I have written an entity component system for my game (C++). I have then refactored my render system to work with Entities / RenderComponents rather than some virtual drawable interface. Their are some classes for which I don't think it makes too much sense to force them to be a component. One of those classes is the map.
My map class consists of a tiled terrain class and some other data (not important). The tiled terrain class manages multiple layers in form of (what is at the moment) the TiledTerrainLayer class. Before refactoring the render system I simply inherited from Drawable and Transformable to enable this class to be drawn by the render system. Now it is required to be an entity with at least a TransformComponent and some RenderComponent.
Now, the TiledTerrainLayerRenderComponent should really only own the vertices and a reference of the texture and maybe a flag for whether it has been created yet. The TiledTerrainComponent would then own the list of tile indecies as well as tile and map size.
Now my problem is that when I set a tile (using something like a SetTile(size_t tileIndex, const Position & pos) method, I also have to update texture coordinates of the vertex array.
I am generally fine with one component requiring another component. For example the SpriteRenderComponent requires a TransformComponent and I am also fine with one component accessing the information of another. E.g. the GetBoundingBox() method uses the position of the transform component.
What I want to avoid is two components 'cross-referencing' each other like it would be the case with the TiledTerrainComponent (TTC) and TiledTerrainRenderComponent. (TTRC) (The TTRC gets the TTC's tileIndexList to create itself and the TTC calls the TTRC's UpdateVertices() method when its SetTile() method is called.
Lastly, I am aware that components should mainly be data. I have only added methods that directly get or modify that data such as SetTile() or GetTexture(). Would a system be viable in the case described above and if yes how would it look like?
It sounds like all you need here is a Dirty Flag.
When you change tile index, size, or other properties on your Tiled Terrain, you do not immediately phone the Tiled Renderer to update its vertices (after all, you might have many tile updates yet to come this frame — it could be wasteful to recalculate your vertices every time)
Instead, the Tiled Terrain renderer just sets its internal hasBeenModifiedSinceLastUse flag to true. It doesn't need to know about the Renderer at all.
Next, when updating your Tiled Renderer just prior to drawing, you have it ask its Tiled Terrain whether it's been updated since the last draw (you could even query a list of updates if you want to target the changes). If so, you update the vertices in one big batch, for better code & data locality.
In the process, you reset the modified flag so that if there are no updates on subsequent frames you can re-use the last generated set of vertices as-is.
Now your dependency points only one way — the renderer depends on the tile data, but the tile data has no knowledge of the rendering apart from maintaining its flag.
Related
In short: What is the "preferred" way to wrap OpenGL's buffers, shaders and/or matrices required for a more high level "model" object?
I am trying to write this tiny graphics engine in C++ built on core OpenGL 3.3 and I would like to implement an as clean as possible solution to wrapping a higher level "model" object, which would contain its vertex buffer, global position/rotation, textures (and also a shader maybe?) and potentially other information.
I have looked into this open source engine, called GamePlay3D and don't quite agree with many aspects of its solution to this problem. Is there any good resource that discusses this topic for modern OpenGL? Or is there some simple and clean way to do this?
That depends a lot on what you want to be able to do with your engine. Also note that these concepts are the same with DirectX (or any other graphic API), so don't focus too much your search on OpenGL. Here are a few points that are very common in a 3D engine (names can differ):
Mesh:
A mesh contains submeshes, each submesh contains a vertex buffer and an index buffer. The idea being that each submesh will use a different material (for example, in the mesh of a character, there could be a submesh for the body and one for the clothes.)
Instance:
An instance (or mesh instance) references a mesh, a list of materials (one for each submesh in the mesh), and contains the "per instance" shader uniforms (world matrix etc.), usually grouped in a uniform buffer.
Material: (This part changes a lot depending on the complexity of the engine). A basic version would contain some textures, some render states (blend state, depth state), a shader program, and some shader uniforms that are common to all instances (for example a color, but that could also be in the instance depending on what you want to do.)
More complex versions usually separates the materials in passes (or sometimes techniques that contain passes) that contain everything that's in the previous paragraph. You can check Ogre3D documentation for more info about that and to take a look at one possible implementation. There's also a very good article called Designing a Data-Driven Renderer in GPU PRO 3 that describes an even more flexible system based on the same idea (but also more complex).
Scene: (I call it a scene here, but it could really be called anything). It provides the shader parameters and textures from the environment (lighting values, environment maps, this kind of things).
And I thinks that's it for the basics. With that in mind, you should be able to find your way around the code of any open-source 3D engine if you want the implementation details.
This is in addition to Jerem's excellent answer.
At a low level, there is no such thing as a "model", there is only buffer data and the code used to process it. At a high level, the concept of a "model" will differ from application to application. A chess game would have a static mesh for each chess piece, with shared textures and materials, but a first-person shooter could have complicated models with multiple parts, swappable skins, hit boxes, rigging, animations, et cetera.
Case study: chess
For chess, there are six pieces and two colors. Let's over-engineer the graphics engine to show how it could be done if you needed to draw, say, thousands of simultaneous chess games in the same screen, instead of just one game. Here is how you might do it.
Store all models in one big buffer. This buffer has all of the vertex and index data for all six models clumped together. This means that you never have to switch buffers / VAOs when you're drawing pieces. Also, this buffer never changes, except when the user goes into settings and chooses a different style for the chess pieces.
Create another buffer containing the current location of each piece in the game, the color of each piece, and a reference to the model for that piece. This buffer is updated every frame.
Load the necessary textures. Maybe the normals would be in one texture, and the diffuse map would be an array texture with one layer for white and another for black. The textures are designed so you don't have to change them while you're drawing chess pieces.
To draw all the pieces, you just have to update one buffer, and then call glMultiDrawElementsIndirect()... once per frame, and it draws all of the chess pieces. If that's not available, you can fall back to glDrawElements() or something else.
Analysis
You can see how this kind of design won't work for everything.
What if you have to stream new models into memory, and remove old ones?
What if the models have different size textures?
What if the models are more complex, with animations or forward kinematics?
What about translucent models?
What about hit boxes and physics data?
What about different LODs?
The problem here is that your solution, and even the very concept of what a "model" is, will be very different depending on what your needs are.
I'm writing an object oriented openGL application, which renders some 3D models (which are stored in my own classes with several attributes and methods). One of these object types (with volume rendering shader) require that I render the output to a fixed size texture first (say 256*256), then restore the previous viewport size and stretch this texture over the screen in 2D.
The actual problem is that I can't get the actual viewport size from inside this object, unless (I guess) I store a reference to the GLEventListener's GLU object, which I obviously don't want for each and every model I create.
But I also don't want to have static variables in the GLEventListener (what if I want an app which has 2 canvases?)
The most important is the viewport dimensions, but I think I'll also need to reference my custom Camera object. How can I do this without using static somehow?
First, please read http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Common_Mistakes#The_Object_Oriented_Language_Problem
Next I point you to the function glGetIntegerv on the token GL_VIEWPORT.
I would store the viewport information and any other data that wouldn't change per canvas (etc) in a single struct, and then just store a single pointer with each object
I'm new to the Qt3D module and am currently writing a game in Qt5/C++ using Qt3D. This question is about "Am I on the correct path?" or "Can you give me some advice on...".
The scene of the game has a static part (the "world") and some objects (buildings and movable units). Some of the buildings might be animated in the future, but most of them are very static (but of course destructible).
I divide the quesion into two parts: How to handle copies of the same model placed at different positions in the scene and how to manage the scene as a whole in the viewer class.
Redundant objects in the scene:
Of course the objects share the same library of buildings / movable units, so it would be dumb to upload the models for these objects to the graphics card for every instance of such a unit. I read through the documentation of QGLSceneNode, from which I guess that it is designed to share the same QGeometryData among multiple scene nodes, but apply different transformations in order to place the objects at different positions in my scene. Sharing the same QGLSceneNode for all instances of a building would be the wrong way, I guess.
I currently have a unit "library class" telling me the properties of each type of building / movable unit, among other things the geometry including textures. Now, I'd provide a QGeometryData for each building in this library class, which is uploaded on the loading procedure of the game (if I decide to do this for all buildings at startup...).
When creating a new instance of a unit, I'd now create a new QGLSceneNode, request the QGeometryData (which is explicitly shared) from the library and set it on the node. Then I set the transformation for this new node and put it in my scene. This leads us to the second part of my question:
Manage the scene as a whole:
My "scene" currently is neither a QGLSceneNode nor a QGLAbstractScene, but a struct of some QGLSceneNodes, one for each object (or collection of objects) in the scene. I see three approaches:
My current approach, but I guess it's "the wrong way".
The composition: Putting everything as child nodes in one root QGLSceneNode. This seemed the correct way for me, until I realized that it is very difficult to access specific nodes in such a composition. But when would I even need to access such "specific" nodes? Most operations require to take all nodes into account (rendering them, updating positions for animations), or even operate on a signal-slot-basis so I even don't need to find the nodes manually at all. For example, animations can be done using QPropertyAnimations. Acting on events can also be done by connecting a QObject in the game engine core (all buildings are QObjects in the engine's core part) with the corresponding QGLSceneNode.
But this approach has another downside: During rendering, I might need to change some properties of the QGLPainter. I'm not sure which properties I need to change, this is because I don't know Qt3D enough and can't guess what can be done without changing the properties (for example: using a specific shader to render a specific scene node).
Then I found QGLAbstractScene, but I can't see the advantages when comparing with the two solutions above, since I can't define the rendering process in the scene. But maybe it's not the correct location where to define it?
Which is the best approach to manage such a scene in Qt3D?
With "best" I mean: What am I going to do wrong? What can I do better? What other things should I take into account? Have I overlooked anything important in the Qt3D library?
Ok, I have a renderer class which has all kinds of special functions called by the rest of the program:
DrawBoxFilled
DrawText
DrawLine
About 30 more...
Each of these functions calls glBegin/glEnd separably, which I know can be very inefficiently(its even deprecated). So anyways, I am planning a total rewrite of the renderer and I need to know the most efficient ways to set up the functions so that when something calls it, it draws it all at once, or whatever else it needs to do so it will run most efficiently. Thanks in advance :)
The efficient way to render is generally to use VBO's (vertex buffer objects) to store your vertex data, but that is only really meaningful if you are rendering (mostly) static data.
Without knowing more about what your application is supposed to render, it's hard to say how you should structure it. But ideally, you should never draw individual primitives, but rather draw the contents (a subset) of a vertexbuffer.
The most efficient way is not to expose such low-level methods at all. Instead, what you want to do is build a scene graph, which is a data structure that contains a representation of the entire scene. You update the scene graph in your "update" method, then render the whole thing in one go in your "render" method.
Another, slightly different approach is to re-build the entire scene graph each frame. This has the advantage that once the scene graph is composed, it doesn't change. So you can call your "render" method on another thread while your "update" method is going through and constructing the scene for the next frame at the same time.
Many of the more advanced effects are simply not possible without a complete scene graph. You can't do shadow mapping, for instance (which requires you to render the scene multiple times from a different angle), you can't do deferred rendering, it also makes anything which relies on sorted draw order (e.g. alpha-blending) very difficult.
From your method names, it looks like you're working in 2D, so while shadow mapping is probably not high on your feature list, alpha-blending deferred rendering might be.
I'm trying to use Papervision for Flash, for this project of mine, which involves a 3D model of a mechanical frame, consisting of several connected parts. Movement of one of the parts results in a corresponding change in orientation and position of other parts of the frame.
My understanding is that using a scene graph to handle this kind of linked movement would be the ideal way to go, at least, if I were to implement in one of the more established 3D development options, like OpenGL or DirectX.
My question is, is there an existing scene graph implementation for Papervision? Or, an alternative way to generate the required 3D motion?
Thank!
I thought Papervision is basically a Flash-based 3D rendering engine, therefore should contain its own scene graph.
See org.papervision3d.scenes.Scene3D in the API.
And see this article for a lengthier explanation of the various objects in Papervision. One thing you can do is google for articles with the key objects in P3D, such as EngineManager, Viewport3D, BasicRenderEngine, Scene3D and Camera3D.
As for "generating the motion", it depends on what you are trying to achieve exactly. Either you code that up and alter the scene yourself, or use a third-party library like a physics library so as to not have to code all that up yourself.
You can honestly build one in the time it would take you to search for one:
Create a class called Node with a virtual method Render(matrix:Matrix), which holds an array of child nodes.
Create a subclass of Node called TransformNode which takes a reference to a matrix.
Create a subclass of Node called ModelNode which takes a reference to a model.
The Render method of TransformNode multiplies the incoming matrix with its own, then calls the render method of its children with the resulting matrix.
The Render method of ModelNode sends its model off to the renderer at the location specified by the incoming matrix.
That's it. You can enhance things further with a BoundsNode that doesn't call its children if it's bounding shape is not visible in the viewing frustum.