In my game, I have about 50 filled-circles with different size and different color distributed full screen, and they continuously resize themselves, creating animation. I'm currently using Shaperenderer to render all of them. This way, all the circles look crisp but it seems like the performance is not very good. Should I make a circle sprite and then render all of them using SpriteBatch instead of Shaperenderer? Will the performance be improved by doing that?
Generally, yes, the SpriteBatch API is more optimized than the ShapeRenderer API in Libgdx. ShapeRenderer is designed for debug overlays and for being easy to use. But, it depends on the specifics of how you use the APIs, too.
The ShapeRenderer API assumes your viewport is mapped to pixel units. It determines the number of vertices to use in the circle based on a rough guess. You may be creating too many vertices for each circle (and you may be able to improve the performance without sacrificing fidelity by reducing the number of vertices computed).
For any specific case though, it makes sense to profile your code and see where the time is actually being spent before optimizing.
Related
I'm currently working alongside a piece of software that generates game maps by taking several images and then tiling them into a game map. Right now I'm working with OpenGL to draw these maps. As you know, switching states in OpenGL and making multiple draw calls is costly. I've decided to implement a texture atlas system, which would allow me to draw the entire map in a single draw call with no state switching. However, I'm having a problem with implementing the texture atlas. Firstly, would it be better to store each TILE in the texture atlas, or the images themselves? Secondly, not all of the images are guaranteed to be square, or even powers of two. Do I pad them to the nearest power of two, a square, or both? Another thing that concerns me is that the images can get quite large, and I'm worried about exceeding the OpenGL size limitation for textures, which would force me to split the map up, ruining the entire concept.
Here's what I have so far, conceptually:
-Generate texture
-Bind texture
-Generate image large enough to hold textures (Take padding into account?)
-Sort textures?
-Upload subtexture to blank texture, store offsets
-Unbind texture
This is not so much a direct answer, but I can't really answer directly since you are asking many questions at once. I'll simply try to give you as much info as I can on the related subjects.
The following is a list of considerations for you, allowing you to rethink exactly what your priorities are and how you wish to execute them.
First of all, in my experience (!!), using texture arrays is much easier than using a texture atlas, and the performance is about equal. Texture arrays do exactly what you think they would do, you can sample them in shaders based on a variable name and an index, instead of just a name (ie: mytexarray[0]). One of the big drawbacks include having the same texture size for all textures in the array, advantages being: easy indexing of subtextures and binding in one draw call.
Second of all, always use powers of 2. I don't know if some recent systems allow for non-power of 2 textures totally without problems, but (again in my experience) it is best to use powers of 2 everywhere. One of the problems I had in a 500*500 texture was black lines when drawing textured quads, these black lines were exactly the size needed to pad to a nearest power of two (12 pixels on x and y). So OpenGL somewhat creates this problem for you even on recent hardware.
Third of all (is this even english?), concerning size. All your problems seem to handle images, textures. You might want to look at texturebuffers, they allow for large amounts of data to be streamed to your GC and are updated easier than textures (this allows for LOD map systems). This is mostly nice if you use textures but only need the data in them represented in their colors, not the colors directly.
Finally you might want to look at "texture splatting", this is a way to increase detail without increasing data. I don't know exactly what you are making so I don't know if you can use it, but it's easy and it's being used in the game industry alot. You create a set of textures (rock, sand, grass, etc) you use everywhere, and one big texture keeping track of which smaller texture is applied where.
I hope at least one of the things I wrote here will help you out,
Good luck!
PS: openGL texture size limitations depend on the graphics card of the user, so be careful with sizes greater than 2048*2048, even if your computer runs fine others might have serious issues. Safe values are anything upto 1024*1024.
PSS: excuse any grammer mistakes, ask for clarification if needed. Also, this is my first answer ever, excuse my lack of protocol.
I'm interested in trying to create realistic fluids (water), for a 2D game. This game is similar to Terraria. I have heard about how you can slap a bunch of colliding particles on the scene and render over it and voila, realistic acting water.
Terraria uses tile based water, which I am not a fan of.. I want something more advanced.
I thought about using bullet 3D physics (box2d has limits I would hit). For non colliding particle effects, I am thinking about using something like SPARK, since I think that'd give me the best of both worlds.
The issue I am thinking about, is that each block is 16x16, so on a 1600x900 scene, there are about 5 thousand tiles.
So I need to tell the physics engine that these tiles are collidable. Of course, there are void tiles that are considered to be non collidable.
Does anyone have ideas on this? Language is C++, I doubt that's relevant though.
EDIT: i think i'm going to have to cave in and use grid based water. I suppose, in retrospect particle based just makes everything more difficult but for what gain?
Your question is about tiled fluids, but you seem to actually be asking about a particle based approach.
If that's the case, what you're looking for is "Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics", or SPH, which is a very popular technique for 2D and 3D fluid simulations in realtime situations.
Yes, it's basically just a particle system, with each particle responding to the forces in your environment (gravity, collisions etc.) in a reasonable (mathematically stable) way, combined with a constraint that they must stay a certain distance apart in order that the fluid is incompressible.
You can render the particles as points, if you have enough of them, or you can use them as a source for deriving a surface (for example using marching-cubes, though in 2D I wouldn't worry about that).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothed-particle_hydrodynamics
It has the advantage of being relatively easy to code, and indeed to accelerate on a GPU.
Indeed I think they're probably a better approach than trying some kind of tile-based approach, and you get some more interesting results, such as spray kicking up, waves kicking against the edges of objects, etc. It's not too hard to get something pleasing working, I'd give it a go.
I'm trying to, in JOGL, pick from a large set of rendered quads (several thousands). Does anyone have any recommendations?
To give you more detail, I'm plotting a large set of data as billboards with procedurally created textures.
I've seen this post OpenGL GL_SELECT or manual collision detection? and have found it helpful. However it can take my program up to several minutes to complete a rendering of the full set, so I don't think drawing 2x (for color picking) is an option.
I'm currently drawing with calls to glBegin/glVertex.../glEnd. Given that I made the switch to batch rendering on the GPU with vao's and vbo's, do you think I would receive a speedup large enough to facilitate color picking?
If not, given all of the recommendations against using GL_SELECT, do you think it would be worth me using it?
I've investigated multithreaded CPU approaches to picking these quads that completely sidestep OpenGL all together. Do you think a OpenGL-less CPU solution is the way to go?
Sorry for all the questions. My main question remains to be, whats a good way that one can pick from a large set of quads using OpenGL (JOGL)?
The best way to pick from a large number of quad cannot be easily defined. I don't like color picking or similar techniques very much, because they seem to be to impractical for most situations. I never understood why there are so many tutorials that focus on people that are new to OpenGl or even programming focus on picking that is just useless for nearly everything. For exmaple: Try to get a pixel you clicked on in a heightmap: Not possible. Try to locate the exact mesh in a model you clicked on: Impractical.
If you have a large number of quads you will probably need a good spatial partitioning or at least (better also) a scene graph. Ok, you don't need this, but it helps A LOT. Look at some tutorials for scene graphs for further information's, it's a good thing to know if you start with 3D programming, because you get to know a lot of concepts and not only OpenGl code.
So what to do now to start with some picking? Take the inverse of your modelview matrix (iirc with glUnproject(...)) on the position where your mouse cursor is. With the orientation of your camera you can now cast a ray into your spatial structure (or your scene graph that holds a spatial structure). Now check for collisions with your quads. I currently have no link, but if you search for inverse modelview matrix you should find some pages that explain this better and in more detail than it would be practical to do here.
With this raycasting based technique you will be able to find your quad in O(log n), where n is the number of quads you have. With some heuristics based on the exact layout of your application (your question is too generic to be more specific) you can improve this a lot for most cases.
An easy spatial structure for this is for example a quadtree. However you should start with they raycasting first to fully understand this technique.
Never faced such problem, but in my opinion, I think the CPU based picking is the best way to try.
If you have a large set of quads, maybe you can group quads by space to avoid testing all quads. For example, you can group the quads in two boxes and firtly test which box you
I just implemented color picking but glReadPixels is slow here (I've read somehere that it might be bad for asynchron behaviour between GL and CPU).
Another possibility seems to me using transform feedback and a geometry shader that does the scissor test. The GS can then discard all faces that do not contain the mouse position. The transform feedback buffer contains then exactly the information about hovered meshes.
You probably want to write the depth to the transform feedback buffer too, so that you can find the topmost hovered mesh.
This approach works also nice with instancing (additionally write the instance id to the buffer)
I haven't tried it yet but I guess it will be a lot faster then using glReadPixels.
I only found this reference for this approach.
I'm using the solution that I've borrowed from DirectX SDK, there's a nice example how to detect the selected polygon in a vertext buffer object.
The same algorithm works nice with OpenGL.
If we want to make an application like MS Paint, should we use OpenGL for render graphics?
I want to mention about performance if using traditional GDI vs. OpenGL.
And if there are exist some better libs for this purpose, please see me one.
GDI, X11, OpenGL... are rendering APIs, i.e. you usually don't use them for image manipulation (you can do this, but it requires some precautions).
In a drawing application like MS Paint, if it's pixel based, you'll normally manipulate some picture buffer with customary code, or a special image manipulation library, then send the full buffer to the rendering API.
If your data model consists of strokes and individual shapes, i.e. vector graphics, then OpenGL makes a quite good backend. However it may be worth looking into some other API for vector graphics, like OpenVG (which in its current implementations sits on top of OpenGL, but native implementations operating directly on the GPU may come).
In your usage scenario you'll not run into any performance problems on current computers, so don't choose your API from that criteria. OpenGL is definitely faster than GDI when it comes to texturing, alpha blending, etc. However depending on system and GPU pure GDI may outperform OpenGL for so simple things like drawing an arc or filling a complex self intersecting polygon with complex winding rules.
There is no good reason not to use OpenGL for this. Except maybe if you have years of experience with GDI but don't know a single thing about OpenGL.
On the other hand, OpenGL may very well be superior in many cases. Compositing layers or adjusting hue/saturation/brightness/contrast in a GLSL shader will be several orders of magnitude faster (in fact, pretty much "instantly") if there is a reasonably new card in the computer. Stroking a freedraw path with a "fuzzy" pen (i.e. blending a sprite with alpha transparency over and over again) will be orders of magnitude faster. On images with somewhat reasonable dimensions, most filter kernels should run close to realtime. Rescaling with bilinear filtering runs in hardware.
Such things won't matter on a 512x512 image, as pretty much everything is instantaneous at such resolutions, but on a typical 4096x3072 (or larger) image from your digital camera, it may be very noticeable, especially if you have 4-6 layers.
I have a VB6 application (please don't laugh) which does a lot of drawing via BitBlt and the standard VB6 drawing functions. I am running up against performance issues (yes, I do the regular tricks like drawing to memory). So, I decided to investigate other ways of drawing, and have come upon OpenGL.
I've been doing some experimenting, and it seems straightforward to do most of what I want; the application mostly only uses very simple drawing -- relatively large 2D rectangles of solid colors and such -- but I haven't been able to find an equivalent to something like a HatchBrush or PatternBrush.
More specifically, I want to be able to specify a small monochrome pixel pattern, choose a color, and whenever I draw a polygon (or whatever), instead of it being solid, have it automatically tiled with that pattern, not translated or rotated or skewed or stretched, with the "on" bits of the pattern showing up in the specified color, and the "off" bits of the pattern left displaying whatever had been drawn under the area that I am now drawing on.
Obviously I could do all the calculations myself. That is, instead of drawing as a polygon which will somehow automatically be tiled for me, I could calculate all of the lines or pixels or whatever that actually need to be drawn, then draw them as lines or pixels or whatever. But is there an easier way? Like in GDI, where you just say "draw this polygon using this brush"?
I am guessing that "textures" might be able to accomplish what I want, but it's not clear to me (I'm totally new to this and the documentation I've found is not entirely obvious); it seems like textures might skew or translate or stretch the pattern, based upon the vertices of the polygon? Whereas I want the pattern tiled.
Is there a way to do this, or something like it, other than brute force calculation of exactly the pixels/lines/whatever that need to be drawn?
Thanks in advance for any help.
If I understood correctly, you're looking for glPolygonStipple() or glLineStipple().
PolygonStipple is very limited as it allows only 32x32 pattern but it should work like PatternBrush. I have no idea how to implement it in VB though.
First of all, are you sure it's the drawing operation itself that is the bottleneck here? Visual Basic is known for being very slow (Especially if your program is compiled to intermediary VM code - which is the default AFAIRC. Be sure you check the option to compile to native code!), and if it is your code that is the bottleneck, then OpenGL won't help you much - you'll need to rewrite your code in some other language - probably C or C++, but any .NET lang should also do.
OpenGL contains functions that allow you to draw stippled lines and polygons, but you shouldn't use them. They're deprecated for a long time, and got removed from OpenGL in version 3.1 of the spec. And that's for a reason - these functions don't map well to the modern rendering paradigm and are not supported by modern graphics hardware - meaning you will most likely get a slow software fallback if you use them.
The way to go is to use a small texture as a mask, and tile it over the drawn polygons. The texture will get stretched or compressed to match the texture coordinates you specify with the vertices. You have to set the wrapping mode to GL_REPEAT for both texture coordinates, and calculate the right coordinates for each vertex so that the texture appears at its original size, repeated the right amount of times.
You could also use the stencil buffer as you described, but... how would you fill that buffer with the pattern, and do it fast? You would need a texture anyway. Remember that you need to clear the stencil buffer every frame, before you start drawing. Not doing so could cost you a massive performance hit (the exact value of "massive" depending on the graphics hardware and driver version).
It's also possible to achieve the desired effect using a fragment shader, but learning shaders for that would be an overkill for an OpenGL beginner like yourself :-).
Ah, I think I've found it! I can make a stencil across the entire viewport in the shape of the pattern I want (or its mask, I guess), and then enable that stencil when I want to draw with that pattern.
You could just use a texture. Put the pattern in as in image and turn on texture repeating and you are good to go.
Figured this out a a year or two ago.