I have code for rendering models, but if I use too many vertices I meet a problem: program cant allocate memory enough to handle all vertices.
glEnableClientState(GL_VERTEX_ARRAY);
glEnableClientState(GL_NORMAL_ARRAY);
glEnableClientState(GL_COLOR_ARRAY);
glVertexPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0,VertexArray);
glNormalPointer(GL_FLOAT,0,NormalArray);
glColorPointer(3,GL_FLOAT,0,ColorArray);
Here is my code, its just a part of it, but I think enough. VertexArray is got by using new operator, it is a pointer on an array. But if I use array of length, e.g. 10000000 values I get an error.
Is there any way to allocate memory from different parts of RAM? Or any other way to find a solution?
If you're drawing models that wont be modified often after their first call you could switch to using VBOs and use the STATIC_DRAW flag, this will most likely tell your GPU to put them in video memory, you'll have more breathing room memory wise if you move to using some VBOs for models that you don't need to keep changing/have all the vertex data readily accessible on your CPU. (Even if not there are ways to access this vertex data and update, such as glBufferSubData, and using the DYNAMIC_DRAW flag instead).
VBOs are stored in GPU memory, not system meory, giving you much more capacity before you start hitting a memory cap.
The old glVertexPointer method doesn't have this benefit.
Related
I am a newbee to OpenGL. Now I could render something on screen, which is great. Now I want to streaming some data point(GL_POINTS) on my screen. However, initially it doesn't show anything. And it costs me several days to find out how to make it works.
The point is, I use an VBO to save my data and call glBufferSubData() to update the buffer. However, it ONLY works if I call glBufferData() before the first render loop. In other words, if I just do
glGenVertexArrays(1, &VAO);
glGenBuffers(1, &VBO);
in my initializing function (before first render loop), and in my updateData loop I do
glBindVertexArray(VAO);
glBindBuffer(VBO);
glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, myData.size() * sizeof(float), &myData[0], GL_DYNAMIC_DRAW);
... // glVertexAttribPointer and other required general process
It won't render anything. It seems I have to glBufferData(/some random data here/) to "allocate" the buffer (I thought it was allocated when calling glGenBuffer()). And use
glBufferSubData(/*override previous data*/) or
glMapData()
to update that buffer.
So my question would be...what is the proper/normal way to initialize an VBO if I don't know how much data/vertex I need to draw in the compile time? (right now I just glBufferData() a loooooong buffer and update it when needed)
Note: OpenGL3.3, Ubuntu16.04
Update:
In my opinion, it works in the way like allocating char[], I have to say pointing out how much I need for the string char[200], and fill in the data via snprintf(). But we now have vector or string, that allows us to dynamically change the memory location. Why OpenGL doesn't support that? If they did, how should I use it.
I thought it was allocated when calling glGenBuffer()
The statement:
int *p;
Creates an object in C/C++. That object is a pointer. It does not point to an actual object or any kind of storage; it's just a pointer, waiting to be given a valid address.
So too with the result of glGenBuffers. It's a buffer object, but it has no storage. And like an uninitialized pointer, there's not much you can do with a buffer object with no storage.
what is the proper/normal way to initialize an VBO if I only don't know how much data/vertex I need to draw in the compile time?
Pick a reasonable starting number. If you overflow that buffer, then either terminate the application or allocate additional storage.
But we now have vector or string, that allows us to dynamically change the memory location. Why OpenGL doesn't support that?
Because OpenGL is a low-level API (relatively speaking).
In order to support dynamic reallocation of storage in the way you suggest, the OpenGL implementation would have to allocate new storage of the size you request, copy the old data into the new storage, and then destroy the old storage. std::vector and std::string have to do the same stuff; they just do it invisibly.
Also, repeatedly doing that kind of operation horribly fragments the GPU's address space. That's not too much of a problem with vector and string, since those arrays are usually quite small (on the order of kilobytes or low megabytes). Whereas a single buffer object that takes up 10% of a GPU's total memory are hardly uncommon in serious graphics applications. Reallocating that is not a pleasant idea.
OpenGL gives you the low-level pieces to build that, if you want to suffer the performance penalty for doing so. But it doesn't implement it for you.
OpenGL has functions that can create and multiple objects at once
glCreateBuffers(1,&handle);
...
glDeleteBuffers(1,&handle);
I guess the intention is that it saves time to create/destroy all objects at once. But is that only at initialization, or does it affect the memory layout such as increased locality, resulting in shorter render time.
Before this question is marked as duplicate, of Is there an advantage to generating multiple indexes (names) at once in OpenGL?, this question is about object creation with ARB_direct_state_access, rather than name creation, which RetoKoradi comments is cheap.
The VRAM is not a disk, it's a Random Access Memory. OpenGL doesn't need to scan it through to reach something on it. There's usually a memory table stored somewhere, which keeps track of the locations of the buffers and vertex arrays. There's also a pointer that points to the current VAO, VBO, IBO, texture, framebuffer, etc.
When you use one of the glBindXYZ functions, you pass a handle to OpenGL. It then looks up the pointer to the bufffer/vertex array/texture/etc from the memory table, and sets the relevant pointer to the result.
The gen functions work like this, because most people know how many vbos or vaos they'll need, and this makes creating them easier. It's only a problem, when you have a variable amount of vbos.
Creating multiple buffers at once doesn't have an advantage over creating them one-by-one right after each other in terms of memory layout. Both
glCreateBuffers(1, &handle1);
// Stuff
glCreateBuffers(1, &handle2);
// Stuff
glCreateBuffers(1, &handle3);
// Stuff
and
glCreateBuffers(3, &handles);
// Stuff x 3
result in the same. In both cases the vbos are as close as possible (if they are already used up memory blocks where the next vbo should go, then it will be a bit further away from the others.
I have a couple questions about how OpenGL handles these drawing operations.
So lets say I pass OpenGL the pointer to my vertex array. Then I can call glDrawElements with an array of indexes. It will draw the requested shapes using those indexes in the vertex array correct?
After that glDrawElements call could I then do another glDawElements call with another set of indexes? Would it then draw the new index array using the original vertex array?
Does OpenGL keep my vertex data around for the next frame when I redo all of these calls? So the the next vertex pointer call would be a lot quicker?
Assuming the answer to the last three questions is yes, What if I want to do this on multiple vertex arrays every frame? I'm assuming doing this on any more than 1 vertex array would cause OpenGL to drop the last used array from graphics memory and start using the new one. But in my case the vertex arrays are never going to change. So what I want to know is does opengl keep my vertex arrays around in-case next time I send it vertex data it will be the same data? If not is there a way I can optimize this to allow something like this? Basically I want to draw procedurally between the vertexes using indicies without updating the vertex data, in order to reduce overhead and speed up complicated rendering that requires constant procedurally changing shapes that will always use the vertexes from the original vertex array. Is this possible or am I just fantasizing?
If I'm just fantasizing about my fourth question what are some good fast ways of drawing a whole lot of polygons each frame where only a few will change? Do I always have to pass in a totally new set of vertex data for even small changes? Does it already do this anyways when the vertex data doesn't change because I notice I cant really get around the vertex pointer call each frame.
Feel free to totally slam any logic errors I've made in my assertions. I'm trying to learn everything I can about how opengl works and it's entirely possible my current assumptions on how it works are all wrong.
1.So lets say I pass OpenGL the pointer to my vertex array. Then I can call glDrawElements with an array of indexes. It will draw the
requested shapes using those indexes in the vertex array correct?
Yes.
2.After that glDrawElements call could I then do another glDawElements
call with another set of indexes? Would it then draw the new index
array using the original vertex array?
Yes.
3.Does OpenGL keep my vertex data around for the next frame when I redo
all of these calls? So the the next vertex pointer call would be a lot
quicker?
Answering that is a bit more tricky than you might. The way you ask these questions makes me to assume that uou use client-side vertex arrays, that is, you have some arrays in your system memory and let your vertes pointers point directly to those. In that case, the answer is no. The GL cannot "cache" that data in any useful way. After the draw call is finished, it must assume that you might change the data, and it would have to compare every single bit to make sure you have not changed anything.
However, client side VAs are not the only way to have VAs in the GL - actually, they are completely outdated, deprecated since GL3.0 and been removed from modern versions of OpenGL. The modern way of doing thins is using Vertex Buffer Objects, which basically are buffers which are managed by the GL, but manipulated by the user. Buffer objects are just a chunk of memory, but you will need special GL calls to create them, read or write or change data and so on. And the buffer object might very well not be stored in system memory, but directly in VRAM, which is very useful for static data which is used over and over again. Have a look at the GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object extension spec, which orignially introduced that feature in 2003 and became core in GL 1.5.
4.Assuming the answer to the last three questions is yes, What if I want
to do this on multiple vertex arrays every frame? I'm assuming doing
this on any more than 1 vertex array would cause OpenGL to drop the
last used array from graphics memory and start using the new one. But
in my case the vertex arrays are never going to change. So what I want
to know is does opengl keep my vertex arrays around in-case next time
I send it vertex data it will be the same data? If not is there a way
I can optimize this to allow something like this? Basically I want to
draw procedurally between the vertexes using indicies without updating
the vertex data, in order to reduce overhead and speed up complicated
rendering that requires constant procedurally changing shapes that
will always use the vertexes from the original vertex array. Is this
possible or am I just fantasizing?
VBOs are exactly what you are looking for, here.
5.If I'm just fantasizing about my fourth question what are some good
fast ways of drawing a whole lot of polygons each frame where only a
few will change? Do I always have to pass in a totally new set of
vertex data for even small changes? Does it already do this anyways
when the vertex data doesn't change because I notice I cant really get
around the vertex pointer call each frame.
You can also update just parts of a VBO. However, it might become inefficient if you have many small parts which are randomliy distributed in your buffer, it will be more efficient to update continous (sub-)regions. But that is a topic on it's own.
Yes
Yes
No. As soon as you create a Vertex Buffer Object (VBO) it will stay in the GPU memory. Otherwise vector data needs to be re-transferred (an old method of avoiding this was Display Lists). In both cases the performance of subsequent frames should stay similar (but much better with the VBO method): you can do the VBO creation and download before rendering the first frame.
The VBO was introduced to provide you exactly with this functionality. Just create several VBOs. Things get messy when you need more GPU memory than available though.
VBO is still the answer, and see Modifying only a specific element type of VBO buffer data?
It sounds like you should try something called Vertex Buffer Objects. It offers the same benefits as Vertex Arrays, but you can create multiple vertex buffers and store them in "named slots". This method has much better performance as data is stored directly in Graphic Card memory.
Here is a good tutorial in C++ to start with.
I have just started learning about vertex buffer objects in C++. I am reading a book about OpenGL that says that VBO rendering is more efficient than other forms of rendering because the data is stored on the GPU instead of on the heap. However, I am confused how this could be if you still have to load an array of data from the heap to the GPU. Every few seconds, I update the vertex data of my program, which means that I must then use glBufferData() to refresh the data to update to the new state. I don't see how this is more efficient than just rendering the array normally. I was wondering if I am calling glBufferData() more than is necessary, or if there is a better way to update the vertex data directly on the GPU.
Well, glBufferData (...) does more than you think. True it supplies data to a VBO, but the more important point is that it allocates memory on the server side (GPU for all intents and purposes) for vertex storage.
In your example, the number of vertices, and therefore size required to store them does not seem to change when you refresh your data. What you should actually be doing is calling glBufferSubData (...) to update the data without re-allocating space for it. Coupled with a correct usage flag (e.g. GL_DYNAMIC_DRAW) this can be much more efficient than copying from client to server everytime something is drawn.
Think of glBufferData (...) as a combination of malloc (...) and memcpy (...). glBufferSubData (...) on the other hand is memcpy (...). To this, end you can even do memory mapping of VBOs into your application's address space without having to allocate storage in both the client and server using glMapBuffer (...) and glUnmapBuffer (...), which are analogous to mmap (...) and munmap (...).
You should try to avoid modifying your vertex data every few frames. Vertex/fragment shaders are specifically there to allow you to modify your geometry on the fly, with some limitations of course.
However, in the simplest case (if you don't care about maximizing your performance), it is entirely possible to rewrite the buffer on every frame, and it should still beat calling glBegin..glEnd for every object.
I have to draw a buffer that holds a couple thousand vertices. I am using a vbo to store the data.
I know I will have to update the VBO many times - but only in small parts at a time.
So I am wondering what the best method to doing so is:
Split VBO up into smaller VBOs (that hold like 300 verts) and then update individual VBOs with 1 call?
One big VBO and use lots of glBufferSubData() calls?
Use glMapBuffer() and one big VBO?
There is another option, which is a bit like option 3 - use one big VBO (probably with GL_STREAM_DRAW mode) that is reset each frame (by calling glBufferData with a NULL buffer pointer and the same size each time) then glMapBuffer-ed right away. The buffer is left mapped as it is filled in, then unmapped just before drawing. Repeat.
The call to glBufferData tells OpenGL that the old buffer contents aren't needed, so the glMapBuffer doesn't have to potentially wait to ensure the GPU is finished with by the GPU.
This approach seems to be the one officially sanctioned by the vertex_buffer_object extension. See the "Vertex arrays using a mapped buffer object" example:
http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/ARB/vertex_buffer_object.txt
This suggests that OpenGL (or the driver?) will be watching for this sort of behaviour, and (when spotted) arrange things so that it is performed efficiently.
Doesn't sound like a good idea: it forces you to draw it in several calls while changing the bound buffer between each draw call.
Might do the trick if your buffer is huge.
The whole buffer will certainly be uploaded to the GPU. This will certainly be as efficient as one glBufferData, but you can do it asynchronously.
If think that glBufferData or glMapBuffer are the better solution if your buffer is small. 100000 * sizeof(float) * 3 ~= 1MB. There should be no problem with that.