Lab 06: Haoquan Liang

README.md

@@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
 # lab06-debugging
+Team members: Leo Liang, Wayne Wu   
+[Shader Toy link](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/dsSGRt)   
 
-# Setup 
-
-Create a [Shadertoy account](https://www.shadertoy.com/). Either fork this shadertoy, or create a new shadertoy and copy the code from the [Debugging Puzzle](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/flGfRc).
-
-Let's practice debugging! We have a broken shader. It should produce output that looks like this:
-[Unbelievably beautiful shader](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1758825/200729570-8e10a37a-345d-4aff-8eff-6baf54a32a40.webm)
-
-It don't do that. Correct THREE of the FIVE bugs that are messing up the output. You are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to work with a partner and pair program to force you to talk about your debugging thought process out loud.
-
-Extra credit if you can find all FIVE bugs.
-
-# Submission
-- Create a pull request to this repository
-- In the README, include the names of both your team members
-- In the README, create a link to your shader toy solution with the bugs corrected
-- In the README, describe each bug you found and include a sentence about HOW you found it.
-- Make sure all three of your shadertoys are set to UNLISTED or PUBLIC (so we can see them!)
+Bug:   
+1. `vec uv2 = 2.0 * uv - vec2(1.0);`   
+    It's a syntax error and it won't compile with this.    
+    Should be `vec2 uv2 = 2.0 * uv - vec2(1.0);` 
+2. `raycast(uv, dir, eye, ref);`   
+   The camera looks off so there could be something wrong with the raycast.    
+   So I found that uv2 is computed but uv is used instead. Should be `raycast(uv, dir, eye, ref);`   
+3. `H *= len * iResolution.x / iResolution.x;`   
+   The aspect ratio still looks wrong after fixing the above bugs. By looking through the code I found iResolution.x/iResolution.x, which looks absolutely wrong.   
+   It should be `H *= len * iResolution.x / iResolution.y;`
+4. `dir  = reflect(eye, nor);`   
+  There is no reflection so something must be wrong. We figured out it's something wrong with how `dir` is computed but didn't figure out how to fix it properly. Adam taught us how to do it.   
+  It should be `dir  = reflect(dir, nor);`   
+5. Not sure if this is a bug but if we keep `i < 64` in `void march()`, there will be some artifacts on the floor.   
+  It's technically not a bug because sometimes people just want smaller marching distance for better performance. If we increase it to `i < 128`, there will be no more artifacts on the floor.