Related
I've been learning OpenGL, and as I sit trying to write my VBOs, PBOs, VAOs, textures, quads, bindings, fragment shaders, vertex shaders, and a whole suite of other modern abstractions upon abstractions built after decades of evolution, I wonder: Isn't the display nothing but a large block of memory?
I've heard of tales, that in the "good ol' days" (such as the Commodore 64), all you had to do was assign a value to an arbitrary byte in memory, and the screen would change a pixel. Extremely simple and elegant. In the modern day, this has changed with layers upon layers of abstractions and safeguards, such that changing a pixel on your display is several hundred feet away.
This begs the question, is it possible in the modern day to just "update a pixel of the screen"? Is it possible to write my own graphics driver or something, where I can send commands to some C wrapper which interfaces with the GPU to change those pixels? This is an extremely broad question, but I'm curious. The answer I'm looking for to this question would provide a rough outline of what you'd have to do in order to be able to arbitrarily get some C code to set a pixel on the screen, as well as a rough outline of why OpenGL has progressed the way it has - what problems did VBOs, PBOs, VAOs, bindings, shaders, etc. solve, and how we got to where we are today.
Isn't the display nothing but a large block of memory?
Yes, it is called a framebuffer.
I've heard of tales, that in the "good ol' days" (such as the Commodore 64)
Your current PC works like that right when you power it up! If you use the CPU to write into video memory, that is called a software renderer.
In the modern day, this has changed with layers upon layers of abstractions and safeguards, such that changing a pixel on your display is several hundred feet away.
No, they are not abstractions/safeguards for "changing pixels". Nowadays software renderers are not used anymore. Instead, you have to tell the GPU (which is another computer on its own) how to draw. That "talk" is what the APIs (like OpenGL) do for you.
Now, the GPUs are meant to be fast at drawing, and that requires specialized code and data structures. Those are all the things you mention: VBOs, PBOs, VAOs, shaders, etc. (in OpenGL parlance). There is no way around that, because GPUs are different hardware.
is it possible in the modern day to just "update a pixel of the screen"?
Yes, but that will end up being drawn somehow by the GPU, even if it looks to you like a memory write.
Is it possible to write my own graphics driver or something, where I can send commands to some C wrapper which interfaces with the GPU to change those pixels?
Yes, but that "C wrapper" is the graphics driver. A graphics driver for a modern GPU is very complex.
what you'd have to do in order to be able to arbitrarily get some C code to set a pixel on the screen
You cannot write a "C program" to write to a graphical screen because the C standard does not concern itself with graphical displays.
So it depends on your operating system, your hardware, whether you want 2D or 3D acceleration support, the API you choose...
as well as a rough outline of why OpenGL has progressed the way it has - what problems did VBOs, PBOs, VAOs, bindings, shaders, etc. solve, and how we got to where we are today.
See above.
You can make your own frame buffer - that is just an integer array - and do rasterization on it, then use for example the Windows GDI function SetBitmapBits() to draw it to the display in one go. The final draw-to-display command depends on the operating system.
How you do the rasterization on your framebuffer is completely up to you. You can use the CPU to draw individual pixels or rasterize lines and triangles, see for example this demo of my old CPU graphics engine using Windows GDI: https://youtu.be/GFzisvhtRS4.
Using the CPU is fine as long as you do not rasterize large datasets. From my experience, the limit to real-time 60fps rendering on the CPU is ~50k lines per frame.
If you want to rasterize really large datasets, you have to use a GPU in some way. Since the framebuffer is just an integer array, you can transfer it to/from the GPU using OpenCL or CUDA and on the GPU - if your dataset happens to already be in video memory - do all the rasterization extremely fast in parallel. For this you will need an additional z-buffer to decide which pixels to overdraw by occluding geometries. This way you can rasterize approximately 30 Million lines per frame at 60fps. This demo is rendered on the GPU in real time using OpenCL: https://youtu.be/lDsz2maaZEo
Is it possible in the modern day to just "update a pixel of the screen"?
Yes. In Windows for example, you can use SetPixel() to draw a pixel or BitBlt() to draw in bulk. See this Q/A
This works fine, but this means you're using the CPU for rendering and you'll find the GPU is much more effective for this task, especially if you require decent framerate and non-trivial graphics. The reason there's these "whole suite of other modern abstractions upon abstractions" is to serve as an interface to the GPU since it has an independent set of memory and totally different execution model. Other GPU libraries (OpenCL, DirectX, Vulkan, etc) all have the same kind of abstractions.
I've glossed over many nuances but I hope the point gets across.
I'm wondering how e.g. graphic (/game) engines do their job with lot's of heterogeneous data while a customized simple rendering loop turns into a nightmare when you have some small changes.
Example:
First, let's say we have some blocks in our scene.
Graphic-Engine: create cubes and move them
Customized: create cube template for vertices, normals, etc. copy and translate them to the position and copy e.g. in a vbo. One glDraw* call does the job.
Second, some weird logic. We want block 1, 4, 7, ... to rotate on x-axis, 2, 5, 8, ... on y-axis and 3, 6, 9 on z-axis with a rotation speed linear to the camera distance.
Graphic-Engine: manipulating object's matrix and it works
Customized: (I think) per object glDraw* call with changing model-matrix uniform is not a good idea, so a translation matrix should be something like an attribute? I have to update them every frame.
Third, a block should disappear if the distance to the camera is lower than any const value Q.
Graphic-Engine: if (object.distance(camera) < Q) scene.drop(object);
Customized: (I think) our vbo is invalid and we have to recreate it?
Again to the very first sentence: it feels like engines do those manipulations for free, while we have to rethink how to provide and update data. And while we do so, the engine (might, but I actually don't know) say: 'update whatever you want, at least I'm going to send all matrizes'.
Another Example: What about a voxel-based world (e.g. Minecraft) where we only draw the visible surface, and we are able to throw a bomb and destroy many voxels. If the world's view data is in one huge buffer we only have one glDraw*-call but have to recreate the buffer every time then. If there are smaller chunks, we have many glDraw*-calls and also have to manipulate buffers, which are smaller.
So is it a good deal to send let's say 10MB of buffer update data instead of 2 gl*-calls with 1MB? How many updates are okay? Should a rendering loop deal with lazy updates?
I'm searching for a guide what a 60fps application should be able to update/draw per frame to get a feeling of what is possible. For my tests, every optimization try is another bottleneck.
And I don't want those tutorials which says: hey there is a new cool gl*Instance call which is super-fast, buuuuut you have to check if your gpu supports it. Well, I also rather consider this an optimization than a meaningful implementation at first.
Do you have any ideas, sources, best practices or rule of thumb how a rendering/updating routine best play together?
My questions are all nearly the same:
How many updates per frame are okay on today's hardware?
Can I lazy-load data to have it after a few frames, but without freezing my application
Do I have to do small updates and profile my loop if there are some microseconds left till next rendering?
Maybe I should implement a real-time profiler which gets a feeling over time, how expensive updates are and can determine the amount of updates per frame?
Thank you.
It's unclear how any of your questions relate to your "graphics engines" vs "customized" examples. All the updates you do with a "graphics engines" are translated to those OpenGL calls in the end.
In brief:
How many updates per frame are okay on today's hardware?
Today's PCIe bandwidth is huge (can go as high as 30 GB/s). However, to utilize it in its entirety you have to reduce the number transactions via consolidating OpenGL calls. The exact number of updates entirely depends on the hardware, drivers, and the way you use them, and graphics hardware is diverse.
This is the kind of answer you didn't want to hear, but unfortunately you have to face the truth: to reduce the number of OpenGL calls you have to use the newer version APIs. E.g. instead of setting each uniform individually you are better to submit a bunch of them through uniform shader buffer objects. Instead of submitting each MVP of each model individually, it's better to use instanced rendering. And so on.
An even more radical approach would be to move to a lower-level (and newer) API, i.e. Vulkan, which aims to solve exactly this problem: the cost of submitting work to the GPU.
Can I lazy-load data to have it after a few frames, but without freezing my application
Yes, you can upload buffer objects asynchronously. See Buffer Object Streaming for details.
Do I have to do small updates and profile my loop if there are some microseconds left till next rendering?
Maybe I should implement a real-time profiler which gets a feeling over time, how expensive updates are and can determine the amount of updates per frame?
You don't need any of these if you do it asynchronously.
I'm currently working alongside a piece of software that generates game maps by taking several images and then tiling them into a game map. Right now I'm working with OpenGL to draw these maps. As you know, switching states in OpenGL and making multiple draw calls is costly. I've decided to implement a texture atlas system, which would allow me to draw the entire map in a single draw call with no state switching. However, I'm having a problem with implementing the texture atlas. Firstly, would it be better to store each TILE in the texture atlas, or the images themselves? Secondly, not all of the images are guaranteed to be square, or even powers of two. Do I pad them to the nearest power of two, a square, or both? Another thing that concerns me is that the images can get quite large, and I'm worried about exceeding the OpenGL size limitation for textures, which would force me to split the map up, ruining the entire concept.
Here's what I have so far, conceptually:
-Generate texture
-Bind texture
-Generate image large enough to hold textures (Take padding into account?)
-Sort textures?
-Upload subtexture to blank texture, store offsets
-Unbind texture
This is not so much a direct answer, but I can't really answer directly since you are asking many questions at once. I'll simply try to give you as much info as I can on the related subjects.
The following is a list of considerations for you, allowing you to rethink exactly what your priorities are and how you wish to execute them.
First of all, in my experience (!!), using texture arrays is much easier than using a texture atlas, and the performance is about equal. Texture arrays do exactly what you think they would do, you can sample them in shaders based on a variable name and an index, instead of just a name (ie: mytexarray[0]). One of the big drawbacks include having the same texture size for all textures in the array, advantages being: easy indexing of subtextures and binding in one draw call.
Second of all, always use powers of 2. I don't know if some recent systems allow for non-power of 2 textures totally without problems, but (again in my experience) it is best to use powers of 2 everywhere. One of the problems I had in a 500*500 texture was black lines when drawing textured quads, these black lines were exactly the size needed to pad to a nearest power of two (12 pixels on x and y). So OpenGL somewhat creates this problem for you even on recent hardware.
Third of all (is this even english?), concerning size. All your problems seem to handle images, textures. You might want to look at texturebuffers, they allow for large amounts of data to be streamed to your GC and are updated easier than textures (this allows for LOD map systems). This is mostly nice if you use textures but only need the data in them represented in their colors, not the colors directly.
Finally you might want to look at "texture splatting", this is a way to increase detail without increasing data. I don't know exactly what you are making so I don't know if you can use it, but it's easy and it's being used in the game industry alot. You create a set of textures (rock, sand, grass, etc) you use everywhere, and one big texture keeping track of which smaller texture is applied where.
I hope at least one of the things I wrote here will help you out,
Good luck!
PS: openGL texture size limitations depend on the graphics card of the user, so be careful with sizes greater than 2048*2048, even if your computer runs fine others might have serious issues. Safe values are anything upto 1024*1024.
PSS: excuse any grammer mistakes, ask for clarification if needed. Also, this is my first answer ever, excuse my lack of protocol.
I'm trying to, in JOGL, pick from a large set of rendered quads (several thousands). Does anyone have any recommendations?
To give you more detail, I'm plotting a large set of data as billboards with procedurally created textures.
I've seen this post OpenGL GL_SELECT or manual collision detection? and have found it helpful. However it can take my program up to several minutes to complete a rendering of the full set, so I don't think drawing 2x (for color picking) is an option.
I'm currently drawing with calls to glBegin/glVertex.../glEnd. Given that I made the switch to batch rendering on the GPU with vao's and vbo's, do you think I would receive a speedup large enough to facilitate color picking?
If not, given all of the recommendations against using GL_SELECT, do you think it would be worth me using it?
I've investigated multithreaded CPU approaches to picking these quads that completely sidestep OpenGL all together. Do you think a OpenGL-less CPU solution is the way to go?
Sorry for all the questions. My main question remains to be, whats a good way that one can pick from a large set of quads using OpenGL (JOGL)?
The best way to pick from a large number of quad cannot be easily defined. I don't like color picking or similar techniques very much, because they seem to be to impractical for most situations. I never understood why there are so many tutorials that focus on people that are new to OpenGl or even programming focus on picking that is just useless for nearly everything. For exmaple: Try to get a pixel you clicked on in a heightmap: Not possible. Try to locate the exact mesh in a model you clicked on: Impractical.
If you have a large number of quads you will probably need a good spatial partitioning or at least (better also) a scene graph. Ok, you don't need this, but it helps A LOT. Look at some tutorials for scene graphs for further information's, it's a good thing to know if you start with 3D programming, because you get to know a lot of concepts and not only OpenGl code.
So what to do now to start with some picking? Take the inverse of your modelview matrix (iirc with glUnproject(...)) on the position where your mouse cursor is. With the orientation of your camera you can now cast a ray into your spatial structure (or your scene graph that holds a spatial structure). Now check for collisions with your quads. I currently have no link, but if you search for inverse modelview matrix you should find some pages that explain this better and in more detail than it would be practical to do here.
With this raycasting based technique you will be able to find your quad in O(log n), where n is the number of quads you have. With some heuristics based on the exact layout of your application (your question is too generic to be more specific) you can improve this a lot for most cases.
An easy spatial structure for this is for example a quadtree. However you should start with they raycasting first to fully understand this technique.
Never faced such problem, but in my opinion, I think the CPU based picking is the best way to try.
If you have a large set of quads, maybe you can group quads by space to avoid testing all quads. For example, you can group the quads in two boxes and firtly test which box you
I just implemented color picking but glReadPixels is slow here (I've read somehere that it might be bad for asynchron behaviour between GL and CPU).
Another possibility seems to me using transform feedback and a geometry shader that does the scissor test. The GS can then discard all faces that do not contain the mouse position. The transform feedback buffer contains then exactly the information about hovered meshes.
You probably want to write the depth to the transform feedback buffer too, so that you can find the topmost hovered mesh.
This approach works also nice with instancing (additionally write the instance id to the buffer)
I haven't tried it yet but I guess it will be a lot faster then using glReadPixels.
I only found this reference for this approach.
I'm using the solution that I've borrowed from DirectX SDK, there's a nice example how to detect the selected polygon in a vertext buffer object.
The same algorithm works nice with OpenGL.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last month and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
There are already a number of questions about text rendering in OpenGL, such as:
How to do OpenGL live text-rendering for a GUI?
But mostly what is discussed is rendering textured quads using the fixed-function pipeline. Surely shaders must make a better way.
I'm not really concerned about internationalization, most of my strings will be plot tick labels (date and time or purely numeric). But the plots will be re-rendered at the screen refresh rate and there could be quite a bit of text (not more than a few thousand glyphs on-screen, but enough that hardware accelerated layout would be nice).
What is the recommended approach for text-rendering using modern OpenGL? (Citing existing software using the approach is good evidence that it works well)
Geometry shaders that accept e.g. position and orientation and a character sequence and emit textured quads
Geometry shaders that render vector fonts
As above, but using tessellation shaders instead
A compute shader to do font rasterization
Rendering outlines, unless you render only a dozen characters total, remains a "no go" due to the number of vertices needed per character to approximate curvature. Though there have been approaches to evaluate bezier curves in the pixel shader instead, these suffer from not being easily antialiased, which is trivial using a distance-map-textured quad, and evaluating curves in the shader is still computationally much more expensive than necessary.
The best trade-off between "fast" and "quality" are still textured quads with a signed distance field texture. It is very slightly slower than using a plain normal textured quad, but not so much. The quality on the other hand, is in an entirely different ballpark. The results are truly stunning, it is as fast as you can get, and effects such as glow are trivially easy to add, too. Also, the technique can be downgraded nicely to older hardware, if needed.
See the famous Valve paper for the technique.
The technique is conceptually similar to how implicit surfaces (metaballs and such) work, though it does not generate polygons. It runs entirely in the pixel shader and takes the distance sampled from the texture as a distance function. Everything above a chosen threshold (usually 0.5) is "in", everything else is "out". In the simplest case, on 10 year old non-shader-capable hardware, setting the alpha test threshold to 0.5 will do that exact thing (though without special effects and antialiasing).
If one wants to add a little more weight to the font (faux bold), a slightly smaller threshold will do the trick without modifying a single line of code (just change your "font_weight" uniform). For a glow effect, one simply considers everything above one threshold as "in" and everything above another (smaller) threshold as "out, but in glow", and LERPs between the two. Antialiasing works similarly.
By using an 8-bit signed distance value rather than a single bit, this technique increases the effective resolution of your texture map 16-fold in each dimension (instead of black and white, all possible shades are used, thus we have 256 times the information using the same storage). But even if you magnify far beyond 16x, the result still looks quite acceptable. Long straight lines will eventually become a bit wiggly, but there will be no typical "blocky" sampling artefacts.
You can use a geometry shader for generating the quads out of points (reduce bus bandwidth), but honestly the gains are rather marginal. The same is true for instanced character rendering as described in GPG8. The overhead of instancing is only amortized if you have a lot of text to draw. The gains are, in my opinion, in no relation to the added complexity and non-downgradeability. Plus, you are either limited by the amount of constant registers, or you have to read from a texture buffer object, which is non-optimal for cache coherence (and the intent was to optimize to begin with!).
A simple, plain old vertex buffer is just as fast (possibly faster) if you schedule the upload a bit ahead in time and will run on every hardware built during the last 15 years. And, it is not limited to any particular number of characters in your font, nor to a particular number of characters to render.
If you are sure that you do not have more than 256 characters in your font, texture arrays may be worth a consideration to strip off bus bandwidth in a similar manner as generating quads from points in the geometry shader. When using an array texture, the texture coordinates of all quads have identical, constant s and t coordinates and only differ in the r coordinate, which is equal to the character index to render.
But like with the other techniques, the expected gains are marginal at the cost of being incompatible with previous generation hardware.
There is a handy tool by Jonathan Dummer for generating distance textures: description page
Update:
As more recently pointed out in Programmable Vertex Pulling (D. Rákos, "OpenGL Insights", pp. 239), there is no significant extra latency or overhead associated with pulling vertex data programmatically from the shader on the newest generations of GPUs, as compared to doing the same using the standard fixed function.
Also, the latest generations of GPUs have more and more reasonably sized general-purpose L2 caches (e.g. 1536kiB on nvidia Kepler), so one may expect the incoherent access problem when pulling random offsets for the quad corners from a buffer texture being less of a problem.
This makes the idea of pulling constant data (such as quad sizes) from a buffer texture more attractive. A hypothetical implementation could thus reduce PCIe and memory transfers, as well as GPU memory, to a minimum with an approach like this:
Only upload a character index (one per character to be displayed) as the only input to a vertex shader that passes on this index and gl_VertexID, and amplify that to 4 points in the geometry shader, still having the character index and the vertex id (this will be "gl_primitiveID made available in the vertex shader") as the sole attributes, and capture this via transform feedback.
This will be fast, because there are only two output attributes (main bottleneck in GS), and it is close to "no-op" otherwise in both stages.
Bind a buffer texture which contains, for each character in the font, the textured quad's vertex positions relative to the base point (these are basically the "font metrics"). This data can be compressed to 4 numbers per quad by storing only the offset of the bottom left vertex, and encoding the width and height of the axis-aligned box (assuming half floats, this will be 8 bytes of constant buffer per character -- a typical 256 character font could fit completely into 2kiB of L1 cache).
Set an uniform for the baseline
Bind a buffer texture with horizontal offsets. These could probably even be calculated on the GPU, but it is much easier and more efficient to that kind of thing on the CPU, as it is a strictly sequential operation and not at all trivial (think of kerning). Also, it would need another feedback pass, which would be another sync point.
Render the previously generated data from the feedback buffer, the vertex shader pulls the horizontal offset of the base point and the offsets of the corner vertices from buffer objects (using the primitive id and the character index). The original vertex ID of the submitted vertices is now our "primitive ID" (remember the GS turned the vertices into quads).
Like this, one could ideally reduce the required vertex bandwith by 75% (amortized), though it would only be able to render a single line. If one wanted to be able to render several lines in one draw call, one would need to add the baseline to the buffer texture, rather than using an uniform (making the bandwidth gains smaller).
However, even assuming a 75% reduction -- since the vertex data to display "reasonable" amounts of text is only somewhere around 50-100kiB (which is practically zero to a GPU or a PCIe bus) -- I still doubt that the added complexity and losing backwards-compatibility is really worth the trouble. Reducing zero by 75% is still only zero. I have admittedly not tried the above approach, and more research would be needed to make a truly qualified statement. But still, unless someone can demonstrate a truly stunning performance difference (using "normal" amounts of text, not billions of characters!), my point of view remains that for the vertex data, a simple, plain old vertex buffer is justifiably good enough to be considered part of a "state of the art solution". It's simple and straightforward, it works, and it works well.
Having already referenced "OpenGL Insights" above, it is worth to also point out the chapter "2D Shape Rendering by Distance Fields" by Stefan Gustavson which explains distance field rendering in great detail.
Update 2016:
Meanwhile, there exist several additional techniques which aim to remove the corner rounding artefacts which become disturbing at extreme magnifications.
One approach simply uses pseudo-distance fields instead of distance fields (the difference being that the distance is the shortest distance not to the actual outline, but to the outline or an imaginary line protruding over the edge). This is somewhat better, and runs at the same speed (identical shader), using the same amount of texture memory.
Another approach uses the median-of-three in a three-channel texture details and implementation available at github. This aims to be an improvement over the and-or hacks used previously to address the issue. Good quality, slightly, almost not noticeably, slower, but uses three times as much texture memory. Also, extra effects (e.g. glow) are harder to get right.
Lastly, storing the actual bezier curves making up characters, and evaluating them in a fragment shader has become practical, with slightly inferior performance (but not so much that it's a problem) and stunning results even at highest magnifications.
WebGL demo rendering a large PDF with this technique in real time available here.
http://code.google.com/p/glyphy/
The main difference between GLyphy and other SDF-based OpenGL renderers is that most other projects sample the SDF into a texture. This has all the usual problems that sampling has. Ie. it distorts the outline and is low quality. GLyphy instead represents the SDF using actual vectors submitted to the GPU. This results in very high quality rendering.
The downside is that the code is for iOS with OpenGL ES. I'm probably going to make a Windows/Linux OpenGL 4.x port (hopefully the author will add some real documentation, though).
The most widespread technique is still textured quads. However in 2005 LORIA developed something called vector textures, i.e. rendering vector graphics as textures on primitives. If one uses this to convert TrueType or OpenType fonts into a vector texture you get this:
http://alice.loria.fr/index.php/publications.html?Paper=VTM#2005
I'm surprised Mark Kilgard's baby, NV_path_rendering (NVpr), was not mentioned by any of the above. Although its goals are more general than font rendering, it can also render text from fonts and with kerning. It doesn't even require OpenGL 4.1, but it is a vendor/Nvidia-only extension at the moment. It basically turns fonts into paths using glPathGlyphsNV which depends on the freetype2 library to get the metrics, etc. Then you can also access the kerning info with glGetPathSpacingNV and use NVpr's general path rendering mechanism to display text from using the path-"converted" fonts. (I put that in quotes, because there's no real conversion, the curves are used as is.)
The recorded demo for NVpr's font capabilities is unfortunately not particularly impressive. (Maybe someone should make one along the lines of the much snazzier SDF demo one can find on the intertubes...)
The 2011 NVpr API presentation talk for the fonts part starts here and continues in the next part; it is a bit unfortunate how that presentation is split.
More general materials on NVpr:
Nvidia NVpr hub, but some material on the landing page is not the most up-to-date
Siggraph 2012 paper for the brains of the path-rendering method, called "stencil, then cover" (StC); the paper also explains briefly how competing tech like Direct2D works. The font-related bits have been relegated to an annex of the paper. There are also some extras like videos/demos.
GTC 2014 presentation for an update status; in a nutshell: it's now supported by Google's Skia (Nvidia contributed the code in late 2013 and 2014), which in turn is used in Google Chrome and [independently of Skia, I think] in a beta of Adobe Illustrator CC 2014
the official documentation in the OpenGL extension registry
USPTO has granted at least four patents to Kilgard/Nvidia in connection with NVpr, of which you should probably be aware of, in case you want to implement StC by yourself: US8698837, US8698808, US8704830 and US8730253. Note that there are something like 17 more USPTO documents connected to this as "also published as", most of which are patent applications, so it's entirely possible more patents may be granted from those.
And since the word "stencil" did not produce any hits on this page before my answer, it appears the subset of the SO community that participated on this page insofar, despite being pretty numerous, was unaware of tessellation-free, stencil-buffer-based methods for path/font rendering in general. Kilgard has a FAQ-like post at on the opengl forum which may illuminate how the tessellation-free path rendering methods differ from bog standard 3D graphics, even though they're still using a [GP]GPU. (NVpr needs a CUDA-capable chip.)
For historical perspective, Kilgard is also the author of the classic "A Simple OpenGL-based API for Texture Mapped Text", SGI, 1997, which should not be confused with the stencil-based NVpr that debuted in 2011.
Most if not all the recent methods discussed on this page, including stencil-based methods like NVpr or SDF-based methods like GLyphy (which I'm not discussing here any further because other answers already cover it) have however one limitation: they are suitable for large text display on conventional (~100 DPI) monitors without jaggies at any level of scaling, and they also look nice, even at small size, on high-DPI, retina-like displays. They don't fully provide what Microsoft's Direct2D+DirectWrite gives you however, namely hinting of small glyphs on mainstream displays. (For a visual survey of hinting in general see this typotheque page for instance. A more in-depth resource is on antigrain.com.)
I'm not aware of any open & productized OpenGL-based stuff that can do what Microsoft can with hinting at the moment. (I admit ignorance to Apple's OS X GL/Quartz internals, because to the best of my knowledge Apple hasn't published how they do GL-based font/path rendering stuff. It seems that OS X, unlike MacOS 9, doesn't do hinting at all, which annoys some people.) Anyway, there is one 2013 research paper that addresses hinting via OpenGL shaders written by INRIA's Nicolas P. Rougier; it is probably worth reading if you need to do hinting from OpenGL. While it may seem that a library like freetype already does all the work when it comes to hinting, that's not actually so for the following reason, which I'm quoting from the paper:
The FreeType library can rasterize a glyph using sub-pixel anti-aliasing in RGB mode.
However, this is only half of the problem, since we also want to achieve sub-pixel
positioning for accurate placement of the glyphs. Displaying the textured quad at
fractional pixel coordinates does not solve the problem, since it only results in texture
interpolation at the whole-pixel level. Instead, we want to achieve a precise shift
(between 0 and 1) in the subpixel domain. This can be done in a fragment shader [...].
The solution is not exactly trivial, so I'm not going to try to explain it here. (The paper is open-access.)
One other thing I've learned from Rougier's paper (and which Kilgard doesn't seem to have considered) is that the font powers that be (Microsoft+Adobe) have created not one but two kerning specification methods. The old one is based on a so-called kern table and it is supported by freetype. The new one is called GPOS and it is only supported by newer font libraries like HarfBuzz or pango in the free software world. Since NVpr doesn't seem to support either of those libraries, kerning might not work out of the box with NVpr for some new fonts; there are some of those apparently in the wild, according to this forum discussion.
Finally, if you need to do complex text layout (CTL) you seem to be currently out of luck with OpenGL as no OpenGL-based library appears to exist for that. (DirectWrite on the other hand can handle CTL.) There are open-sourced libraries like HarfBuzz which can render CTL, but I don't know how you'd get them to work well (as in using the stencil-based methods) via OpenGL. You'd probably have to write the glue code to extract the re-shaped outlines and feed them into NVpr or SDF-based solutions as paths.
I think your best bet would be to look into cairo graphics with OpenGL backend.
The only problem I had when developing a prototype with 3.3 core was deprecated function usage in OpenGL backend. It was 1-2 years ago so situation might have improved...
Anyway, I hope in the future desktop opengl graphics drivers will implement OpenVG.