I have used OpenGL pretty exclusively for all my rendering, to the point that I'm unaware of any other way to write pixels to a window unfortunately.
This is a problem because my current project is a work tool that emulates an LCD display (pixel perfect, 2D, very few pixels are touched each frame, all 'drawing' can be done with memcpy() to a pixel buffer) and I feel that OpenGL might be too heavy for this, but I could absolutely be wrong in that assumption.
My goal is to borrow as little CPU time as possible. What's the best way to draw pixels to a window, in this limited way, on a modern typical machine running windows 10 circa 2019? Is OpenGL suited for this type of rendering, or should I adopt another rendering method in this case? And if so, what would that method be?
edit:
I should also mention, OpenGL can be used right away for me. If rendering textured triangles with an optimal setup is the fastest method, then I can already do that. Anything that just acts as an API over OpenGL or DirectX will likely be worse in my case.
edit2:
After some research, and thanks to the comments, I think I may just use OpenGL with Pixel Buffer Objects to optimize pixel uploads and keep rendering inexpensive.
Related
I'm writing some code that uses SDL2 to display an image with moving markers layered on it, and I think I'd like to use the new (?) 2D hardware accelerated rendering. As I understand it, I have to load an image and convert it to a texture -- but what's the difference? Searching for 'image texture 2d sdl' only gets me tutorials on how to load textures and I'm looking for more of the background rather than the how-to.
So, some questions:
What's a texture versus an image? Aren't they the same thing?
Am I correct in assuming that I need to load the static background image as a texture if I want hardware accelerated rendering? In fact, it sounds like all the bits need to be textures for this to work.
Speaking of OpenGL, are SDL textures actually OpenGL textures?
I'm writing the main app for a single-purpose machine with limited resources (dual core ARM CPU, dual core Mali 400 GPU, 4GB RAM: Olimex A20 LIME2). All I need to do is render an 480x800 (yes, portrait layout) image and put markers on it. I expect the markers to have a single opaque and two transparency layers, to be updated at around 15 fps, and I expect about 125 of them, tops. Is it worth my while to use 2D hardware acceleration or should I just do it in software?
To understand the basics of textures, I advise you to have a look at a simpler library's documentation. Here, the term pixmap is used in the same way as SDL's texture. Essentially, those are already converted and uploaded into your GPU's memory, which makes operations quite a bit faster, but also more complex to deal with.
OpenGL textures are another beast, but we could basically say that they are the same, that is, images in video memory. When binding a texture in OpenGL, you need to upload it to the GPU memory, which is somewhat similar to this texture transformation.
At 125 objects, I think considering using the 2D acceleration becomes worth the hassle, especially if you have to move them around. If this is just a static image, I guess you could go for the regular image route.
As a general rule, I encourage you to use 2D acceleration (or just acceleration, for that matter) whenever possible, if only for the battery improvements. With that said, if the images are static, the outcome will exactly be the same, maybe just slightly different code-path wise. As such, I suppose you could load the static background image just as a regular image without any downsides (note that I am not a SDL professional, so this mixed approach might not work here, but it is worth trying since it will work on most 2D toolkits).
I hope I answered all of your questions :)
I was moving from SDL to SDL2, and was confused of the 'render & texture' system introduced.
Back in SDL, the most frequent operation was creating Surface's and BlitSurface them onto screen. Now there seems a trend of using renderers and textures. However, this is extremely slow (in terms of coding overhead) from my point. Why can't I just load_BMP and BlitSurface as before? What good can be introduced from this whole window-renderer-texture thing?
I have read a couple threads What is a SDL renderer? but still a little confusing.
So..
Will the old Surface way work in SDL2?
What is the point in Renderer & Texture? (could be about hardware-accelaration according to a little googling, but not sure what that means)
You might want to take a look at the migration guide for SDL2, it provides information on the new way of dealing with 2D graphics.
The point of using textures instead of surfaces is that textures works on the GPU and get loaded into video memory and surfaces works in system memory with the CPU and since GPUs are much better suited than CPU for handling graphics it will be faster. Also, the renderer hides the underlying system used (it could be D3D, OpenGL, or something else).
You can still load surfaces, but you'll have to convert them to textures before rendering them or use the SDL_UpdateWindowSurface and SDL_GetWindowSurface functions; the latter link includes an example on how to use them.
As for the SDL2 approach being slow, as you assert, I don't agree with you, you set up the window and renderer once, load your textures much like you loaded surfaces, copy them to the renderer instead of blitting and finally use SDL_RenderPresent instead of SDL_Flip. Not that different really :)
But, take a look at the migration guide, it has the information you're looking for.
Is it possible yet to draw CUDA/OPENCL results directly to the screen with any existing API (opengl, directx, something else)? Skipping the typical drawing a textured quad method.
Even with registering resources and using modern CUDA interop methods, we still have to march through entire rendering pipelines just to render an array of colors. For applications like mine where every ms counts, this is a problem.
There's no way to draw directly on the screen with OpenCL or CUDA.
It is a solvable problem, but as far as I know, NVIDIA has not provided the needed APIs because they would be very complicated both to implement and to use, and the performance benefits would be limited at best.
The two main issues are:
1) the differing layouts of the buffers used for rendering (i.e. you'd have to use surface load/store functionality - a mapping into CUDA's address space is not suitable for graphics because the pitch-linear layout has poor performance in that context) and
2) the platform-specific details of incorporating your CUDA/OpenCL output into the presentation model (be it the desktop or a page-flipped full-screen experience, like a Direct3D game, or incorporating your app's output into the desktop). Bear in mind that most desktops these days are themselves page-flipped, so scribbling on the front buffer is frowned upon in any case.
I very much doubt that there is any performance lost in drawing pixels using a textured quad but you can draw pixels directly on the framebuffer with glDrawPixels.
I'm writing a 2D platformer game using SDL with C++. However I have encountered a huge issue involving scaling to resolution. I want the the game to look nice in full HD so all the images for the game have been created so that the natural resolution of the game is 1920x1080. However I want the game to scale down to the correct resolution if someone is using a smaller resolution, or to scale larger if someone is using a larger resolution.
The problem is I haven't been able to find an efficient way to do this.I started by using the SDL_gfx library to pre-scale all images but this doesn't work as it creates a lot of off-by-one errors, where one pixel was being lost. And since my animations are contained in one image when the animation would play the animation would slightly move up or down each frame.
Then after some looking round I have tried using opengl to handle the scaling. Currently my program draws all the images to a SDL_Surface that is 1920x1080. It then converts this surface to a opengl texture, scales this texture to the screen resolution, then draws the texture. This works fine visually but the problem is that its not efficient at all. Currently I am getting a max fps of 18 :(
So my question is does anyone know of an efficient way to scale the SDL display to the screen resolution?
It's inefficient because OpenGL was not designed to work that way. Main performance problems with current design:
First problem: You're software rasterizing with SDL. Sorry, but no matter what you do with this configuration, that will be a bottleneck. At a resolution of 1920x1080, you have 2,073,600 pixels to color. Assuming it takes you 10 clock cycles to shade each 4-channel pixel, on a 2GHz processor you're running a maximum of 96.4 fps. That doesn't sound bad, except you probably can't shade pixels that fast, and you still haven't done AI, user input, game mechanics, sound, physics, and everything else, and you're probably drawing over some pixels at least once anyway. SDL_gfx may be quick, but for large resolutions, the CPU is just fundamentally overtasked.
Second problem: Each frame, you're copying data across the graphics bus to the GPU. This is the slowest thing you can possibly do graphics-wise. Image data is probably the worst of that, because there's typically so much of it. Basically, each frame you're telling the GPU to copy two million some pixels from RAM to VRAM. According to Wikipedia, you can expect, for 2,073,600 pixels at 4 bytes each, no more than 258.9 fps, which again doesn't sound bad until you remember everything else you need to do.
My recommendation: switch your application completely to OpenGL. This removes the need to render to a texture and copy to the screen--just render directly to the screen! Also, scaling is handled automatically by your view matrix (glOrtho/gluOrtho2D for 2D), so you don't have to care about the scaling issue at all--your viewport will just show everything at the same scale. This is the ideal solution to your problem.
Now, it comes with the one major drawback that you have to recode everything with OpenGL draw commands (which is work, but not too hard, especially in the long run). Short of that, you can try the following ideas to improve speed:
PBOs. Pixel buffer objects can be used to address problem two by making texture loading/copying asynchronous.
Multithread your rendering. Most CPUs have at least two cores and on newer chips two register states can be saved for a single core (Hyperthreading). You're essentially duplicating how the GPU solves the rendering problem (have a lot of threads going). I'm not sure how thread safe SDL_gfx is, but I bet that something could be worked out, especially if you're only working on different parts of the image at the same time.
Make sure you pay attention to what place your draw surface is in SDL. It should probably be SDL_SWSURFACE (because you're drawing on the CPU).
Remove VSync. This can improve performance, even if you're not running at 60Hz
Make sure you're drawing your original texture--DO NOT scale it up or down to a new one. Draw it at a different size, and let the rasterizer do the work!
Sporadically update: Only update half the image at a time. This will probably close to double your "framerate", and it's (usually) not noticeable.
Similarly, only update the changing parts of the image.
Hope this helps.
If we want to make an application like MS Paint, should we use OpenGL for render graphics?
I want to mention about performance if using traditional GDI vs. OpenGL.
And if there are exist some better libs for this purpose, please see me one.
GDI, X11, OpenGL... are rendering APIs, i.e. you usually don't use them for image manipulation (you can do this, but it requires some precautions).
In a drawing application like MS Paint, if it's pixel based, you'll normally manipulate some picture buffer with customary code, or a special image manipulation library, then send the full buffer to the rendering API.
If your data model consists of strokes and individual shapes, i.e. vector graphics, then OpenGL makes a quite good backend. However it may be worth looking into some other API for vector graphics, like OpenVG (which in its current implementations sits on top of OpenGL, but native implementations operating directly on the GPU may come).
In your usage scenario you'll not run into any performance problems on current computers, so don't choose your API from that criteria. OpenGL is definitely faster than GDI when it comes to texturing, alpha blending, etc. However depending on system and GPU pure GDI may outperform OpenGL for so simple things like drawing an arc or filling a complex self intersecting polygon with complex winding rules.
There is no good reason not to use OpenGL for this. Except maybe if you have years of experience with GDI but don't know a single thing about OpenGL.
On the other hand, OpenGL may very well be superior in many cases. Compositing layers or adjusting hue/saturation/brightness/contrast in a GLSL shader will be several orders of magnitude faster (in fact, pretty much "instantly") if there is a reasonably new card in the computer. Stroking a freedraw path with a "fuzzy" pen (i.e. blending a sprite with alpha transparency over and over again) will be orders of magnitude faster. On images with somewhat reasonable dimensions, most filter kernels should run close to realtime. Rescaling with bilinear filtering runs in hardware.
Such things won't matter on a 512x512 image, as pretty much everything is instantaneous at such resolutions, but on a typical 4096x3072 (or larger) image from your digital camera, it may be very noticeable, especially if you have 4-6 layers.