I'm trying to develop some very low-latency graphics applications and am getting really frustrated by how long it takes to draw to screen through OpenGL. Every discussion I find about it online addresses optimizing the OpenGL pipeline, but doesn't get anywhere near the results that I need.
Check this out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbz4bq67cxluhs7/MouseLatency.MOV?dl=0
You probably noticed this before: With a c++ OpenGL app, dragging the mouse around the screen, and drawing the mouse location in OpenGL, the OpenGL lags behind by 3 or 4 frames. Clearly OSX CAN draw [the cursor] to screen with very low latency, but OpenGL is much slower. So let's say I don't need to do any fancy OpenGL rendering. I just want to push pixels to screen somehow. Is there a way for me to bypass OpenGL completely and draw to screen faster? Or is this kind of functionality going to be locked inside the kernel somewhere that I can't reach it?
datenwolf's answer is excellent. I just wanted to add one thing to this discussion regarding triple buffering at the compositor level, since I am very familiar with the Microsoft Windows desktop compositor.
I know you are asking about OS X here, but the implementation details I am going to discuss are the most sensible way of implementing this stuff and I would expect to see other systems work this way too.
Triple buffering as you might enable at the application level adds a third buffer to the swap-chain that is synchronized to refresh. That way of doing triple buffering does add latency, because that third buffer has to be displayed and nothing is allowed to touch it until this happens (this is D3D's mandated behavior -- the behavior and feature itself are undefined in OpenGL); but the way the Desktop Window Manager (Windows) works is slightly different.
The behavior I have seen most drivers implement for desktop composition is frame dropping. Any situation where multiple frames are finished between refreshes, all but 1 of those frames are discarded. You actually get lower latency using a window rather than fullscreen + triple buffering, because it does not block buffer swaps when the third buffer (owned by the compositor) has a finished frame waiting to be displayed.
It creates a whole different set of visual issues if framerate is not reasonably consistent. Technically, pixels belonging to dropped frames have infinite latency, so the benefits from latency reduction done this way might be worthless if you needed every single frame drawn to appear on screen.
I believe you can get this behavior on OS X (if you want it) by disabling VSYNC and drawing in a window. VSYNC basically only serves as a form of frame pacing (trade latency for consistency) in this scenario and tearing is eliminated by the compositor itself regardless what rate you draw at.
Regarding mouse cursor latency:
The cursor in any modern window system will always track with minimum latency. There is literally a feature on graphics hardware called a "hardware cursor," where the driver stores the cursor position and then once per-refresh, has the hardware overlay the cursor on top of whatever is sitting in the framebuffer waiting to be scanned-out. So even if your application is drawing at 30 FPS on a 60 Hz display, the cursor is updated every 16 ms when the hardware cursor's used.
This bypasses all graphics APIs altogether, but is quite limited (e.g. it uses the OS-defined cursor).
TL;DR: Latency comes in many forms.
If your problem is input latency, then you can mitigate that by reducing the number of pre-rendered frames and avoiding triple buffering. I could not begin to tell you how to reduce the number of driver pre-rendered frames on OS X.
Minimize length of time before something shows up on screen
If your problem is the amount of time that passes between executions of your render loop, you would go the other way. Increase pre-rendered frames, draw in a window and disable VSYNC. You may run into a lot of frames that are drawn but never displayed in this scenario.
Minimize time spent blocking (increase FPS); some frames will never be displayed
Pre-rendered frames are a powerful little feature that you do not get control over at the OpenGL API level. It sets up how deeply the driver is allowed to pipeline everything and depending on the desired task you will trade different types of latency by fiddling with it. Many gamers swear by setting this value to 1 to minimize input latency at the cost of overall framerate "smoothness."
UPDATE:
Pre-rendered frames are one reason for your multi-frame delay. Fixing this in a cross-platform way is difficult (it's a driver setting), but if you have access to Fence Sync Objects you can produce the same behavior as forcing this to 1.
I can explain this in more detail if need be, the general idea is that you insert a fence sync after the buffer swap and then wait for it to be signaled before the first command in the next frame is allowed to begin. Performance may take a nose dive, but latency will be minimized since the CPU won't be rendering ahead of the GPU anymore.
There are a number of latencies at play here.
Input event → drawing state latency
In your typical interactive application you have a event loop that usually goes
collect user input
process user input
determine what's to be drawn
draw to the back buffer
swap back to front buffer
With the usual ways in which event–update–display loops are written there's almost no delay between step 5 of the previous and step 1 of the following iteration. which means that steps 2, 3, and 4 operate with data that lags about one frame period behind.
So this is the first source of latency.
Tripple buffering / composition latency
Many graphics pipelines enable triple buffering for smoother display update. Instead of keeping only a back and a front buffer around, there's also a third buffer inbetween. The average rate at which to these buffers is drawn is the display refresh period. The buffers themself are stepped at exactly the display refresh period. So this adds another frame period of latency.
If you're running on a system with a window compositor (which is the default by MacOS X) this adds effectively another buffer stage, so if you've got a double buffer mode it gives you triple buffer and if you had a triple buffer it'd give you a "quad" buffer (quotes here, because quad buffer is a term usually used with stereoscopic rendering).
What can you do about this:
Turn off composition
Windows through the DWM API and MacOS X allow to turn off composition or bypass the compositor.
Reducing input lag
Try to collect and integrate the user input as late as possible (use high resolution sleeps). If you've got only a very simple scene you can push the drawing quite close to the V-Sync deadline; in fact the NVidia OpenGL implementation has a vendor specific extension that allows to sleep until a specific amount of time before the next V-Sync.
If your scene is complex but is separable in parts that require low latency user input and stuff where it doesn't matter so much you can draw the higher latency stuff earlier and only at the very last moment integrate user input into it. Of course if the mouse is used to control the viewing direction, or even worse you're rendering for a VR head mounted display things are going to become difficult.
Related
Coming from a basic understanding of OpenGL programming, all required drawing operations are performed in a sequence, once per frame redraw. The performance of the hardware dictates essentially how fast this happens. As I understand, a game will attempt to draw as quickly as possible so redraw operations are essentially wrapped in a while loop. The graphics operations (graphics engine) will then be optimised to ensure the frame rate is acceptable for the application.
Graphics hardware supporting Vertical Synchronisation however locks frame rates to the display rate. A first question would be how should a graphics engine interact with the hardware synchronisation? Is this even possible or does the renderer work at maximum speed and the hardware selectively calls up the latest frame, discarding all unused previous frames..?
The motivation for this question is not that I am immediately intending to write a graphics engine, instead am debugging an issue with an existing system where the graphics of a moving scene appear to stutter onscreen. Symptomatically, the stutter is slight when VSync is turned off, when it is turned on either there is a significant and periodic stutter or alternatively the stutter is resolved entirely. I am somewhat clutching at straws as to what is happening or why, want to understand some more background information on graphics systems.
Summarily the question would be on how one is expected to interact with hardware redraw events and if that is even possible. However any additional information would be welcome.
A first question would be how should a graphics engine interact with the hardware synchronisation?
To avoid flicker modern rendering systems use double buffering i.e. there are two color plane buffers and after finishing drawing to one, the display readout pointer is set to the finished buffer plane. This buffer swap can happen synchronized or non-synchronized. With V-Sync enabled the buffer swap will be synchronized and the rendering thread blocks until the buffer swap happened.
Since with double buffering mandates buffer swaps this implicitly introduces a synchronization mechanism. This is how interactive rendering systems lock onto the display refresh.
Symptomatically, the stutter is slight when VSync is turned off, when it is turned on either there is a significant and periodic stutter or alternatively the stutter is resolved entirely.
This sounds like a badly written animation loop that assumes constant framerate locked onto the display refresh rate, based on the assumption that frames render faster than a display refresh interval and the buffer swap can be issued in time for the next retrace to happen.
The only robust way to deal with vertical synchronization is to actually measure the time between frame renderings and advance the rendering loop by that amount of time.
This is a guess, but:
The Problem Isn't Vertical Synchronization
I don't know what OS you're working with, but there are various ways to get information about the monitor and how fast the screen is refreshing (for the purposes of this answer, we'll assume your monitor is somewhat recent and redraws at a rate of 60 Hz, or 60 times every second, or once every 16.66666... milliseconds).
Renderers are usually paired up with an "Logic" side to the application: input, ui calculations, simulation running, etc. etc. It seems like the logic side of your application is running fast enough, but the Rendering side - i.e., the Draw Call as its commonly summed up into - is bounding the speed of your application.
Vertical Synchronization can exacerbate this in that if your Draw Call is made to happen every 16.66666 milliseconds - but it takes much longer than 16.666666 milliseconds - then you perceive a frame rate drop (i.e. frames will "stutter" because they're taking too long to produce a single frame). VSync - and the enabling or disabling thereof - is not something that bottlenecks your code: it just says "hey, since the Hardware is only going to take 1 frame from us every 16.666666 milliseconds, why make more draw calls than just one every 16.66666 milliseconds? As long as we do one draw call once for every passing of this time, our application will look as fluid as possible, and we don't have to waste time making more calls than that!"
The problem with that is that it assumes your code is going to run fast enough to make it in those 16.6666 milliseconds. If it does not, stuttering, lagging, visual artifacts, frozen frames, and other things manifest themselves on screen.
When you turn off VSync, you're telling your Render Call to be called as often as possible, as fast as possible. This may give it some extra wiggle room alongside the Logic call to get a frame rendered, so that when the Hardware Says "I'm gonna take a picture and put it on the screen now!" it's all prettied up, just in time, to get into posture and say cheese! (though by what you say, it barely makes it).
What To Do:
Start by profiling your code. Find out what functions are taking the most time. Judging by the stutter, something in your code is taking longer than is expected and is giving you undesirable performance. Make sure to profile first to find the critical sections of where you're burning away time, and figure out how to keep it correct and make it just as fast. You may want to figure out what's being called in the Render Call and profile the time it takes to complete one cycle of that specifically. Then time the Logic call(s) and see how long it takes to execute those as well. Then, chop away.
Good luck!
in my OpenGL application I want to prevent screen tearing for obvious reasons. So far I have been using vsync. But I would like to replace it with a page flipping buffer swap (changing a pointer to the monitor's data instead of changing the value) to improve performance. My question is: Do the important windowing systems (Windows, Cocoa, X11) support this kind of buffer swap at all and does it need to be requested explicitly or is it the default behavior?
V-Sync is the "vertical retrace synchronization". If V-Sync is enables it means, that the double buffers are exchanged in that timespan, when the display is not drawing. It's a term inherited from the time of CRT displays, where an electron beam was used to draw the image line by line from top left to the bottom. When the beam reached the bottom right it had to be returned to the top right. The electron beam was steered using two pair of electromagnet coils and (unlike the electrostatic deflectors in an oscilloscopes) can not operate beyond a certain slew rate. That's the V-Sync
Today, displays receive their data still line by line into a buffer internal to the display. At the end of a whole frame a small pause is inserted.
So the "vertical retrace" is that timespan where you can update the data in your display framebuffer, wihout interfereing with the drawing process.
So far I have been using vsync.
No, you didn't "use" vsync. You do use double buffering, which exchange is synchronized by the V-Sync.
But I would like to replace it with a page flipping buffer swap
This is not your decision to make. What method is used is chosen by the graphics hardware and its driver. Your program lives in userspace and can't even talk on that a low level with the hardware. And normally the method that performs best in the situation is used.
I'm getting some repeating lags in my opengl application.
I'm using the win32 api to create the window and I'm also creating a 2.2 context.
So the main loop of the program is very simple:
Clearing the color buffer
Drawing a triangle
Swapping the buffers.
The triangle is rotating, that's the way I can see the lag.
Also my frame time isn't smooth which may be the problem.
But I'm very very sure the delta time calculation is correct because I've tried plenty ways.
Do you think it could be a graphic driver problem?
Because a friend of mine run almost the exactly same program except I do less calculations + I'm using the standard opengl shader.
Also, His program use more CPU power than mine and the CPU % is smoother than mine.
I should also add:
On my laptop I get same lag every ~1 second, so I can see some kind of pattern.
There are many reasons for a jittery frame rate. Off the top of my head:
Not calling glFlush() at the end of each frame
other running software interfering
doing things in your code that certain graphics drivers don't like
bugs in graphics drivers
Using the standard windows time functions with their terrible resolution
Try these:
kill as many running programs as you can get away with. Use the process tab in the task manager (CTRL-SHIFT-ESC) for this.
bit by bit, reduce the amount of work your program is doing and see how that affects the frame rate and the smoothness of the display.
if you can, try enabling/disabling vertical sync (you may be able to do this in your graphic card's settings) to see if that helps
add some debug code to output the time taken to draw each frame, and see if there are anomalies in the numbers, e.g. every 20th frame taking an extra 20ms, or random frames taking 100ms.
I'm updating an application in which measurement of the time of presentation of a stimulus on a screen requires the greatest amount of accuracy. It is currently written with DirectDraw, which got put out to pasture a long while ago, and there's a need to update our graphics library.
The way which we measure the presentation time utilizes detecting the end of the Vertical Blank period. Specifically I need to know with, the greatest possible accuracy, when whatever was flipped onto the primary surface (or presented in the swap chain) is actually being drawn by the screen. Detecting the scan line can increase the certainty of that measurement, but I would be able to work with only detecting when the vertical blank period ended immediately after the Flip or Present was called.
Direct 3D 9 has the IDirect3DDevice9::GetRasterStatus Method that returns a D3DRASTER_STATUS struct which includes a InVBlank boolean, that describes if the device is in a vertical blank, as well as the current scan line. DirectDraw has similar functions (IDirectDraw::GetVerticalBlankStatus, also IDirectDraw::GetScanLine which returns DDERR_VERTICALBLANKINPROGRESS during Vertical Blank can be used to detect the VB).
However I have not been able to find any similar function in Direct3D11. Does anyone know if this functionality was moved or removed between Direct3D9 and Direct3D11, and if the latter, why?
Sorry for the late reply, but I notice there is still no accepted answer so perhaps you never found one that worked. Nowadays on Windows, the DesktopWindowManager service (dwm.exe) coordinates everything and can't really be bypassed. Ever since Windows 8, this service can't be disabled.
So DWM is always going to control the frame rate, render queue management, and final composition for all of the various IDXGISurface(n) objects and IDXGIOutput(n) monitors and there isn't much use in tracking VSync for an offscreen render target, unless I'm missing something (no sarcasm intended). As for your question, I wasn't sure if your goal was to:
obtain extremely precise timing info, but just for diagnostic, profiling, or informational use, or
whether the app was then going to (attempt to) use those results to (attempt to) schedule its own present cycles.
If it's the latter, I believe you can effectively only do this if the D3D app is running in full-screen exclusive mode. That's the only case where the DWM—in the guise of DXGI–will truly trust a client to handle its own Present timing.
The (barely) good news here is that if your interest in VSync is informational only—which is to say that you fall into bullet category (1.) from above—then you can indeed get all the timing data you'd ever want, and at QueryPerformanceFrequency resolution, which is typically around 320 ns.¹
Here's how to get that high-res video timing info. But again, just to be clear, despite the apparent success in obtaining the information as shown below, any attempt to use these interesting results, for example, to condition some deterministic--and thus potentially useful--outcome on the readings you obtain will be destined to fail, that is, entirely thwarted by DWM intermediation:
DWM_TIMING_INFO
Specifies Desktop Window Manager (DWM) composition timing information. Used by the DwmGetCompositionTimingInfo function.
typedef struct _DWM_TIMING_INFO
{
UINT32 cbSize; // size of this DWM_TIMING_INFO structure
URATIO rateRefresh; // monitor refresh rate
QPC_TIME qpcRefreshPeriod; // monitor refresh period
URATIO rateCompose; // composition rate
QPC_TIME qpcVBlank; // query performance counter value before the vertical blank
CFRAMES cRefresh; // DWM refresh counter
UINT cDXRefresh; // DirectX refresh counter
QPC_TIME qpcCompose; // query performance counter value for a frame composition
CFRAMES cFrame; // frame number that was composed at qpcCompose
UINT cDXPresent; // DirectX present number used to identify rendering frames
CFRAMES cRefreshFrame; // refresh count of the frame that was composed at qpcCompose
CFRAMES cFrameSubmitted; // DWM frame number that was last submitted
UINT cDXPresentSubmitted; // DirectX present number that was last submitted
CFRAMES cFrameConfirmed; // DWM frame number that was last confirmed as presented
UINT cDXPresentConfirmed; // DirectX present number that was last confirmed as presented
CFRAMES cRefreshConfirmed; // target refresh count of the last frame confirmed as completed by the GPU
UINT cDXRefreshConfirmed; // DirectX refresh count when the frame was confirmed as presented
CFRAMES cFramesLate; // number of frames the DWM presented late
UINT cFramesOutstanding; // number of composition frames that have been issued but have not been confirmed as completed
CFRAMES cFrameDisplayed; // last frame displayed
QPC_TIME qpcFrameDisplayed; // QPC time of the composition pass when the frame was displayed
CFRAMES cRefreshFrameDisplayed; // vertical refresh count when the frame should have become visible
CFRAMES cFrameComplete; // ID of the last frame marked as completed
QPC_TIME qpcFrameComplete; // QPC time when the last frame was marked as completed
CFRAMES cFramePending; // ID of the last frame marked as pending
QPC_TIME qpcFramePending; // QPC time when the last frame was marked as pending
CFRAMES cFramesDisplayed; // number of unique frames displayed
CFRAMES cFramesComplete; // number of new completed frames that have been received
CFRAMES cFramesPending; // number of new frames submitted to DirectX but not yet completed
CFRAMES cFramesAvailable; // number of frames available but not displayed, used, or dropped
CFRAMES cFramesDropped; // number of rendered frames that were never displayed because composition occurred too late
CFRAMES cFramesMissed; // number of times an old frame was composed when a new frame should have been used but was not available
CFRAMES cRefreshNextDisplayed; // frame count at which the next frame is scheduled to be displayed
CFRAMES cRefreshNextPresented; // frame count at which the next DirectX present is scheduled to be displayed
CFRAMES cRefreshesDisplayed; // total number of refreshes that have been displayed for the application since the DwmSetPresentParameters function was last called
CFRAMES cRefreshesPresented; // total number of refreshes that have been presented by the application since DwmSetPresentParameters was last called
CFRAMES cRefreshStarted; // refresh number when content for this window started to be displayed
ULONGLONG cPixelsReceived; // total number of pixels DirectX redirected to the DWM
ULONGLONG cPixelsDrawn; // number of pixels drawn
CFRAMES cBuffersEmpty; // number of empty buffers in the flip chain
}
DWM_TIMING_INFO;
(Note: To horizontally compress the above source code for display on this website, assume the following abbreviations are prepended:)
typedef UNSIGNED_RATIO URATIO;
typedef DWM_FRAME_COUNT CFRAMES;
Now for apps running in windowed mode, you can certainly grab this detailed information as often as you like. If you only need it for passive profiling, then getting the data from DwmGetCompositionTimingInfo is the modern way to do it.
And speaking of modern, since the question hinted at modernizing, you'll want to consider using a IDXGISwapChain1 obtained from IDXGIFactory2::CreateSwapChainForComposition to enable the use of the new DirectComposition component.
DirectComposition enables rich and fluid transitions by achieving a high framerate, using graphics hardware, and operating independently of the UI thread. DirectComposition can accept bitmap content drawn by different rendering libraries, including Microsoft DirectX bitmaps, and bitmaps rendered to a window (HWND bitmaps). Also, DirectComposition supports a variety of transformations, such as 2D affine transforms and 3D perspective transforms, as well as basic effects such as clipping and opacity.
Anyway, it seems less likely that detailed timing information might usefully inform an app's runtime behavior; maybe it will help you predict your next VSync, but one does wonder what significance "keen awareness of the blanking period" might have for some particular DWM-subjugated offscreen swap chain.
Because your app's surface is just one of many that the DWM is juggling, the DWM is going to be doing all kinds of dynamic adaptation of its own, under an assumption of each client behaving consistently. Unpredictable adaptations are uncooperative in such a regime, and will likely just end up confounding both parties.
Notes:1. The resolution of QPC is many orders of magnitude higher than that of the DateTime tick, despite the the latter's suggestive use of a 100 ns. unit denomination. Think of DateTime.Now.Ticks as a repackaging of the (millisecond-denoted) Environment.TickCount, but converted to 100-ns units. For the highest possible resolution, use static method Stopwatch.GetTimestamp() instead of DateTime.Now.Ticks.
Another alternative:
There's D3DKMTGetScanLine() which works with D3D9, D3D10, D3D11, D3D12, and even OpenGL.
It's actually a GDI32 function so you piggyback off the Window's existing graphics hAdaptor to poll the VBlank/Scanline -- no need to create a Direct3D frame buffer. That's why this API works fine with OpenGL, Mantle, and non-Direct3D renderers too, despite the D3D prefix of this API call.
It also tells you VBlank status & Raster scan line.
It's useful for beam-racing applications in supreme "latency-is-critical" applications. Some virtual reality renders use beam racing, when even a mere 20ms of lag can mean the difference between pleasant VR and dizzying/pukeworthy VR.
Beam racing is rendering on the fly, following the scanout of a display. In speciallized latency-critical applications, you can reduce latency from Direct3D Present() to pixels hitting your eyeballs, to absolute minimum (as little as 3ms).
To understand what beam racing is, https://www.wired.com/2009/03/racing-the-beam/ -- it was common back in the day when graphics chips had no frame buffers -- making beam racing necessary for improved graphics on Atari 2600, Nintendo, Commodore 64, etc...
For a more modern implementation of beam racing, see Lagless VSYNC ON Algorithm for Emulators.
"Specifically I need to know with, the greatest possible accuracy, when whatever was flipped onto the primary surface (or presented in the swap chain) is actually being drawn by the screen."
Good luck.
There is actually no guarantee that anything you put into the present queue will ever be shown on screen (!!); you can manually drop frames w/ buffer sequencing present flags, or NVIDIA can do it for you (... thanks?)
Buffer Sequencing in DXGI
The DXGI Swapchain's flip queue is generally FIFO, but popular new driver overrides (i.e. FastSync) that users concerned with latency will most assuredly have enabled, favor CPU-side throughput over such trivial things as displaying any of the frames you draw :)
Normally you could count on IDXGISwapChain::Present (...) to begin blocking when the swapchain is full of undisplayed images and the driver is staging commands n-many frames ahead of the GPU, but with FastSync forced, Present never blocks and the render-ahead-queue flushes its work by overwriting any completed frames in the Swapchain that are waiting on VBLANK.
Back-to-back presents that complete quicker than screen refresh are under no obligation to (and will not) scan-out, thus their status in relation to VBLANK is meaningless.
Unless you implement rate limiting yourself to prevent the CPU from immediately staging the next frame after any call to Present, you need a different paradigm for measuring frame status altogether.
D3D9Ex / DXGI Supports Presentation Statistics in Flip / Fullscreen Exclusive:
Frames do not actually present to a user unless the following APIs say they do:
IDXGISwapChain::GetFrameStatistics (...) and IDXGISwapChain::GetLastPresentCount (...)
You can use frame stats to compute the length of the render queue / present latency in real-time, and your timing goals likely can be satisfied by tracking a present # against the accounting information for successfully sync'd frames.
The question here is why? It looks like you want to solve a symptom of your issue; maybe that's a distraction from your real issue. Waiting for vsync was a useful technique on Amiga or DOS. It is totally wrong on any compositing or multithreading OS.
First, what do you want to achieve? Tearing-free rendering is done by setting a swap interval on either D3D or OpenGL. It is harmful to try to do better than the OS there. Just think about cases like multiple monitors or what happens if more than one app tries to sync.
If you are a client to some other process and want to run your timing on VSync, Windows unfortunately offers no object to wait on as far as I know. Your best bet is to still rely on the Present call and estimate what is happening.
There are two cases: You are either rendering (presenting) faster or slower than vsync. If you are faster, Present should block for you already. If present never waits and your time between calls is more than 1/60 sec., you probably want to render less often.
The most common case why people care about VSync is video. You can render a lot faster than vsync but want to wait for just the right time to present. The only thing to do there is to run a few frames as fast as you can and from that estimate you frame timing. Use some jitter and feedback... or use built in hardware video that is happy enough to be kernel friends with the video driver.
In the game our Internet-assembled team is programming, we're assuming everybody from our audience will have WAY over fullspeed in the game.
So, to save video RAM, and hopefully give a little more idle time to the graphics card, using V-sync without double buffering would be our best option. So, in OpenGL, we need to know how to do that.
From my understanding, V-sync is when the graphics card is paused once it's done rendering a single frame until that frame has finished being sent to the display device. Double buffering doesn't pause render operations (or maybe it does, or maybe it's implementation-specific; not sure), because it instead draws to a second buffer before copying to the framebuffer, so that the monitor either gets the full frame or no new frame at all (specifically, the last stored image in the framebuffer). Well, we don't need that feature, as long as the graphics card just writes to the framebuffer ONLY when it damn needs to.
This is a pretty slow online game (But it's VERY creative ^_^). There's very little realtime action. Therefore, extremely precise user input is not a necessity; it can be captured from the OS as a single unit any time before rendering a frame.
So, in order to do EXACTLY this, I need to be able to get a "Frame has finished sending to monitor" message from OpenGL. Is it possible? If not, what is the best alternative?
The game is being programmed for Windows only at the moment but should have work done for Linux in a few months.
You suffer from a misconception what V-Sync does. There's a part in video RAM that's continously sent to the display device at a constant rate, the frame refresh rate. So immediately after a full frame has been sent the next frame gets sent, after a very short blank time. But the time between sending frames is far shorter than the time it takes to send the full frame.
What happens without V-Sync is, that operations on the contents of the framebuffer get visible, for example if the frame is filled alternating with red and green and there's no V-Sync you'll see red and green bands on the monitor. To avoid this, V-Sync swaps the pointer the display driver uses to access the framebuffer just after a full frame has been sent.
Which brings us to what doublebuffering does. Without doublebuffering there's little use for a V-Sync. The action triggered by V-Sync must happen very, very fast. So this boils down to swapping a pointer or a very fast blitting operation (potentially by simply setting CoW attributes for the GPU's MMU).
Without doublebuffering and no V-Sync the effect is, that one can see the process in which the picture is rendered piece by piece to the framebuffer. Of course if rendering happens faster than a frame period this has the effect that top-down you'll see a only sparsely populated image with more and more content being visible toward the bottem, and somewhere inbetween it'll hit the lower screen edge, wapping around to the top. The intersection line will be moving.
TL;DR: Just use double buffering and enable V-Sync for buffer swap. Don't be afraid of memory consumption. All GPUs in circulation today have more than enough RAM to easily provide the memory for doublebuffered colour planes. Just do the math: 1920x1200 * RGB = 6MiB, even the smallest GPUs in PCs today deliver at least 128MiB of RAM. Mobile devices, let's say iPad 1024*768 * RGB = 2MiB vs. 32MiB for graphics. The UI of the iPad is doublebuffered anyway.
You can use wglGetProcAddress to get the address of wglSwapIntervalEXT, and then call wglSwapIntervalEXT(1); to synchronize updates with the vertical synch. When you do this, you don't get a message at the vertical synch -- instead glFlush simply doesn't return until a vertical retrace has happened, and the screen has been updated. So, you have a WM_PAINT handler that looks something like this:
BeginPaint
wglMakeCurrent
do drawing
glFlush
EndPaint
The glFlush is needed in any case, to ensure the drawing you've done gets sent to the screen.