I am learning OpenGL and using it with C++... I'm a beginner so sorry if this is a stupid question.
I was following this tutorial (https://learnopengl.com/#!Getting-started/Hello-Triangle), and I split the code to create & compile the fragment shader and vertex shader into separate functions. Obviously this means the objects go out of scope once the function ends so I tried to use new and delete with them.
I tried doing this:
GLuint * pvertexShader; //pointer to a GLuint
pvertexShader = new GLuint;
but didn't know how to put the actual buffer object into the new memory I just allocated.
I know it's bad practice to use raw new/delete, so should I try using a smart pointer instead? If so, how would that work with OpenGL's objects?
Or should I make a wrapper class and put the code to generate the buffer into the class constructor, so it becomes like this:
class VBO;
(snip)
pvertexShader = new VBO; //the class is constructed on the heap
As far as I know when you call new for an object then it gets constructed on the heap.
If I did this, would I still be able to use functions like glBindBuffer or glAttachShader by passing the pointer pvertexShader instead of the actual vertex shader? so writing glAttachShader(shaderprogram, pvertexShader).
EDIT
Ok, so now I found out that anything you make is allocated onto the GPU by OpenGL, so you don't have to use new/delete.
Since what I'm doing is like this:
SetUpVertexShader(){
//all the code to make and compile a shader
};
SetUpFragmentShader(){
//all the code to make and compile this shader
};
Then when I get to the stage where you link the shaders and the program, the two shaders made in those functions have gone out of scope (according to XCode).
How do I prevent/get around this?
The actual memory for the buffers you allocate with pretty much anything in OpenGL lies within the GPU. gl_buffer* functions do not return the first address of an array of memory like you seem to expect, instead they insert an ID (of type GLuint) to the id argument that you can then use with other OpenGL functions to work with the memory that was initialized in the GPU. You don't need a pointer to its address, OpenGL only asks for the number it internally assigned to the buffer.
Here's a small example illustrating this.
// unsigned int to hold the ID that OpenGL will assign to this shader
GLuint sVertex;
sVertex = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER);
glShaderSource(sVertex, 1, &vertexSource, NULL);
glCompileShader(sVertex);
Notice how this vertex shader was compiled without even moving around its address. The reason is that OpenGL manages that for you on the GPU side, all you have to do is work with the GLuint that contains a number OpenGL uses to identify your shader.
It's counter intuitive at first but this system does have its benefits, for example you can move around any kind off correctly initialized GL resource (like a texture or a shader) with just its (GLuint)ID, for example.
// texture_id contains the number that OpenGL uses to reference this particular texture in the GPU memory
void use_texture(GLuint texture_id);
Step by step.
You only need pointers when you store complex data, likely inside a struct/class. And then smart pointers are quite appropiate.
glXXXX calls don't provide pointers (except glMapBuffer). Any memory they create (e.g. by glBufferData) is GPU memory, not client (i.e. on the CPU side) one. Don't bother with it.
Reading shaders code, compiling them, linking them, getting errors, are repetitive jobs with few client results to store, like the integer that identifies the shader program. They are suitable to be encapsulated in classes.
Objects VBO, VAO, vertices data and so on are also suitable for classes. Same goes for camera handling, rendering and other features of your app.
The main point is that you organizate your code by tasks/objects.
Related
I've browsed the OpenGL standards looking for an explanation for this... why do some objects (shader objects) use functions starting with the prefix glCreate and some objects (buffer objects) use function starting with the prefix glGen? Is there a semantic reason for this?
The glGen… functions go back to OpenGL-1.1 (glGenTextures) and are used to create object names without actually initializing the object. However most of the time those functions are used to create only one object name at a time. So instead of passing them a pointer to a buffer and the size of the buffer you could most of the time just return a single integer.
When 3Dlabs introduced GLSL they tried to break with the old glGen… convention to modernize the OpenGL API.
Yes, this is a bit inconsequential and frankly I'd prefer the GLSL API to use the glGen… naming convention. But we're stuck with glCreateShader and glCreateProgram and that's it.
If you want to have a single naming convention you may write the following wrappers:
GLuint glCreateTexture(void) { GLuint name; glGenTextures(1, &name); return name; }
GLuint glCreateBuffer(void) { GLuint name; glGenTextures(1, &name); return name; }
...
Since OpenGL 4.5, my understanding is that the glCreate* functions are generally meant to be used with direct state access functions, introduced in OpenGL 4.5, whereas the glGen* require binding the respective buffer, array, texture etc. before they can be used since they are uninitialized until then.
e.g. from https://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man4/html/
glGenVertexArrays (...) The names returned in arrays are marked as used, for the purposes of glGenVertexArrays only, but they acquire state and type only when they are first bound.
glCreateVertexArrays returns n previously unused vertex array object names in arrays, each representing a new vertex array object initialized to the default state.
One may argue that the glCreateProgram makes sense too. If it produces an initialized object it is in accordance with the rest of the syntax.
I don't understand what the purpose is of binding points (such as GL_ARRAY_BUFFER) in OpenGL. To my understanding glGenBuffers() creates a sort of pointer to a vertex buffer object located somewhere within GPU memory.
So:
glGenBuffers(1, &bufferID)
means I now have a handle, bufferID, to 1 vertex object on the graphics card. Now I know the next step would be to bind bufferID to a binding point
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, bufferID)
so that I can use that binding point to send data down using the glBufferData() function like so:
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(data), data, GL_STATIC_DRAW)
But why couldn't I just use the bufferID to specifiy where I want to send the data instead? Something like:
glBufferData(bufferID, sizeof(data), data, GL_STATIC_DRAW)
Then when calling a draw function I would also just put in which ever ID to whichever VBO I want the draw function to draw. Something like:
glDrawArrays(bufferID, GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3)
Why do we need the extra step of indirection with glBindBuffers?
OpenGL uses object binding points for two things: to designate an object to be used as part of a rendering process, and to be able to modify the object.
Why it uses them for the former is simple: OpenGL requires a lot of objects to be able to render.
Consider your overly simplistic example:
glDrawArrays(bufferID, GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3)
That API doesn't let me have separate vertex attributes come from separate buffers. Sure, you might then propose glDrawArrays(GLint count, GLuint *object_array, ...). But how do you connect a particular buffer object to a particular vertex attribute? Or how do you have 2 attributes come from buffer 0 and a third attribute from buffer 1? Those are things I can do right now with the current API. But your proposed one can't handle it.
And even that is putting aside the many other objects you need to render: program/pipeline objects, texture objects, UBOs, SSBOs, transform feedback objects, query objects, etc. Having all of the needed objects specified in a single command would be fundamentally unworkable (and that leaves aside the performance costs).
And every time the API would need to add a new kind of object, you would have to add new variations of the glDraw* functions. And right now, there are over a dozen such functions. Your way would have given us hundreds.
So instead, OpenGL defines ways for you to say "the next time I render, use this object in this way for that process." That's what binding an object for use means.
But why couldn't I just use the bufferID to specifiy where I want to send the data instead?
This is about binding an object for the purpose of modifying the object, not saying that it will be used. That is... a different matter.
The obvious answer is, "You can't do it because the OpenGL API (until 4.5) doesn't have a function to let you do it." But I rather suspect the question is really why OpenGL doesn't have such APIs (until 4.5, where glNamedBufferStorage and such exist).
Indeed, the fact that 4.5 does have such functions proves that there is no technical reason for pre-4.5 OpenGL's bind-object-to-modify API. It really was a "decision" that came about by the evolution of the OpenGL API from 1.0, thanks to following the path of least resistance. Repeatedly.
Indeed, just about every bad decision that OpenGL has made can be traced back to taking the path of least resistance in the API. But I digress.
In OpenGL 1.0, there was only one kind of object: display list objects. That means that even textures were not stored in objects. So every time you switched textures, you had to re-specify the entire texture with glTexImage*D. That means re-uploading it. Now, you could (and people did) wrap each texture's creation in a display list, which allowed you to switch textures by executing that display list. And hopefully the driver would realize you were doing that and instead allocate video memory and so forth appropriately.
So when 1.1 came around, the OpenGL ARB realized how mind-bendingly silly that was. So they created texture objects, which encapsulate both the memory storage of a texture and the various state within. When you wanted to use the texture, you bound it. But there was a snag. Namely, how to change it.
See, 1.0 had a bunch of already existing functions like glTexImage*D, glTexParamter and the like. These modify the state of the texture. Now, the ARB could have added new functions that do the same thing but take texture objects as parameters.
But that would mean dividing all OpenGL users into 2 camps: those who used texture objects and those who did not. It meant that, if you wanted to use texture objects, you had to rewrite all of your existing code that modified textures. If you had some function that made a bunch of glTexParameter calls on the current texture, you would have to change that function to call the new texture object function. But you would also have to change the function of yours that calls it so that it would take, as a parameter, the texture object that it operates on.
And if that function didn't belong to you (because it was part of a library you were using), then you couldn't even do that.
So the ARB decided to keep those old functions around and simply have them behave differently based on whether a texture was bound to the context or not. If one was bound, then glTexParameter/etc would modify the bound texture, rather than the context's normal texture.
This one decision established the general paradigm shared by almost all OpenGL objects.
ARB_vertex_buffer_object used this paradigm for the same reason. Notice how the various gl*Pointer functions (glVertexAttribPointer and the like) work in relation to buffers. You have to bind a buffer to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, then call one of those functions to set up an attribute array. When a buffer is bound to that slot, the function will pick that up and treat the pointer as an offset into the buffer that was bound at the time the *Pointer function was called.
Why? For the same reason: ease of compatibility (or to promote laziness, depending on how you want to see it). ATI_vertex_array_object had to create new analogs to the gl*Pointer functions. Whereas ARB_vertex_buffer_object just piggybacked off of the existing entrypoints.
Users didn't have to change from using glVertexPointer to glVertexBufferOffset or some other function. All they had to do was bind a buffer before calling a function that set up vertex information (and of course change the pointers to byte offsets).
It also mean that they didn't have to add a bunch of glDrawElementsWithBuffer-type functions for rendering with indices that come from buffer objects.
So this wasn't a bad idea in the short term. But as with most short-term decision making, it starts being less reasonable with time.
Of course, if you have access to GL 4.5/ARB_direct_state_access, you can do things the way they ought to have been done originally.
I've been learning OpenGL for three days and I can get stuff done but I feel like copy pasting without knowing what I'm doing. I seriously think I lack basic understanding about when is exactly what (VBO, attributes, ...) bound to a Vertex Array Object (VAO), and haven't found any resources that clarify these aspects in detail.
In particular, these are some of my issues. If I create a VAO:
GLuint vao;
glGenVertexArrays(1, &vao);
can anything get bound to it before I bind the VAO? (if I create a VBO now, is it bound to the VAO?)
glBindVertexArray(vao);
After binding the VAO, if I create a VBO:
GLuint vbo;
glGenBuffers(1, &vbo);
is it bound to the VAO? Or does it happen when I bind it?
glBindVertexArray(vbo);
Or maybe when I copy something to it?
If I get an attribute location:
att = glGetAttribLocation(program_id, "name");
is it bound to the VAO? Or does it happen after enabling it:
glEnableVertexAttribArray(att);
... or after setting it:
glVertexAttribPointer(att, ...);
?
I guess EBOs behave just like VBOs, so I hope the same "rules" apply.
Uniforms should behave like globals, so they shouldn't be affected by VAOs at all.
Now, about unbinding:
If I "bind" a VBO to a VAO, and then unbind the VBO, does it get detached from a VAO?
If I have a VBO that is bound to multiple VAOs, what happens when I unbind that VBO?
And about freeing resources:
What happens when I delete an VBO? Does it get deleted from all the VAOs ? Or do they still have "dangling references" to that VBO?
And about programs:
IIUC I can reuse VBOs between programs. However, if VAOs bind attributes and VBOs, and attributes take a program parameter, can I reuse VAOs between programs? Why do attributes take a program parameter at all?
And about debugging:
Is there a way to pretty print the OpenGL state machine? I would like a way to know the programs that have been linked, with which shaders, which VAOs are there, which VBOs are bound to which VAOs, which attributes are bound to which VAOs and VBOs, have they been set? are they enabled? which uniforms are there...
And about drawing calls:
Suppose someone gives me a VAO, and I have to draw it. Is there a way to know if I should be calling glDrawArrays or glDrawElements? Can I query somehow this information from a VAO? Maybe along with the sizes of my VBOs stored in there?
That's a lot of sub-questions. But since this an area that is often confusing newer OpenGL enthusiasts, let me try and provide some content that will hopefully help more people. I will intentionally skim over some details, like vertex attributes that are not sourced from a buffer, to avoid writing a book here.
The key thing to understand is that a VAO is a collection of state. It does not own any data. It's VBOs that own vertex data. A VAO, on the other hand, contains all the state used to describe where a draw call gets its vertex attributes from. This includes, for each attribute:
If it's enabled.
Which buffer the attribute is stored in.
At which offset in the buffer the data starts.
The spacing between subsequent attributes (aka the stride).
The type of the data.
The number of components.
Plus, once only:
Which element array buffer is bound.
Mapping this to API calls, the following calls change state tracked by the currently bound VAO:
glEnableVertexAttribArray(...)
glDisableVertexAttribArray(...)
glVertexAttribPointer(...)
glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, ...)
Note that this does not include the current binding of GL_ARRAY_BUFFER. The buffer used for each attribute is tracked indirectly, based on which buffer was bound when glVertexAttribPointer() is called for the specific attribute.
This should set the basis for the specific sub-questions:
If I create a VAO, can anything get bound to it before I bind the VAO?
No. The VAO needs to be bound before you can modify any state stored in it.
(if I create a VBO now, is it bound to the VAO?)
No. You can bind a VBO before you bind a VAO, and fill the VBO with data using glBufferData(). A VBO is essentially just a dumb data container. But any kind of vertex attribute setup tracked in the VAO can only be done after the VAO is bound.
If I get an attribute location, is it bound to the VAO?
No, glGetAttribLocation() only does what the name suggests, which is get an attribute location. It does not change any state. You will use the attribute locations for calls like glEnableVertexAttribArray() and glVertexAttribPointer().
Or does it happen after enabling it ... or after setting it
The association of an attribute with a given VBO is established when you call glVertexAttribPointer() while the given VBO is bound.
I guess EBOs behave just like VBOs, so I hope the same "rules" apply.
Mostly, but not entirely. The GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER binding is part of the state stored in the VAO. This makes sense because there is only one element array buffer used for a draw call (while the vertex attributes could come from multiple different array buffers), and there is no separate call that specifies "use the index data from the currently bound element array buffer", like glVertexAttribPointer() specifies "use the vertex data from the currently bound array buffer". Instead that happens implicitly when you call glDrawElements(). Therefore, the element array buffer needs to be bound at the time of the draw call, and this binding is part of the VAO state.
Uniforms should behave like globals, so they shouldn't be affected by VAOs at all.
Correct. Uniforms are associated with shader programs, not VAOs.
If I "bind" a VBO to a VAO, and then unbind the VBO, does it get detached from a VAO?
No. I believe this is already covered by the explanations above.
If I have a VBO that is bound to multiple VAOs, what happens when I unbind that VBO?
Since nothing happens with one VAO, still nothing with multiple VAOs.
What happens when I delete an VBO? Does it get deleted from all the VAOs ? Or do they still have "dangling references" to that VBO?
This is one of the darker corners of OpenGL. If you can recite the exact deletion rules for all object types (they are not all the same), you have reached the advanced level... In this case, the VBO is automatically unbound from the currently bound VAO, but not from other VAOs that are not currently bound. If other VAOs have references to the VBO, the VBO will stay alive until all those bindings are broken, or the VAOs deleted.
However, if VAOs bind attributes and VBOs, and attributes take a program parameter, can I reuse VAOs between programs?
Yes, you can use a VAO for multiple programs. Program state and VAO state are independent. The vertex attribute location in the program specifies which vertex attribute is used to source the values for each attribute/in variable in the vertex shader.
As long as multiple programs use the same locations for the same attributes, you can use the same VAO. To make this possible, you may want to specify the attribute location for each program by using the layout (location=...) directive the vertex shader, or by calling glBindAttribLocation() before linking the program.
Is there a way to pretty print the OpenGL state machine?
There are glGet*() calls that let you retrieve pretty much all of the current OpenGL state. Not convenient, but it's all available. Many platforms/vendors also provide developer tools that allow you to look at OpenGL state at a given point in your program execution.
Suppose someone gives me a VAO, and I have to draw it. Is there a way to know if I should be calling glDrawArrays or glDrawElements?
This is an unusual scenario. Most of the time, you create the VAO, so you know how to draw it. Or if somebody else created it, you would ask them to draw it. But if you really need it, you can get the currently bound element array buffer with glGetIntegerv(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER_BINDING, ...).
the VAO table can be found in the State Tables section of the spec
in psuedo code it looks like:
struct VAO{
GL_INT element_array_binding; //IBO used for glDrawElements and friends
char* label;//for debugging
struct{//per attribute values
bool enabled; //whether to use a VBO for it
//corresponding to the values passed into glVertexAttribPointer call
int size;
unsigned int stride;
GL_ENUM type;
bool normalized;
bool integer; //unconverted integers
bool long; //double precision
void* offset;
int bufferBinding;//GL_ARRAY_BUFFER bound at time of glVertexAttribPointer call
int attributeDiviser; //as used for instancing
} attributes[MAX_VERTEX_ATTRIBS];
};
Notably absent is the program state (which one is bound, the uniform values etc.)
It recently came to my attention that glCopyBufferSubData is not applicable to Shader Storage Buffer Objects as the extension excludes mention of it. To make sure, I tested this by printing out the mapped buffers and the new SSBO contained repetitive nonsense showing that this was the case. Without having to create a custom compute shader to do this, is there any way to copy the data on the GPU from a command issued from the CPU similar to what glCopyBufferSubData would do for other buffer types?
The function glCopyBufferSubData works on buffer objects. A buffer object in itself is nothing special, all buffer objects are the same. Only when binding a buffer object as a shader storage buffer it is used as a shader storage buffer. But if not used as a shader storage buffer, it is just a plain buffer object. So your assumption that glCopyBufferSubData doesn't work on shader storage buffers is plain wrong, it works on buffers, no matter for what you use those buffers later on. The only reason the extension doesn't mention SSBOs is, that SSBOs didn't exist when the copy_buffer extension was introduced, but this functionality is completely orthogonal to SSBOs.
The reason it doesn't work for you is to be searched elsewhere. Maybe you can't use GL_SHADER_STORAGE_BUFFER as a valid target for glCopyBufferSubData, but that isn't required anyway, just bind the buffer to another target, e.g. GL_COPY_READ_BUFFER or GL_COPY_WRITE_BUFFER. Another error source might be that writes from a shader into an SSBO are not necessarily synchronized with following read operations and you might need an additional glMemoryBarrier if copying the data right after computing it.
But to make it clear, glCopyBufferSubData works on any kind of buffer and the target you bind a buffer to is absolutely not tied to the buffer object and its data itself. You can perfectly use an SSBO to compute some data into and then render it as a VBO and so on.
I am learning OpenGL from this tutorial.
My question is about the specification in general, not about a specific function or topic.
When seeing code like the following:
glGenBuffers(1, &positionBufferObject);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, positionBufferObject);
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertexPositions), vertexPositions, GL_STATIC_DRAW);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0);
I'm confused about the utility of calling the bind functions before and after setting the buffer data.
It seems superfluous to me, due to my inexperience with OpenGL and Computer Graphics in general.
The man page says that:
glBindBuffer lets you create or use a named buffer object. Calling glBindBuffer with target set to
GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, GL_PIXEL_PACK_BUFFER or GL_PIXEL_UNPACK_BUFFER and buffer set to the
name of the new buffer object binds the buffer object name to the target. When a buffer object is bound to a
target, the previous binding for that target is automatically broken.
What exactly is the concept/utility of 'binding' something to a 'target' ?
the commands in opengl don't exist in isolation. they assume the existence of a context. one way to think of this is that there is, hidden in the background, an opengl object, and the functions are methods on that object.
so when you call a function, what it does depends on the arguments, of course, but also on the internal state of opengl - on the context/object.
this is very clear with bind, which says "set this as the current X". then later functions modify the "current X" (where X might be buffer, for example). [update:] and as you say, the thing that is being set (the attribute in the object, or the "data member") is the first argument to bind. so GL_ARRAY_BUFFER names a particular thing that you are setting.
and to answer the second part of the question - setting it to 0 simply clears the value so you don't accidentally make unplanned changes elsewhere.
The OpenGL technique can be incredibly opaque and confusing. I know! I've been writing 3D engines based upon OpenGL for years (off and on). In my case part of the problem is, I write the engine to hide the underlying 3D API (OpenGL), so once I get something working I never see the OpenGL code again.
But here is one technique that helps my brain comprehend the "OpenGL way". I think this way of thinking about it is true (but not the whole story).
Think about the hardware graphics/GPU cards. They have certain capabilities implemented in hardware. For example, the GPU may only be able to update (write) one texture at a time. Nonetheless, it is mandatory that the GPU contain many textures within the RAM inside the GPU, because transfer between CPU memory and GPU memory is very slow.
So what the OpenGL API does is to create the notion of an "active texture". Then when we call an OpenGL API function to copy an image into a texture, we must do it this way:
1: generate a texture and assign its identifier to an unsigned integer variable.
2: bind the texture to the GL_TEXTURE bind point (or some such bind point).
3: specify the size and format of the texture bound to GL_TEXTURE target.
4: copy some image we want on the texture to the GL_TEXTURE target.
And if we want to draw an image on another texture, we must repeat that same process.
When we are finally ready to render something on the display, we need our code to make one or more of the textures we created and copied images upon to become accessible by our fragment shader.
As it turns out, the fragment shader can access more than one texture at a time by accessing multiple "texture units" (one texture per texture unit). So, our code must bind the textures we want to make available to the texture units our fragment shaders expect them bound to.
So we must do something like this:
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE0);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture0);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE1);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture1);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE2);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture2);
glActiveTexture (GL_TEXTURE3);
glBindTexture (GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture3);
Now, I must say that I love OpenGL for many reasons, but this approach drive me CRAZY. That's because all the software I have written for years would look like this instead:
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE0, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture0);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE1, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture1);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE2, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture2);
error = glSetTexture (GL_TEXTURE3, GL_TEXTURE_2D, mytexture3);
Bamo. No need for setting all this state over and over and over again. Just specify which texture-unit to attach the texture to, plus the texture-type to indicate how to access the texture, plus the ID of the texture I want to attach to the texture unit.
I also wouldn't need to bind a texture as the active texture to copy an image to it, I would just give the ID of the texture I wanted to copy to. Why should it need to be bound?
Well, there's the catch that forces OpenGL to be structured in the crazy way it is. Because the hardware does some things, and the software driver does other things, and because what is done where is a variable (depends on GPU card), they need some way to keep the complexity under control. Their solution is essentially to have only one bind point for each kind of entity/object, and to require we bind our entities to those bind points before we call functions that manipulate them. And as a second purpose, binding entities is what makes them available to the GPU, and our various shaders that execute in the GPU.
At least that's how I keep the "OpenGL way" straight in my head. Frankly, if someone really, really, REALLY understands all the reasons OpenGL is (and must be) structured the way it is, I'd love them to post their own reply. I believe this is an important question and topic, and the rationale is rarely if ever described at all, much less in a manner that my puny brain can comprehend.
From the section Introduction: What is OpenGL?
Complex aggregates like structs are never directly exposed in OpenGL. Any such constructs are hidden behind the API. This makes it easier to expose the OpenGL API to non-C languages without having a complex conversion layer.
In C++, if you wanted an object that contained an integer, a float, and a string, you would create it and access it like this:
struct Object
{
int count;
float opacity;
char *name;
};
//Create the storage for the object.
Object newObject;
//Put data into the object.
newObject.count = 5;
newObject.opacity = 0.4f;
newObject.name = "Some String";
In OpenGL, you would use an API that looks more like this:
//Create the storage for the object
GLuint objectName;
glGenObject(1, &objectName);
//Put data into the object.
glBindObject(GL_MODIFY, objectName);
glObjectParameteri(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_COUNT, 5);
glObjectParameterf(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_OPACITY, 0.4f);
glObjectParameters(GL_MODIFY, GL_OBJECT_NAME, "Some String");
None of these are actual OpenGL commands, of course. This is simply an example of what the interface to such an object would look like.
OpenGL owns the storage for all OpenGL objects. Because of this, the user can only access an object by reference. Almost all OpenGL objects are referred to by an unsigned integer (the GLuint). Objects are created by a function of the form glGen*, where * is the type of the object. The first parameter is the number of objects to create, and the second is a GLuint* array that receives the newly created object names.
To modify most objects, they must first be bound to the context. Many objects can be bound to different locations in the context; this allows the same object to be used in different ways. These different locations are called targets; all objects have a list of valid targets, and some have only one. In the above example, the fictitious target “GL_MODIFY” is the location where objectName is bound.
This is how most OpenGL objects work, and buffer objects are "most OpenGL objects."
And if that's not good enough, the tutorial covers it again in Chapter 1: Following the Data:
void InitializeVertexBuffer()
{
glGenBuffers(1, &positionBufferObject);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, positionBufferObject);
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertexPositions), vertexPositions, GL_STATIC_DRAW);
glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0);
}
The first line creates the buffer object, storing the handle to the object in the global variable positionBufferObject. Though the object now exists, it does not own any memory yet. That is because we have not allocated any with this object.
The glBindBuffer function binds the newly-created buffer object to the GL_ARRAY_BUFFER binding target. As mentioned in the introduction, objects in OpenGL usually have to be bound to the context in order for them to do anything, and buffer objects are no exception.
The glBufferData function performs two operations. It allocates memory for the buffer currently bound to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, which is the one we just created and bound. We already have some vertex data; the problem is that it is in our memory rather than OpenGL's memory. The sizeof(vertexPositions) uses the C++ compiler to determine the byte size of the vertexPositions array. We then pass this size to glBufferData as the size of memory to allocate for this buffer object. Thus, we allocate enough GPU memory to store our vertex data.
The other operation that glBufferData performs is copying data from our memory array into the buffer object. The third parameter controls this. If this value is not NULL, as in this case, glBufferData will copy the data referenced by the pointer into the buffer object. After this function call, the buffer object stores exactly what vertexPositions stores.
The fourth parameter is something we will look at in future tutorials.
The second bind buffer call is simply cleanup. By binding the buffer object 0 to GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, we cause the buffer object previously bound to that target to become unbound from it. Zero in this cases works a lot like the NULL pointer. This was not strictly necessary, as any later binds to this target will simply unbind what is already there. But unless you have very strict control over your rendering, it is usually a good idea to unbind the objects you bind.
Binding a buffer to a target is something like setting a global variable. Subsequent function calls then operate on that global data. In the case of OpenGL all the "global variables" together form a GL context. Virtually all GL functions read from that context or modify it in some way.
The glGenBuffers() call is sort of like malloc(), allocating a buffer; we set a global to point to it with glBindBuffer(); we call a function that operates on that global (glBufferData()) and then we set the global to NULL so it won't inadvertently operate on that buffer again using glBindBuffer().
OpenGL is what is known as a "state machine," to that end OpenGL has several "binding targets" each of which can only have one thing bound at once. Binding something else replaces the current bind, and thus changes it's state. Thus by binding buffers you are (re)defining the state of the machine.
As a state machine, whatever information you have bound will have an effect on the next output of the machine, in OpenGL that is its next draw-call. Once that is done you could bind new vertex data, bind new pixel data, bind new targets etc then initiate another draw call. If you wanted to create the illusion of movement on your screen, when you were satisfied you had drawn your entire scene (a 3d engine concept, not an OpenGL concept) you'd flip the framebuffer.