For context, I was mulling over a design where static UI elements can be rendered to a texture and drawn, instead of drawing each separate UI element every frame. And then I thought, "Wait, couldn't you do this for everything?" Instead of drawing each tile in a tile map, couldn't you just draw it once on a big texture and use that?
Although this would seem like a good idea, I don't really know what the best practices are for this type of texture use.
Some possible questions/topics:
Why is binding a texture so slow? Does glBindTexture() push the texture to a higher memory cache for access?
In the case of the tile map example, does drawing large textures pose performance issues? Is it better to draw multiple smaller textures?
Related
I have a RGBA pixmap (e.g. an antialiased circular 4x4 dot) that I want to draw over a texture in a way similar to a brush stroke. The obvious solution of using glTexSubImage2D just overwrites a rectangular area with no respect to alpha value. Is there a better solution than the obvious maintaining a mirrored version of the texture in local RAM, doing a blending there and then using glTexSubImage2D to upload it - preferrably OpenGL/GPU based one? Is FBO the way to go?
Also, is using FBO for this efficient both in terms of maintaining 1:1 graphics quality (no artifacts, interpolation etc) and in terms of speed? With 4x4 object in RAM doing a CPU blending is basically transforming 4x4 matrix with basic float arithmetics, totalling to 16 simple math iterations & 1 glTexSubImage2D call... is setting an FBO, switching rendering contexts & doing the rendering still faster?
Benchmarking data would be very appreciated, as well as MVCEs/pseudocode for proposed solutions.
Note: creating separate alpha-blended quads for each stroke is not an option, mainly due to very high amount of strokes used. Go science!
You can render to a texture with a framebuffer object (FBO).
At the start of your program, create an FBO and attach the texture to it. Whenever you need to draw a stroke, bind the FBO and draw the stroke as if you were drawing it to the screen (with triangles). The stroke gets written to the attached texture.
For your main draw loop, unbind the FBO, bind the attached texture, and draw a quad over the entire screen (from -1,-1 to 1,1 without using any matrices).
Also, is using FBO for this efficient both in terms of maintaining 1:1 graphics quality (no artifacts, interpolation etc) and in terms of speed?
Yes.
If the attached texture is as big as the window, then there are no artifacts.
You only need to switch to the FBO when adding a new stroke, after which you can forget about the stroke since it's already rendered to the texture.
The GPU does all of the sampling, interpolation, blending, etc., and it's much better at it than the CPU (after all, it's what the GPU is designed for)
Switching FBO's isn't that expensive. Modern games can switch FBOs for render-to-texture several times a frame while still pumping out thousands of triangles; One FBO switch per frame isn't going to kill a 2D app, even on a mobile platform.
I been working in a new game, and finally reached the point where I started to code the motion of my main character but I have a doubt about how do that.
Previously, I make two games in Allegro, so the spritesheets are kind of easy to implement, because I establish the frame and position on the image, and save every frame in a different bitmap, but I know that do that with OpenGL it's not neccesary and cost a little bit more.
So, I been thinking in how save my spritesheet and used in my program and I have only one idea.
I loaded the image and transformed in a texture, in my function that help me animate I simply grab a portion of the texture to draw instead of store every single texture in my program.
This is the best way to do that?
Thanks beforehand for the help.
You're on the right track.
Things to consider:
leave enough dead space around each sprite so that the video card does not blend in texels from adjacent sprites at small scales.
set texture min/mag filtering appropriately. GL_NEAREST is OK if you're going for the blocky look.
if you want to be fancy and save some texture memory, there's no reason that the sprites have to be laid out in a regular grid. Smaller sprites can be packed closer in the texture.
if your sprites are being rendered from 3D models, you could output normal & displacement maps from the model into another texture, then combine them in a fragment shader for some awesome lighting and self-shadowing.
You got the right idea, if you have a bunch of sprites it is much better to just stick them all in one big textures. Just draw your sprites as textured quads whose texture coordinates index into the frame of the sprite. You can do a few optimizations, but most of them revolve around trying to get the most out of your texture memory and packing the sprites closely together with out blending issues.
I know that do that with OpenGL it's not neccesary and cost a little bit more.
Why not? There are no real downsides to putting a lot of sprites into a single texture. All you need to do is change the texture coordinates to pick the region in question out of the texture.
I'm creating a tile-based game in C# with OpenGL and I'm trying to optimize my code as best as possible.
I've read several articles and sections in books and all come to the same conclusion (as you may know) that use of VBOs greatly increases performance.
I'm not quite sure, however, how they work exactly.
My game will have tiles on the screen, some will change and some will stay the same. To use a VBO for this, I would need to add the coordinates of each tile to an array, correct?
Also, to texture these tiles, I would have to create a separate VBO for this?
I'm not quite sure what the code would look like for tiling these coordinates if I've got tiles that are animated and tiles that will be static on the screen.
Could anyone give me a quick rundown of this?
I plan on using a texture atlas of all of my tiles. I'm not sure where to begin to use this atlas for the textured tiles.
Would I need to compute the coordinates of the tile in the atlas to be applied? Is there any way I could simply use the coordinates of the atlas to apply a texture?
If anyone could clear up these questions it would be greatly appreciated. I could even possibly reimburse someone for their time & help if wanted.
Thanks,
Greg
OK, so let's split this into parts. You didn't specify which version of OpenGL you want to use - I'll assume GL 3.3.
VBO
Vertex buffer objects, when considered as an alternative to client vertex arrays, mostly save the GPU bandwidth. A tile map is not really a lot of geometry. However, in recent GL versions the vertex buffer objects are the only way of specifying the vertices (which makes a lot of sense), so we cannot really talked about "increasing performance" here. If you mean "compared to deprecated vertex specification methods like immediate mode or client-side arrays", then yes, you'll get a performance boost, but you'd probably only feel it with 10k+ vertices per frame, I suppose.
Texture atlases
The texture atlases are indeed a nice feature to save on texture switching. However, on GL3 (and DX10)-enabled GPUs you can save yourself a LOT of trouble characteristic to this technique, because a more modern and convenient approach is available. Check the GL reference docs for TEXTURE_2D_ARRAY - you'll like it. If GL3 cards are your target, forget texture atlases. If not, have a google which older cards support texture arrays as an extension, I'm not familiar with the details.
Rendering
So how to draw a tile map efficiently? Let's focus on the data. There are lots of tiles and each tile has the following infromation:
grid position (x,y)
material (let's call it "material" not "texture" because as you said the image might be animated and change in time; the "material" would then be interpreted as "one texture or set of textures which change in time" or anything you want).
That should be all the "per-tile" data you'd need to send to the GPU. You want to render each tile as a quad or triangle strip, so you have two alternatives:
send 4 vertices (x,y),(x+w,y),(x+w,y+h),(x,y+h) instead of (x,y) per tile,
use a geometry shader to calculate the 4 points along with texture coords for every 1 point sent.
Pick your favourite. Also note that directly corresponds to what your VBO is going to contain - the latter solution would make it 4x smaller.
For the material, you can pass it as a symbolic integer, and in your fragment shader - basing on current time (passed as an uniform variable) and the material ID for a given tile - you can decide on the texture ID from the texture array to use. In this way you can make a simple texture animation.
I have a program in which I need to apply a 2-dimensional texture (simple image) to a surface generated using the marching-cubes algorithm. I have access to the geometry and can add texture coordinates with relative ease, but the best way to generate the coordinates is eluding me.
Each point in the volume represents a single unit of data, and each unit of data may have different properties. To simplify things, I'm looking at sorting them into "types" and assigning each type a texture (or portion of a single large texture atlas).
My problem is I have no idea how to generate the appropriate coordinates. I can store the location of the type's texture in the type class and use that, but then seams will be horribly stretched (if two neighboring points use different parts of the atlas). If possible, I'd like to blend the textures on seams, but I'm not sure the best manner to do that. Blending is optional, but I need to texture the vertices in some fashion. It's possible, but undesirable, to split the geometry into parts for each type, or to duplicate vertices for texturing purposes.
I'd like to avoid using shaders if possible, but if necessary I can use a vertex and/or fragment shader to do the texture blending. If I do use shaders, what would be the most efficient way of telling it was texture or portion to sample? It seems like passing the type through a parameter would be the simplest way, but possible slow.
My volumes are relatively small, 8-16 points in each dimension (I'm keeping them smaller to speed up generation, but there are many on-screen at a given time). I briefly considered making the isosurface twice the resolution of the volume, so each point has more vertices (8, in theory), which may simplify texturing. It doesn't seem like that would make blending any easier, though.
To build the surfaces, I'm using the Visualization Library for OpenGL and its marching cubes and volume system. I have the geometry generated fine, just need to figure out how to texture it.
Is there a way to do this efficiently, and if so what? If not, does anyone have an idea of a better way to handle texturing a volume?
Edit: Just to note, the texture isn't simply a gradient of colors. It's actually a texture, usually with patterns. Hence the difficulty in mapping it, a gradient would've been trivial.
Edit 2: To help clarify the problem, I'm going to add some examples. They may just confuse things, so consider everything above definite fact and these just as help if they can.
My geometry is in cubes, always (loaded, generated and saved in cubes). If shape influences possible solutions, that's it.
I need to apply textures, consisting of patterns and/or colors (unique ones depending on the point's "type") to the geometry, in a technique similar to the splatting done for terrain (this isn't terrain, however, so I don't know if the same techniques could be used).
Shaders are a quick and easy solution, although I'd like to avoid them if possible, as I mentioned before. Something usable in a fixed-function pipeline is preferable, mostly for the minor increase in compatibility and development time. Since it's only a minor increase, I will go with shaders and multipass rendering if necessary.
Not sure if any other clarification is necessary, but I'll update the question as needed.
On the texture combination part of the question:
Have you looked into 3d textures? As we're talking marching cubes I should probably immediately say that I'm explicitly not talking about volumetric textures. Instead you stack all your 2d textures into a 3d texture. You then encode each texture coordinate to be the 2d position it would be and the texture it would reference as the third coordinate. It works best if your textures are generally of the type where, logically, to transition from one type of pattern to another you have to go through the intermediaries.
An obvious use example is texture mapping to a simple height map — you might have a snow texture on top, a rocky texture below that, a grassy texture below that and a water texture at the bottom. If a vertex that references the water is next to one that references the snow then it is acceptable for the geometry fill to transition through the rock and grass texture.
An alternative is to do it in multiple passes using additive blending. For each texture, draw every face that uses that texture and draw a fade to transparent extending across any faces that switch from one texture to another.
You'll probably want to prep the depth buffer with a complete draw (with the colour masks all set to reject changes to the colour buffer) then switch to a GL_EQUAL depth test and draw again with writing to the depth buffer disabled. Drawing exactly the same geometry through exactly the same transformation should produce exactly the same depth values irrespective of issues of accuracy and precision. Use glPolygonOffset if you have issues.
On the coordinates part:
Popular and easy mappings are cylindrical, box and spherical. Conceptualise that your shape is bounded by a cylinder, box or sphere with a well defined mapping from surface points to texture locations. Then for each vertex in your shape, start at it and follow the normal out until you strike the bounding geometry. Then grab the texture location that would be at that position on the bounding geometry.
I guess there's a potential problem that normals tend not to be brilliant after marching cubes, but I'll wager you know more about that problem than I do.
This is a hard and interesting problem.
The simplest way is to avoid the issue completely by using 3D texture maps, especially if you just want to add some random surface detail to your isosurface geometry. Perlin noise based procedural textures implemented in a shader work very well for this.
The difficult way is to look into various algorithms for conformal texture mapping (also known as conformal surface parametrization), which aim to produce a mapping between 2D texture space and the surface of the 3D geometry which is in some sense optimal (least distorting). This paper has some good pictures. Be aware that the topology of the geometry is very important; it's easy to generate a conformal mapping to map a texture onto a closed surface like a brain, considerably more complex for higher genus objects where it's necessary to introduce cuts/tears/joins.
You might want to try making a UV Map of a mesh in a tool like Blender to see how they do it. If I understand your problem, you have a 3D field which defines a solid volume as well as a (continuous) color. You've created a mesh from the volume, and now you need to UV-map the mesh to a 2D texture with texels extracted from the continuous color space. In a tool you would define "seams" in the 3D mesh which you could cut apart so that the whole mesh could be laid flat to make a UV map. There may be aliasing in your texture at the seams, so when you render the mesh it will also be discontinuous at those seams (ie a triangle strip can't cross over the seam because it's a discontinuity in the texture).
I don't know any formal methods for flattening the mesh, but you could imagine cutting it along the seams and then treating the whole thing as a spring/constraint system that you drop onto a flat surface. I'm all about solving things the hard way. ;-)
Due to the issues with texturing and some of the constraints I have, I've chosen to write a different algorithm to build the geometry and handle texturing directly in that as it produces surfaces. It's somewhat less smooth than the marching cubes, but allows me to apply the texcoords in a way that works for my project (and is a bit faster).
For anyone interested in texturing marching cubes, or just blending textures, Tommy's answer is a very interesting technique and the links timday posted are excellent resources on flattening meshes for texturing. Thanks to both of them for their answers, hopefully they can be of use to others. :)
So I have what is essentially a game... There is terrain in this game. I'd like to be able to create a top-down view minimap so that the "player" can see where they are going. I'm doing some shading etc on the terrain so I'd like that to show up in the minimap as well. It seems like I just need to create a second camera and somehow get that camera's display to show up in a specific box. I'm also thinking something like a mirror would work.
I'm looking for approaches that I could take that would essentially give me the same view I currently have, just top down... Does this seem feasible? Feel free to ask questions... Thanks!
One way to do this is to create an FBO (frame buffer object) with a render buffer attached, render your minimap to it, and then bind the FBO to a texture. You can then map the texture to anything you'd like, generally a quad. You can do this for all sorts of HUD objects. This also means that you don't have to redraw the contents of your HUD/menu objects as often as your main view; update the the associated buffer only as often as you require. You will often want to downsample (in the polygon count sense) the objects/scene you are rendering to the FBO for this case. The functions in the API you'll want to check into are:
glGenFramebuffersEXT
glBindFramebufferEXT
glGenRenderbuffersEXT
glBindRenderbufferEXT
glRenderbufferStorageEXT
glFrambufferRenderbufferEXT
glFrambufferTexture2DEXT
glGenerateMipmapEXT
There is a write-up on using FBOs on gamedev.net. Another potential optimization is that if the contents of the minimap are static and you are simply moving a camera over this static view (truly just a map). You can render a portion of the map that is much larger than what you actually want to display to the player and fake a camera by adjusting the texture coordinates of the object it's mapped onto. This only works if your minimap is in orthographic projection.
Well, I don't have an answer to your specific question, but it's common in games to render the world to an image using an orthogonal perspective from above, and use that for the minimap. It would at least be less performance intensive than rendering it on the fly.