience for your reference.

However, my energy and level are limited after all. It is impossible to make a detailed comparison of all the tools and usage. I can only make a simple horizontal comparison of the problems encountered during use. Even so, I believe that it can also help students who need to use Quick visual shader to understand their needs and better choose a suitable tool. let's start with the question:

When primary FX Composer is selected, it is because RenderMonkey has reached 1.82 and no updates have been made. at the same time, AMD is easy to master. The common saying in the development community is that RM is outdated and no new version will appear. as you know, many of the shader things need to be updated with hardware and technology. If you want to play new special effects, a tool that is not updated for a long time will be awkward, this is because of the change in shdaer syntax and the change in shader usage. of course, FX Composer is not the savior. The specific reasons for using FX are as follows: personal preferences (note that FX has not been updated for a long time, so why should I choose him, I can only classify it as my personal preferences .). however, there is another reason:

People who have used RenderMonkey and FX at the same time can feel that the FX script is really useful, although Rendermokey provides many functions to the UI, you can easily click a few buttons to complete many settings. However, convenience also compromises flexibility. Although the script Syntax of FX adds a learning curve to the eyes of those who have never been familiar with it, once you are willing to take the time to learn it, if you have a programming Foundation, within one day, you can use the script syntax to build your shader on FX.

However, FX Composer also represents "split personality" in itself, that is, it supports HLSL, and also supports N own COLLOADA fx, that is, cgFx. Although cg is similar to HLSL, there is a difference after all. Specifically, the tool is: FX Composer. Using cg, you can better use the complete functions provided by FX, however, if you use HLSL, you cannot use many important tools on FX Composer. I don't understand why this design, in order to better promote cg and spread cg, checks and balances HLSL? It is a pity that N companies are designing FX in this way. With HLSL, they can only watch it. In today's software industry, there are many places to invest in energy. It is difficult for a person to use a tool to learn the entire set of rules specified by that tool, especially when replaced by other tools, or the investment effort is not worthwhile. I do not like cg. Even if he is a little different from HLSL, he cannot match all HLSL scenarios well. In addition, the original intention of using FX is to play with HLSL, but does not want to write code for configuration every time. To put it bluntly, I am just lazy. If I am lazy now, I have to invest in new tools, and it is not that necessary. I will say goodbye to cg.

This causes an absolute damage to FX. It is an old but useful RTT that is almost indispensable to games. If you use HLSL instead of cg, FX cannot be used. Of course, some trick will show you what you want in the FX viewer, but the running process is a lot of warning and error, and the process is inconsistent. It is not like the smooth and perfect supported by cg. It seems like you can use a screwdriver's hilt as a hammer to knock on a nail. The nail is small and there is no tool at hand. If there is a big nail, there is nothing to do with it. This also led me to write this article. I went to understand the RenderMonkey and the introduction of my final ideas. Various puzzles will be solved in subsequent articles.

Of course, it's just an RTT that is harmless. There are still a lot of things that can be done with FX, and it's even as good as the functions of the same type as RenderMonkey.

With regard to this RTT, RenderMonkey can be well implemented and displayed smoothly. I have never used shaderFX, and I don't want to know it before it increases in popularity. In addition, the notpad + 3dmax method is not very practical for me, And 3dmax also has a hard injury. However, since I am a programmer and not an artist, I have skipped it because I have never used 3dmax. As a programmer, I do not support horizontal extension of knowledge as much as possible, but it is unnecessary to simply scale out for horizontal expansion. After all, a tool is a tool. You must use it to bring value to you. Otherwise, you will thoroughly study a tool, instead of using it, and ignore your interests and hobbies. It will be a waste of time >_< !!

Based on the above, we can see that different people have different ways of playing shader, and there is no perfect tool and method that saves time and effort. At the same time, I have to regret that I really like FX through getting along with the FX script syntax, but it may not be done for some technical reasons, as a result, this tool is not so cool, and it can only be embarrassing.