I have a pretty large terrain mesh (heightmap), and I'd like to be able to divide this into smaller chunks... After reading posts and articles, I've found this about terrain LOD:
No you don't. In your typical terrain renderer the data is subdivided
into tiles. And usually those tiles subdivide again, and again to
implement level of detail. What sets the tiles apart are the vertices
they reference. So you'd have one large vertex array for the terrain
data, and a lot of index arrays for the tiles. By calling
glDrawElements with the right index arrays you can select which tiles
to draw at which level of detail.
Answer by datenwolf, link to the post:
OpenGL: Are VAOs and VBOs practical for large polygon rendering tasks?
EDIT:
I read my heightmap from file, usually from a .BMP image, and I displace a regular grid with these height samples. I'm using VBOs, VAOs, DrawElements(), triangles (not strips) and shaders (still without tesselation shader, I implement it next week).
Is there a good algorithm uses this, or could somebody share an article about this method?
I searched Google for "quadtree terrain rendering" (I think you where missing the keyword quadtree) and this came up:
http://vterrain.org/LOD/Papers/
A lot of publications, the second one already looks very interesting:
Continuous Distance-Dependent Level of Detail for Rendering Heightmaps
Related
I'm currently struggling with finding a good approach to render many (thousands) slightly different models. The model itself is a simple cube with some vertex offset, think of a skewed quad face. Each 'block' has a different offset of its vertices, so basically I have a voxel engine on steroids as each block is not a perfect cube but rather a skewed cuboid. To render this shape 48 vertices are needed but can be cut to 24 vertices as only 3 faces are visible. With indexing we are at 12 vertices (4 for each face).
But, now that I have the vertices for each block in the world, how do I render them?
What I've tried:
Instanced Rendering. Sounds good, doesn't work as my models are not the same.
I could simplify distant blocks to a cube and render them with glDrawArraysInstanced/glDrawElementsInstanced.
Put everything in one giant VBO. This has a better performance than rendering each cube individually, but has the downside of having one large mesh. This is not desireable as I need every cube to have different textures, lighting, etc... Selecting a single cube within that huge mesh is not possible.
I am aware of frustum culling and occlusion culling, but I already have problems with some cubes in front of me (tested with a 128x128 world).
My requirements:
Draw some thousand models.
Each model has vertices offsets to make the block less cubic, stored in another VBO.
Each block has to be an individual object, as you should be able to place/remove blocks.
Any good performance advices?
This is not desireable as I need every cube to have different textures, lighting, etc... Selecting a single cube within that huge mesh is not possible.
Programmers should avoid declaring that something is "impossible"; it limits your thinking.
Giving each face of these cubes different textures has many solutions. The Minecraft approach uses texture atlases. Each "texture" is really just a sub-section of one large texture, and you use texture coordinates to select which sub-section a particular face uses. But you can get more complex.
Array textures allow for a more direct way to solve this problem. Here, the texture coordinates would be the same, but you use a per-vertex integer to select the correct texture for a face. All of the vertices for a particular face would have an index. And if you're clever, you don't even really need texture coordinates. You can generate them in your vertex shader, based on per-vertex values like gl_VertexID and the like.
Lighting parameters would work the same way: use some per-vertex data to select parameters from a UBO or SSBO.
As for the "individual object" bit, that's merely a matter of how you're thinking about the problem. Do not confuse what happens in the player's mind with what happens in your code. Games are an elaborate illusion; just because something appears to the user to be an "individual object" doesn't mean it is one to your rendering engine.
What you need is the ability to modify your world's data to remove and add new blocks. And if you need to show a block as "selected" or something, then you simply need another per-block value (like the lighting parameters and index for the texture) which tells you whether to draw it as a "selected" block or as an "unselected" one. Or you can just redraw that specific selected block. There are many ways of handling it.
Any decent graphics card (since about 2010) is able to render a few millions vertices in a blinking.
The approach is different depending on how many changes per frame. In other words, how many data must be transferred to the GPU per frame.
For the case of small number of changes, storing the data in one big VBO or many smaller VBOs (and their VAOs), sending the changes by uniforms, and calling several glDraw***, shows similar performance. Different hardwares behave with little difference. Indexed data may improve the speed.
When most of the data changes in every frame and these changes are hard or impossible to do in the shaders, then your app is memory-transfer bound. Streaming is a good advise.
I am starting a new project in C++ using GLFW and GLEW.
The plan is to have a fairly big Low Poly terrain. It will NOT be randomly generated, I am planning on making it in Blender.
My problem is, that I cannot create a huge Low Poly terrain in Blender, because the program becomes really slow with the amount of vertices that the terrain has. I created a 500m x 500m terrain, and subdivided it by 1000. That gave me ALOT of vertices, making the program not usable.
What would be the best approach to creating a huge terrain?
Im not sure how I would go onto creating chunks of the terrain, since I have to model them.
How do I create a big Low Poly terrain, without having a problem with
the program being slow?
Another concern of mine is obviously loading the world into a custom game engine of mine. I suppose a big world like this would have huge problems with the load times.
Terrain in game engines like Unity, Unreal Engine and CryEngine is treated differently from your average static or skeletal mesh. Creation of different levels of detail are is usually done at runtime, as opposed to ordinary meshes having their LODs pre-created. Loading a mesh from a 3D program like Blender or 3DS Max as your entire terrain just isn't doable.
The Direct3D tutorials at rastertek are very good for learning, but isn't OpenGL obviously. Here is a basic tutorial of creating a basic terrain in Java OpenGL (This doesn't go into LOD handling I don't think).
Java OpenGL terrain
Most commonly I think I've seen a quad tree system, where you have terrain patches, and each patch is subdivided into four other patches, depending on a condition (whether distance to camera or screenspace size).
This is what a standard quad-tree LOD system looks like, in particular for the game Kerbal Space Program.
Along the way you'll need to figure out how to solve some problems, like how to get rid of the cracks and gaps in between two terrain patches that are of different LOD levels. Kerbal Space Program solved this by treating the edge vertices differently to line up, and not allowing any two adjacent terrain patches to be more than one LOD level of difference.
One method I tried was to upload two vertex positions for each vertex, the current LOD position and the position of the LOD vertex from one level down, and linearly interpolate between the two based on camera distance. Yet I'm pretty sure there are more elegant ways than this.
I've posted a video from a while ago of me messing around with this stuff, it shows the basic quad tree pattern, the problem of cracks, and then the vertex interpolation method. Some people create the patches on the CPU and other on the GPU and read back any necessary info, (like for example for physics) using transform feedback. There's lots of ways of doing things, and I hope to get back into it.
TerrainPatches
I did something similar many years ago and found this tutorial very helpful:
http://www.rastertek.com/tertut05.html
It describes creating a quad tree with specific triangles from your terrain mesh partitioned into AABBs, using frustum culling huge parts of your terrain can be culled during runtime and your application's performance should improve. As long as you are confident importing meshes exported from blender (are they in .obj ?) you should easily be able to partition the different triangles using the strategies outlined in the tutorial.
A further optimization could be to have various LODs for nodes in your quadtree depending on the distance from the camera, i.e if a node is a set distance from the camera render a lower poly mesh by skipping certain vertices to make the smaller triangles "collapse" into larger ones. I'd recommend generating specific index lists to do this and use the same vertex data as opposed to having separate pre-generated chunks of mesh to save on memory.
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. :)
I would like to draw voxels by using opengl but it doesn't seem like it is supported. I made a cube drawing function that had 24 vertices (4 vertices per face) but it drops the frame rate when you draw 2500 cubes. I was hoping there was a better way. Ideally I would just like to send a position, edge size, and color to the graphics card. I'm not sure if I can do this by using GLSL to compile instructions as part of the fragment shader or vertex shader.
I searched google and found out about point sprites and billboard sprites (same thing?). Could those be used as an alternative to drawing a cube quicker? If I use 6, one for each face, it seems like that would be sending much less information to the graphics card and hopefully gain me a better frame rate.
Another thought is maybe I can draw multiple cubes using one drawelements call?
Maybe there is a better method altogether that I don't know about? Any help is appreciated.
Drawing voxels with cubes is almost always the wrong way to go (the exceptional case is ray-tracing). What you usually want to do is put the data into a 3D texture and render slices depending on camera position. See this page: https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems/gpugems_ch39.html and you can find other techniques by searching for "volume rendering gpu".
EDIT: When writing the above answer I didn't realize that the OP was, most likely, interested in how Minecraft does that. For techniques to speed-up Minecraft-style rasterization check out Culling techniques for rendering lots of cubes. Though with recent advances in graphics hardware, rendering Minecraft through raytracing may become the reality.
What you're looking for is called instancing. You could take a look at glDrawElementsInstanced and glDrawArraysInstanced for a couple of possibilities. Note that these were only added as core operations relatively recently (OGL 3.1), but have been available as extensions quite a while longer.
nVidia's OpenGL SDK has an example of instanced drawing in OpenGL.
First you really should be looking at OpenGL 3+ using GLSL. This has been the standard for quite some time. Second, most Minecraft-esque implementations use mesh creation on the CPU side. This technique involves looking at all of the block positions and creating a vertex buffer object that renders the triangles of all of the exposed faces. The VBO is only generated when the voxels change and is persisted between frames. An ideal implementation would combine coplanar faces of the same texture into larger faces.