I'm trying to develop a high level understanding of the graphics pipeline. One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why the Geometry shader exists. Both the Tessellation and Geometry shaders seem to do the same thing to me. Can someone explain to me what does the Geometry shader do different from the tessellation shader that justifies its existence?
The tessellation shader is for variable subdivision. An important part is adjacency information so you can do smoothing correctly and not wind up with gaps. You could do some limited subdivision with a geometry shader, but that's not really what its for.
Geometry shaders operate per-primitive. For example, if you need to do stuff for each triangle (such as this), do it in a geometry shader. I've heard of shadow volume extrusion being done. There's also "conservative rasterization" where you might extend triangle borders so every intersected pixel gets a fragment. Examples are pretty application specific.
Yes, they can also generate more geometry than the input but they do not scale well. They work great if you want to draw particles and turn points into very simple geometry. I've implemented marching cubes a number of times using geometry shaders too. Works great with transform feedback to save the resulting mesh.
Transform feedback has also been used with the geometry shader to do more compute operations. One particularly useful mechanism is that it does stream compaction for you (packs its varying amount of output tightly so there are no gaps in the resulting array).
The other very important thing a geometry shader provides is routing to layered render targets (texture arrays, faces of a cube, multiple viewports), something which must be done per-primitive. For example you can render cube shadow maps for point lights in a single pass by duplicating and projecting geometry 6 times to each of the cube's faces.
Not exactly a complete answer but hopefully gives the gist of the differences.
See Also:
http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/
Related
I'm having a little bit of trouble conceptualizing the workflow used in a shader-based OpenGL program. While I've never really done any major projects using either the fixed-function or shader-based pipelines, I've started learning and experimenting, and it's become quite clear to me that shaders are the way to go.
However, the fixed-function pipeline makes much more sense to me from an intuitive perspective. Rendering a scene with that method is simple and procedural—like painting a picture. If I want to draw a box, I tell the graphics card to draw a box. If I want a lot of boxes, I draw my box in a loop. The fixed-function pipeline fits well with my established programming tendencies.
These all seem to go out the window with shaders, and this is where I'm hitting a block. A lot of shader-based tutorials show how to, for example, draw a triangle or a cube on the screen, which works fine. However, they don't seem to go into at all how I would apply these concepts in, for example, a game. If I wanted to draw three procedurally generated triangles, would I need three shaders? Obviously not, since that would be infeasible. Still, it's clearly not as simple as just sticking the drawing code in a loop that runs three times.
Therefore, I'm wondering what the "best practices" are for using shaders in game development environments. How many shaders should I have for a simple game? How do I switch between them and use them to render a real scene?
I'm not looking for specifics, just a general understanding. For example, if I had a shader that rendered a circle, how would I reuse that shader to draw different sized circles at different points on the screen? If I want each circle to be a different color, how can I pass some information to the fragment shader for each individual circle?
There is really no conceptual difference between the fixed-function pipeline and the programmable pipeline. The only thing shaders introduce is the ability to program certain stages of the pipeline.
On current hardware you have (for the most part) control over the vertex, primitive assembly, tessellation and fragment stages. Some operations that occur inbetween and after these stages are still fixed-function, such as depth/stencil testing, blending, perspective divide, etc.
Because shaders are actually nothing more than programs that you drop-in to define the input and output of a particular stage, you should think of input to a fragment shader as coming from the output of one of the previous stages. Vertex outputs are interpolated during rasterization and these are often what you're dealing with when you have an in variable in a fragment shader.
You can also have program-wide variables, known as uniforms. These variables can be accessed by any stage simply by using the same name in each stage. They do not vary across invocations of a shader, hence the name uniform.
Now you should have enough information to figure out this circle example... you can use a uniform to scale your circle (likely a simple scaling matrix) and you can either rely on per-vertex color or a uniform that defines the color.
You don't have shaders that draws circles (ok, you may with the right tricks, but's let's forget it for now, because it is misleading and has very rare and specific uses). Shaders are little programs you write to take care of certain stages of the graphic pipeline, and are more specific than "drawing a circle".
Generally speaking, every time you make a draw call, you have to tell openGL which shaders to use ( with a call to glUseProgram You have to use at least a Vertex Shader and a Fragment Shader. The resulting pipeline will be something like
Vertex Shader: the code that is going to be executed for each of the vertices you are going to send to openGL. It will be executed for each indices you sent in the element array, and it will use as input data the correspnding vertex attributes, such as the vertex position, its normal, its uv coordinates, maybe its tangent (if you are doing normal mapping), or whatever you are sending to it. Generally you want to do your geometric calculations here. You can also access uniform variables you set up for your draw call, which are global variables whic are not goin to change per vertex. A typical uniform variable you might watn to use in a vertex shader is the PVM matrix. If you don't use tessellation, the vertex shader will be writing gl_Position, the position which the rasterizer is going to use to create fragments. You can also have the vertex outputs different things (as the uv coordinates, and the normals after you have dealt with thieri geometry), give them to the rasterizer an use them later.
Rasterization
Fragment Shader: the code that is going to be executed for each fragment (for each pixel if that is more clear). Generally you do here texture sampling and light calculation. You will use the data coming from the vertex shader and the rasterizer, such as the normals (to evaluate diffuse and specular terms) and the uv coordinates (to fetch the right colors form the textures). The texture are going to be uniform, and probably also the parameters of the lights you are evaluating.
Depth Test, Stencil Test. (which you can move before the fragment shader with the early fragments optimization ( http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Early_Fragment_Test )
Blending.
I suggest you to look at this nice program to develop simple shaders http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickshader/ , which has very good examples, also of some more advanced things you won't find on every tutorial.
In my OpenGL project, I want to dynamically create smoothed polygons, similiar like this one:
The problem relies mainly in the smoothing process. My procedure up to this point, is firstly to create a VBO with randomly placed vertices.
Then, in my fragment shader, (I'm using the programmable function pipeline) there should happen the smoothing process, or in other words, created the curves out of the previously defined "lines" between the vertices.
And exactly here is the problem: I am not very familiar with thoose complex mathematical algorithms, which would examine, if a point is inside the "smoothed polygon" or not.
First up, you can't really do it in the fragment shader. The fragment shader is limited to setting the final(ish) color of a "pixel" (which is basically, but not exactly, an actual pixel) before it gets written to the screen. It can't create new points on a curve.
This page gives a nice overview of the different algorithms for creating smooth curves.
The general approach is to break a couple of points into multiple points using a geometry shader, and then render them just like a normal polygon. But I don't know the details. Try a google search for bezier geometry shader for example.
Wait, I lie. I found a program here that does it in the fragment shader.
In OpenGL 2.1, I'm passing a position and normal vector to my vertex shader. The vertex shader then sets a varying to the normal vector, so in theory it's linearly interpolating the normals across each triangle. (Which I understand to be the foundation of Phong shading.)
In the fragment shader, I use the normal with Lambert's law to calculate the diffuse reflection. This works as expected, except that the interpolation between vertices looks funny. Specifically, I'm seeing a starburst affect, wherein there are noticeable "hot spots" along the edges between vertices.
Here's an example, not from my own rendering but demonstrating the exact same effect (see the gold sphere partway down the page):
http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~slongay/pmwiki-2.2.1/pmwiki.php?n=CPSC453W11.Lab12
Wikipedia says this is a problem with Gauraud shading. But as I understand it, by interpolating the normals and running my lighting calculation per-fragment, I'm using the Phong model, not Gouraud. Is that right?
If I were to use a much finer mesh, I presume that these starbursts would be much less noticeable. But is adding more triangles the only way to solve this problem? I would think there would be a way to get smooth interpolation without the starburst effect. (I've certainly seen perfectly smooth shading on rough meshes elsewhere, such as in 3d Studio Max. But maybe they're doing something more sophisticated than just interpolating normals.)
It is not the exact same effect. What you are seeing is one of two things.
The result of not normalizing the normals before using them in your fragment shader.
An optical illusion created by the collision of linear gradients across the edges of triangles. Really.
The "Gradient Matters" section at the bottom of this page (note: in the interest of full disclosure, that's my tutorial) explains the phenomenon in detail. Simple Lambert diffuse reflectance using interpolated normals effectively creates a more-or-less linear light across a triangle. A triangle with a different set of normals will have a different gradient. It will be C0 continuous (the colors along the edges are the same), but not C1 continuous (the colors along the two gradients change at different rates).
Human vision picks up on gradient differences like these and makes them stand out. Thus, we see them as hard-edges when in fact they are not.
The only real solution here is to either tessellate the mesh further or use normal maps created from a finer version of the mesh instead of interpolated normals.
You don't show your code, so its impossible to tell, but the most likely problem would be unnormalized normals in your fragment shader. The normals calculated in your vertex shader are interpolated, which results in vectors that are not unit length -- so you need to renormalize them in the fragment shader before you calculate your fragment lighting.
So from playing around with it so far, I gather that GLSL geometry shaders work after the input vertices are transformed by the projection/modelview matrices. In other words, the geometry shaders processes things on clip coordinate.
What if I was to use the geometry shader to transform GL_POINTS into, say, cubes made out of GL_TRIANGLES? When calculating things on clip coordinates, the resulting shape always seem to face you / ignore rotations/scaling etc.
Also, it seems that GL_TRIANGLES is not supported as one of the possible geometry output types. But I tried anyways, and it seems to work. I suppose this is video card dependent? Is it possible to make cubes if GL_TRIANGLES is not supported? Make zero width triangle strips in between spaces maybe??
You are using shaders: geometry shaders work on whatever the vertex shader passed them. If you want that to be clip-space values, then the geometry shader works on clip-space values. If your vertex shader passes them eye-space values, then the geometry shader must work on eye-space values.
What matters is what the final pre-rasterization shader stage outputs to gl_Position. That is what needs to be in homogeneous clip-space. A vertex shader that has a geometry shader behind it doesn't even need to write to gl_Position.
Also, it seems that GL_TRIANGLES is not supported as one of the possible geometry output types.
You must be using ARB_geometry_shader4, not the actual core geometry shader functionality. You probably should avoid that extension if you are able. Any hardware that has geometry shaders can run OpenGL 3.2.
In any case, the core feature doesn't support triangles as output. It supports points, line strips, and triangle strips.
Is it possible to make cubes if GL_TRIANGLES is not supported?
That's what EndPrimitive() is for. You call it when you are finished with a primitive; there's nothing that stops you from emitting a second primitive. Or third.
Also, you should be advised that this will probably be slow. Geometry shaders are not known for fast rendering performance.
Could someone explain me the pretty basics of pixel and vertex shader interaction.
The obvious things are that vertex shaders receive basic vertex properties and then repass some of them to the actual pixel shader.
But how does the actual vertex->pixel transition happens? I know that obviously all types of pipelines include the rasterizer change, which is capable of interpolating the vertex parameters and can apply textures based on the certain texture coordinates.
And as far as I understand those are also interpolated (not quite sure about this moment, heard something about complex UV derivative math, but I assume that we can say that they are being interpolated).
So, here are some "targeted" questions.
How does the pixel shader operate? I mean that pixel shader obviously does some actions "per pixel", but due to the unobvious vertex->pixel transition this yields some questions.
Can I assume that if I evaluate matrix - vector product once in my pixel shader, it would be evaluated once when the image is rasterized? Or would it be better to evaluate everything that's possible in my vertex shader and then pass it to the pixel shader?
Also, if someone could point articles / abstracts on this topic, I would really appreciate that.
Thank you.
UPDATE
I thought it actually doesn't matter, because the interaction should be pretty same everywhere. I'm developing visualization applications and games for desktops, using HLSL / GLSL / Nvidia CG for shaders and mostly C++ as the base language.
The vertex shader is executed once for every vertex. It allows you to transform the vertex from world space coordinates (or whichever other coordinate system it might be in) into screenspace coordinates.
That is, if you have a triangle, each vertex is transformed, so it ends up with a position on the screen.
And given these positions, the rasterizer determines which pixels are covered by the triangle spanned by those three vertices.
And then, for each pixel inside the triangle, the pixel shader is invoked. The output from the vertex shader is usually interpolated for each pixel, so pixels close to vertex v0 will receive values very close to those computed by the vertex shader for v0.
And this means that everything you do in the pixel shader is executed once per pixel covered by the primitive being rasterized