I'm making a small 2D game demo and from what I've read, it's better to use drawElements() to draw an indexed triangle list than using drawArrays() to draw an unindexed triangle list.
But it doesn't seem possible as far as I know to draw multiple elements that are not connected in a single draw call with drawElements().
So for my 2D game demo where I'm only ever going to draw squares made of two triangles, what would be the best approach so I don't end having one draw call per object?
Yes, it's better to use indices in many cases since you don't have to store or transfer duplicate vertices and you don't have to process duplicate vertices (vertex shader only needs to be run once per vertex). In the case of quads, you reduce 6 vertices to 4, plus a small amount of index data. Two thirds is quite a good improvement really, especially if your vertex data is more than just position.
In summary, glDrawElements results in
Less data (mostly), which means more GPU memory for other things
Faster updating if the data changes
Faster transfer to the GPU
Faster vertex processing (no duplicates)
Indexing can affect cache performance, if the reference vertices that aren't near each other in memory. Modellers commonly produce meshes which are optimized with this in mind.
For multiple elements, if you're referring to GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP you could use glPrimitiveRestartIndex to draw multiple strips of triangles with the one glDrawElements call. In your case it's easy enough to use GL_TRIANGLES and reference 4 vertices with 6 indices for each quad. Your vertex array then needs to store all the vertices for all your quads. If they're moving you still need to send that data to the GPU every frame. You could position all the moving quads at the front of the array and only update the active ones. You could also store static vertex data in a separate array.
The typical approach to drawing a 3D model is to provide a list of fixed vertices for the geometry and move the whole thing with the model matrix (as part of the model-view). The confusing part here is that the mesh data is so small that, as you say, the overhead of the draw calls may become quite prominent. I think you'll have to draw a LOT of quads before you get to the stage where it'll be a problem. However, if you do, instancing or some similar idea such as particle systems is where you should look.
Perhaps only go down the following track if the draw calls or data transfer becomes a problem as there's a lot involved. A good way of implementing particle systems entirely on the GPU is to store instance attributes such as position/colour in a texture. Each frame you use an FBO/render-to-texture to "ping-pong" this data between another texture and update the attributes in a fragment shader. To draw the particles, you can set up a static VBO which stores quads with the attribute-data texture coordinates for use in the vertex shader where the particle position can be read and applied. I'm sure there's a bunch of good tutorials/implementations to follow out there (please comment if you know of a good one).
Related
I'm starting to learn openGL (working with version 3.3) with intent to get a small 3d falling sand simulation up, akin to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Ji8J2Kprw&t=41s
I have a little experience with setting up a voxel environment like Minecraft from some Udemy tutorials for Unity, but I want to build something simple from the ground up and not deal with all the systems already laid on top of things with Unity.
The first issue I've run into comes early. I want to build a system for rendering quads, because instancing a ton of cubes is ridiculously inefficient. I also want to be efficient with storage of vertices, colors, etc. Thus far in the opengl tutorials I've worked with the way to do this is to store each vertex in a float array with both position and color data, and set up the buffer object to read every set of six entries as three floats for position and three for color, using glVertexAttribPointer. The problem is that for each neighboring quad, the same vertices will be repeated because if they are made of different "blocks" they will be different colors, and I want to avoid this.
What I want to do instead to make things more efficient is store the vertices of a cube in one int array (positions will all be ints), then add each quad out of the terrain to an indices array (which will probably turn into each chunk's mesh later on). The indices array will store each quad's position, and a separate array will store each quad's color. I'm a little confused on how to set this up since I am rather new to opengl, but I know this should be doable based on what other people have done with minecraft clones, if not even easier since I don't need textures.
I just really want to get the framework for the chunks, blocks, world, etc, up and running so that I can get to the fun stuff like adding new elements. Anyone able to verify that this is a sensible way to do this (lol) and offer guidance on how to set this up in the rendering, I would very much appreciate.
Thus far in the opengl tutorials I've worked with the way to do this is to store each vertex in a float array with both position and color data, and set up the buffer object to read every set of six entries as three floats for position and three for color, using glVertexAttribPointer. The problem is that for each neighboring quad, the same vertices will be repeated because if they are made of different "blocks" they will be different colors, and I want to avoid this.
Yes, and perhaps there's a reason for that. You seem to be trying to save.. what, a few bytes of RAM? Your graphics card has 8GB of RAM on it, what it doesn't have is a general processing unit or an unlimited bus to do random lookups in other buffers for every single rendered pixel.
The indices array will store each quad's position, and a separate array will store each quad's color.
If you insist on doing it this way, nothing's stopping you. You don't even need the quad vertices, you can synthesize them in a geometry shader.
Just fill in a buffer with X|Y|Width|Height|Color(RGB) with glVertexAttribPointer like you already know, then run a geometry shader to synthesize two triangles for each entry in your input buffer (a quad), then your vertex shader projects it to world units (you mentioned integers, so you're not in world units initially), and then your fragment shader can color each rastered pixel according to its color entry.
ridiculously inefficient
Indeed, if that sounds ridiculously inefficient to you, it's because it is. You're essentially packing your data on the CPU, transferring it to the GPU, unpacking it and then processing it as normal. You can skip at least two of the steps, and even more if you consider that vertex shader outputs get cached within rasterized primitives.
There are many more variations of this insanity, like:
store vertex positions unpacked as normal, and store an index for the colors. Then store the colors in a linear buffer of some kind (texture, SSBO, generic buffer, etc) and look up each color index. That's even more inefficient, but it's closer to the algorithm you were suggesting.
store vertex positions for one quad and set up instanced rendering with a multi-draw command and a buffer to feed individual instance data (positions and colors). If you also have textures, you can use bindless textures for each quad instance. It's still rendering multiple objects, but it's slightly more optimized by your graphics driver.
or just store per-vertex data in a buffer and render it. Done. No pre-computations, no unlimited expansions, no crazy code, you have your vertex data and you render it.
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 started learning OpenGL, now I'm going to try to develop something on my own and got stuck on a doubt.
I'm going to render models that have about 50k primitives (cylinders, cubes, cones, etc). Less than 1/4 of them are 'unique', I mean, have the same dimensions, but different positioning and rotation. So I thought that somehow I could fill a data buffer with only basic vertices and then draw them with individual transformations matrices.
From what I've read, I should use a buffer for vertices and a buffer for indices, so I don't waste memory storing repeated vertices.
All of them are stored in a single big buffer (that's because I read that this is more efficient if the one single buffer if it do not exceed a 1~3mb limit).
To draw them I'm trying to use glDrawElements, but since they are all in a single buffer, I cannot update the individual matrices to update the shaders so they can draw each mesh in the correct position.
One solution would be to use thousands of small buffers and then update the matrices between the glDrawElements calls.
Another would be discard the indices buffer and store only the vertices so I can draw them using glDrawArrays, which allows me to draw only a small part of the buffer.
Anything I said above is wrong? Which option would result in better performance? Is there a better way to do this?
Suppose we have a scene which consists of a list of n meshes in draw order. The triangle count of each mesh is bounded by a constant (though that constant may be large). Also suppose we have GL state such that all meshes can be rendered with a single draw call (glDrawArrays/Elements).
Given a change to the scene, which may consist of:
Inserting a mesh in the list
Removing a mesh from the list
Changing the geometry of the mesh (which may include changing its triangle count)
Is there a O(1) way to update GL state for a single change to the scene?
Because of the draw-order and single-draw-call constraints, the meshes must be laid out linearly in a VBO in that order. Thus, if a mesh is inserted in the list, the VBO must be resized by moving data, which is not O(1).
This isn't really an OpenGL problem. The work complexity has to do with how you model geometry, which happens well before you start trying to shove it into a GPU.
But there are some GL-specific things you can think about:
Separate vertex array order from draw order by using an index buffer and a DrawElements call. If you're drawing multiple entities out of one vertex buffer and you expect them to change, you can leave some padding in the vertex buffer and address vertices by index.
Think about how you're getting that vertex data to the GPU if it's changing every frame. For example, with double- buffering or MapBufferRange, the CPU can work on filling a buffer with new vertex data for the next frame while the GPU draws the current frame from a different buffer (or range).
The work you do to arrange/modify vertices every frame still can't be O(1). GPU work (and CPU/GPU transfers) tends to be thought of more in ms than order analysis terms, but there are things you can to minimize time.
I have a question about VBO's. Let's say just as an example I'm trying to build a voxel style engine that makes even a 16x16x16 chunk.
Do I store the map information in the VBO? How do I get the verticies for a cube? The way I'm thinking about it, the VBO would require 24 vector3 variables (vectors for each cube at each location). That seems like a lot.
is there some way to have a single 'cube' VBO template, then somehow change the coordinates for each cube I want to draw, calling the template (i hope that makes sense) and using bufferdata to update that template for every location, do I have to actually store those 24 vectors for every single location in the 16x16x16, or would I just store the map coordinates, then have the cube and polygons drawn through a shader?
I hope that makes sense. it seems expensive memory wise loading up something that stores 24 vectors per location, and it seems resource intensive to me calling bufferdata 16x16x16 times per frame... so the last option using the vertex shader seems the most viable, but I'm new to shaders so is something like that possible?
What is the most common method used?
Geometry shaders can, indeed, emit multiple primitives for a single input primitive. So drawing all 6 faces of a cube from a single input point is certainly possible. Though for "voxel" engines you might be better served by point sprites, as often the orientation of the cube isn't useful. A point sprite draws a single screen-aligned quad from an input point. Beyond that you'll need to be more specific about what you're doing.