In my game engine, I often change between drawing textured and non-textured shapes. I'm wondering, what is the most efficient way to make this distinction? For example, suppose we have two methods, DrawRectangle(Color color) and DrawRectangleTextured(int textureId) and we have no control of the order in which they are called.
I have thought of three possible ways of dealing with this:
1) Have two different shader programs, one that takes a texture and one that doesn't. Then select the appropriate shader before drawing. This seems like a good solution in terms of efficiency, but I'm not sure about the overhead of swapping programs all the time. Furthermore, it's troublesome to have to always keep track of two programs, making it difficult to maintain and extend.
2) Make a completely white texture and treat non-textured drawing as textured drawing with that white texture. This means whenever we draw with color, we have to upload redundant texture coordinates and the fragment shader has to do a little bit of extra work.
3) Use a uniform value specifying whether to draw with a texture or not. Not sure if this has any advantages over option 2).
Is there a common and efficient way to deal with this problem?
Related
Let's say I have a bunch of semi-transparent triangles that I want to render as part of the same scene, correctly blended in order of depth. If they all use the same shader (and same uniforms, OpenGL state etc), then all I have to do is sort them by depth before submitting to OpenGL and I can render them all with a single draw call.
But what do I do if I want to render some of the triangles using a different shader? I can't do a single draw call anymore because there's two shaders. Do I sort the two sets of triangles separately and render them one after the other? But that only works if the depth values of one of the sets happen to be all less than the depth values of the other set. What if the depth values of the two sets interleave? In the worst case, what if the two sets of triangles are perfectly interleaved, so that between every two consecutive triangles of one set there's a triangle from the other set? What do I do then? Do I have to do as many draw calls as there are triangles in order to get the right result? I would like to limit the number of draw calls since I've heard having many draw calls is bad for performance. Is there a better way to do this?
In the worst case, what if the two sets of triangles are perfectly interleaved, so that between every two consecutive triangles of one set there's a triangle from the other set? What do I do then? Do I have to do as many draw calls as there are triangles in order to get the right result?
Yes, exactly so.
I would like to limit the number of draw calls since I've heard having many draw calls is bad for performance.
Each draw call has a comparatively large overhead, sure. The less draw calls you can render your scene in, the faster it will be.
Is there a better way to do this?
Sure, stop using different shaders. The whole "different shader" thing is just an assumption on your end, I haven't yet seen proof that it's actually needed. Between bindless textures, instanced drawing, SSBOs and plain ol atlases, you'd have to be rendering some pretty crazy triangles that you can't write just one shader for all of them.
A cube with different colored faces in intermediate mode is very simple. But doing this same thing with shaders seems to be quite a challenge.
I have read that in order to create a cube with different coloured faces, I should create 24 vertices instead of 8 vertices for the cube - in other words, (I visualies this as 6 squares that don't quite touch).
Is perhaps another (better?) solution to texture the faces of the cube using a real simple texture a flat color - perhaps a 1x1 pixel texture?
My texturing idea seems simpler to me - from a coder's point of view.. but which method would be the most efficient from a GPU/graphic card perspective?
I'm not sure what your overall goal is (e.g. what you're learning to do in the long term), but generally for high performance applications (e.g. games) your goal is to reduce GPU load. Every time you switch certain states (e.g. change textures, render targets, shader uniform values, etc..) the GPU stalls reconfiguring itself to meet your demands.
So, you can pass in a 1x1 pixel texture for each face, but then you'd need six draw calls (usually not so bad, but there is some prep work and potential cache misses) and six texture sets (can be very bad, often as bad as changing shader uniform values).
Suppose you wanted to pass in one texture and use that as a texture map for the cube. This is a little less trivial than it sounds -- you need to express each texture face on the texture in a way that maps to the vertices. Often you need to pass in a texture coordinate for each vertex, and due to the spacial configuration of the texture this normally doesn't end up meaning one texture coordinate for one spatial vertex.
However, if you use an environmental/reflection map, the complexities of mapping are handled for you. In this way, you could draw a single texture on all sides of your cube. (Or on your sphere, or whatever sphere-mapped shape you wanted.) I'm not sure I'd call this easier since you have to form the environmental texture carefully, and you still have to set a different texture for each new colors you want to represent -- or change the texture either via the GPU or in step with the GPU, and that's tricky and usually not performant.
Which brings us back to the canonical way of doing as you mentioned: use vertex values -- they're fast, you can draw many, many cubes very quickly by only specifying different vertex data, and it's easy to understand. It really is the best way, and how GPUs are designed to run quickly.
Additionally..
And yes, you can do this with just shaders... But it'd be ugly and slow, and the GPU would end up computing it per each pixel.. Pass the object space coordinates to the fragment shader, and in the fragment shader test which side you're on and output the corresponding color. Highly not recommended, it's not particularly easier, and it's definitely not faster for the GPU -- to change colors you'd again end up changing uniform values for the shaders.
I am working on a painting app using the LibGDX framework, though this should be primarily OpenGL related.
Basically, I am looking for a way to prevent the sprites I use to draw from overlapping each other when they aren't fully opaque, as this creates a lot of unpleasant effects. Drawing the sprites at 1.0 alpha onto a texture and then drawing that texture back at the desired alpha gives the effect I want, but that method would involve constantly recreating the texture as the user is drawing, which is far too intensive to be viable.
From what I can see, the best option for me, in basic terms, is to sort of subtract one of these sprites from the other in the fragment shader. I am quite certain this route would work, but I cannot figure out how to get to the point where I can actually compare them in the fragment shader. Both will always use the same single texture, but they will be positioned in different spots. Is it at all possible to actually compare them like that, or is there a suitable alternative?
It's not actually possible to compare 2 textures that are applied to different geometry (sprites) in the fragment or vertex shader that way, because they will be rendered on different iterations of the shaders, at different points in time.
You could have two or more texture units to sample and subtract multiple textures, but they would have to be applied to the same vertices (sprites), which I think is not what you want.
A better approach would be to compute the proximity of the sprites before they are rendered. You could then either change their positions, or pass the proxmity as a uniform value into the shaders, which could then be used to change the alpha of the fragment pixels for the sprites.
Criteria: I’m using OpenGL with shaders (GLSL) and trying to stay with modern techniques (e.g., trying to stay away from deprecated concepts).
My questions, in a very general sense--see below for more detail—are as follows:
Do shaders allow you to do custom blending that help eliminate z-order transparency issues found when using GL_BLEND?
Is there a way for a shader to know what type of primitive is being drawn without “manually” passing it some sort of flag?
Is there a way for a shader to “ignore” or “discard” a vertex (especially when drawing points)?
Background: My application draws points connected with lines in an ortho projection (vertices have varying depth in the projection). I’ve only recently started using shaders in the project (trying to get away from deprecated concepts). I understand that standard blending has ordering issues with alpha testing and depth testing: basically, if a “translucent” pixel at a higher z level is drawn first (thus blending with whatever colors were already drawn to that pixel at a lower z level), and an opaque object is then drawn at that pixel but at a lower z level, depth testing prevents changing the pixel that was already drawn for the “higher” z level, thus causing blending issues. To overcome this, you need to draw opaque items first, then translucent items in ascending z order. My gut feeling is that shaders wouldn’t provide an (efficient) way to change this behavior—am I wrong?
Further, for speed and convenience, I pass information for each vertex (along with a couple of uniform variables) to the shaders and they use the information to find a subset of the vertices that need special attention. Without doing a similar set of logic in the app itself (and slowing things down) I can’t know a priori what subset of vericies that is. Thus I send all vertices to the shader. However, when I draw “points” I’d like the shader to ignore all the vertices that aren’t in the subset it determines. I think I can get the effect by setting alpha to zero and using an alpha function in the GL context that will prevent drawing anything with alpha less than, say, 0.01. However, is there a better or more “correct” glsl way for a shader to say “just ignore this vertex”?
Do shaders allow you to do custom blending that help eliminate z-order transparency issues found when using GL_BLEND?
Sort of. If you have access to GL 4.x-class hardware (Radeon HD 5xxx or better, or GeForce 4xx or better), then you can perform order-independent transparency. Earlier versions have techniques like depth peeling, but they're quite expensive.
The GL 4.x-class version uses essentially a series of "linked lists" of transparent samples, which you do a full-screen pass to resolve into the final sample color. It's not free of course, but it isn't as expensive as other OIT methods. How expensive it would be for your case is uncertain; it is proportional to how many overlapping pixels you have.
You still have to draw opaque stuff first, and you have to draw transparent stuff using special shader code.
Is there a way for a shader to know what type of primitive is being drawn without “manually” passing it some sort of flag?
No.
Is there a way for a shader to “ignore” or “discard” a vertex (especially when drawing points)?
No in general, but yes for points. A Geometry shader can conditionally emit vertices, thus allowing you to discard any vertex for arbitrary reasons.
Discarding a vertex in non-point primitives is possible, but it will also affect the interpretation of that primitive. The reason it's simple for points is because a vertex is a primitive, while a vertex in a triangle isn't a whole primitive. You can discard lines, but discarding a vertex within a line is... of dubious value.
That being said, your explanation for why you want to do this is of dubious merit. You want to update vertex data with essentially a boolean value that says "do stuff with me" or not to. That means that, every frame, you have to modify your data to say which points should be rendered and which shouldn't.
The simplest and most efficient way to do this is to simply not render with them. That is, arrange your data so that the only thing on the GPU are the points you want to render. Thus, there's no need to do anything special at all. If you're going to be constantly updating your vertex data, then you're already condemned to dealing with streaming vertex data. So you may as well stream it in a way that makes rendering efficient.
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. :)