I'm writing a terminal emulator that simulates the look of a old monitor (software link). Here's a screenshot:
For this version, I use 2D graphics. My intention is to migrate to OpenGL to achieve higher perfomance and to be able to have a screen curvature, such as this:
Screenshot 2 http://www.meeho.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/Cathode.png
To achieve a higher realism, I want to draw the scanlines individually. This way, it would look something like this when greatly amplified:
So my question is: what would be the best strategy to achieve this (that is, draw these grainy shiny lights over a curved surface with a high framerate) with OpenGL?
I should point out that not all terminals had shadow mask CRTs (which was responsible for the bulge). Higher end terminals had (relatively) flat aperture grille CRTs. On the other extreme, really cheap terminals had somewhat annoying scrolling horizontal bars.
My fondest memories are programming on a SONY Trinitron terminal, which didn't have issues with brightness on horizontal scan lines, but did have a very pronounced vertical pitch between pixels.
Here's what things looked like on aperture grille CRTs:
I haven't seen any CRT emulating shaders that ever replicate this though.
To me, there's more than one way to skin a CRT... you might want to emulate a dot matrix grid, darken alternate fields, have a horizontal line that slowly scrolls up/down the screen, apply a pincushion distortion to simulate non-flat CRTs.
In any case, don't think of this as drawing lights. Draw the basic text into an FBO and then modulate the luminance of each pixel and apply the pincushion distortion in a fragment shader.
To achieve the effect in your final screenshot, you are going to need more than scanlines. You will also have to simulate the shadow mask dot matrix, you can probably do this with a simple texture.
Related
I have an artsy side-project that is running slower than I want it to. Basically, I want to draw a bunch of shapes and colors such that they XOR the shapes and colors that I've already drawn. The program makes things like this:
Which is seven black circles XORed onto the screen.
My method is quite slow, for each pixel, I'm looping through each circle to determine if it should be XORed.
I can draw circles with SDL_gfx, but I can't seem to find a drawing mode that XORs. My current thought process is to use a blending mode that will at least tell me if a specific pixel is odd or even. However, creating an SDL_Texture that can be rendered to ( SDL_TEXTUREACCESS_TARGET ) makes it unable to be directly manipulated ( SDL_TEXTUREACCESS_STREAMING ).
The simple question is, how do I apply a black circle such that it XORs the pixels below it?
I don't think there is a way to do this with SDL_Renderer and still have reasonable performance. You would have to do the work in an SDL_Surface and upload it again.
I wrote SDL_gpu to enable modern graphical effects with a similar style to SDL's built-in render API. This particular effect is trivial in GLSL if you've used it much. If you want to avoid custom shaders, this effect is probably possible with the expanded blend mode options that SDL_gpu has.
I have some 64x64 sprites which work fine (no flicker/shuffling) when I move my camera normally. But as soon as I change the camera.zoom (was supposed to be a major mechanic in my game) level away from 1f the sprites flicker every time you move.
For example changing to 0.8f:
Left flicker:
One keypress later: (Right flicker)
So when you move around it's really distracting for gameplay when the map is flickering... (however slightly)
The zoom is a flat 0.8f and I'm currently using camera.translate to move around, I've tried casting to (int) and it still flickered... My Texture/sprite is using Nearest filtering.
I understand zooming may change/pixelate my tiles but why do they flicker?
Edit
For reference here is my tilesheet:
It's because of the nearest filtering. Depending on amount of zoom, certain lines of artwork pixels will straddle lines of screen pixels so they get drawn one pixel wider than other lines. As the camera moves, the rounding works out differently on each frame of animation so that different lines are drawn wider on each frame.
If you aren't going for a retro low-res aesthetic, you could use linear filtering with mip maps (MipMapLinearLinear or MipMapLinearNearest). Then start with larger resolution art. The first looks better if you are smoothly transitioning between zoom levels, with a possible performance impact.
Otherwise, you could round the camera's position to an exact multiple of the size of a pixel in world units. Then the same enlarged columns will always correspond with the same screen pixels, which would cut down on perceived flickering considerably. You said you were casting the camera translation to an int, but this requires the art to be scaled such that one pixel of art exactly corresponds with one pixel of screen.
This doesn't fix the other problem, that certain lines of pixels are drawn wider so they appear to have greater visual weight than similar nearby lines, as can be seen in both your screenshots. Maybe one way to get round that would be to do the zoom a secondary step, so you can control the appearance with an upscaling shader. Draw your scene to a frame buffer that is sized so one pixel of texture corresponds to one world pixel (with no zoom), and also lock your camera to integer locations. Then draw the frame buffer's contents to the screen, and do your zooming at this stage. Use a specialized upscaling shader for drawing the frame buffer texture to the screen to minimize blurriness and avoid nearest filtering artifacts. There are various shaders for this purpose that you can find by searching online. Many have been developed for use with emulators.
Background:
I am creating a game that presents the world in an isometric perspective, achieved by drawing isometric tiles. My current implementation is naive, using the painter's method, drawing from back to front, from bottom to top, using surface blits from tile images.
The Problem:
I'm concerned (maybe unduly so, please let me know if this is the case) about overdraw. Here's a small snapshot of a single layer of tiles:
The areas hi-lit in pink are the areas where the back-to-front, bottom-to-top method blits pixels to the canvas more than once. This is a small and contrived example, but in practice I hope to accomplish something more along the lines of this:
(image credit eBoy)
With an image as complex as this, and a tile-based implementation, each screen pixel is drawn to several times before the final image is composited, which feels like it's really inefficient. Since these are just 2D images with, in the end, one-bit alpha masks, there aren't as many concerns as there would be with 3D (e.g. no wasted lighting or transform math) but it still seems there should be a more elegant way of determining whether a pixel should be drawn or not based on whether or not it would be occluded in the final composition.
Solutions?
The best solution I've come up with so far is to:
Reverse the drawing order and draw front-to-back, top-to-bottom.
Keep a single bit per pixel fake z buffer that records whether or not a pixel has been drawn yet.
Only draw a tile if some of the pixels it covers haven't been drawn yet.
Is there a better way to do this? Are blit operations superefficient and I'm tilting at windmills here?
Windmills. Especially if you're using OpenGL-accelerated SDL2 blits.
Given a naive take on 3D graphics rendering it seems that stereo 3D rendering should be essentially transparent to the developer and be entirely a feature of the graphics hardware and drivers. Wherever an OpenGL window is displaying a scene, it takes the geometry, lighting, camera and texture etc. information to render a 2D image of the scene.
Adding stereo 3D to the scene seems to essentially imply using two laterally offset cameras where there was originally one, and all other scene variables stay the same. The only additional information then would be how far apart to make the cameras and how far out to to make their central rays converge. Given this it would seem trivial to take a GL command sequence and interleave the appropriate commands at driver level to drive a 3D rendering.
It seems though applications need to be specially written to make use of special 3D hardware architectures making it cumbersome and prohibitive to implement. Would we expect this to be the future of stereo 3D implementations or am I glossing over too many important details?
In my specific case we are using a .net OpenGL viewport control. I originally hoped that simply having stereo enabled hardware and drivers would be enough to enable stereo 3D.
Your assumptions are wrong. OpenGL does not "take geometry, lighting camera and texture information to render a 2D image". OpenGL takes commands to manipulate its state machine and commands to execute draw calls.
As Nobody mentions in his comment, the core profile does not even care about transformations at all. The only thing it really provides you with now is ways to provide arbitrary data to a vertex shader, and an arbitrary 3D cube to do rendering to. Wether that corresponds or not to the actual view, GL does not care, nor should it.
Mind you, some people have noticed that a driver can try to guess what's the view and what's not, and this is what the nvidia driver tries to do when doing automatic stereo rendering. This requires some specific guess-work, which amounts to actual analysis of game rendering to tweak the algorithms so that the driver guesses right. So it's typically a per-title, in-driver change. And some developers have noticed that the driver can guess wrong, and when that happens, it starts to get confusing. See some first-hand account of those questions.
I really recommend you read that presentation, because it makes some further points as to where the camera should be pointing towards (should the 2 view directions be parallel and such).
Also, It turns out that is essentially costs twice as much rendering for everything that is view dependent. Some developers (including, for example, the Crytek guys, see Part 2), figured out that to a great extent, you can do a single render, and fudge the picture with additional data to generate the left and right eye pictures.
The amount of saved work here is worth a lot by itself, for the developer to do this themselves.
Stereo 3D rendering is unfortunately more complex than just adding a lateral camera offset.
You can create stereo 3D from an original 'mono' rendered frame and the depth buffer. Given the range of (real world) depths in the scene, the depth buffer for each value tells you how far away the corresponding pixel would be. Given a desired eye separation value, you can slide each pixel left or right depending on distance. But...
Do you want parallel axis stereo (offset asymmetrical frustums) or 'toe in' stereo where the two cameras eventually converge? If the latter, you will want to tweak the camera angles scene by scene to avoid 'reversing' bits of geometry beyond the convergence point.
For objects very close to the viewer, the left and right eyes see quite different images of the same object, even down to the left eye seeing one side of the object and the right eye the other side - but the mono view will have averaged these out to just the front. If you want an accurate stereo 3D image, it really does have to be rendered from different eye viewpoints. Does this matter? FPS shooter game, probably not. Human surgery training simulator, you bet it does.
Similar problem if the viewer tilts their head to one side, so one eye is higher than the other. Again, probably not important for a game, really important for the surgeon.
Oh, and do you have anti-aliasing or transparency in the scene? Now you've got a pixel which really represents two pixel values at different depths. Move an anti-aliased pixel sideways and it probably looks worse because the 'underneath' color has changed. Move a mostly-transparent pixel sideways and the rear pixel will be moving too far.
And what do you do with gunsight crosses and similar HUD elements? If they were drawn with depth buffer disabled, the depth buffer values might make them several hundred metres away.
Given all these potential problems, OpenGL sensibly does not try to say how stereo 3D rendering should be done. In my experience modifying an OpenGL program to render in stereo is much less effort than writing it in the first place.
Shameless self promotion: this might help
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Hugh.Fisher/3dteach/stereo3d-devel/index.html
I want to render a fire effect in OpenGL based on a particle simulation. I have hundreds of particles which have a position and a temperature (and therefore a color) as well as with all their other properties. Simply rendering a solidSphere using glut doesn't look very realistic, as the particles are spread too wide. How can I draw the fire based on the particles information?
If you are just trying to create a realistic fire effect I would use some kind of re-existing library as recommended in other answers. But it seems to me you that you are after a display of the simulation.
A direct solution worth trying might be replace your current spheres with billboards (i.e. graphic image that always faces toward the camera) which are solid white in the middle and fade to transparent towards the edges - obviously positioning and colouring the images according to your particles.
A better solution I feel is to approach the flame as a set of 2D Grids on which you can control the transparency and colour of each vertex on the grid. One could do this in OpenGL by constructing a plane from quads and use you particle system to calculate (via interpolation from the nearest particles you have) the colour and transparency of each vertex. OpenGL will interpolate each pixel between vertexes for you and give you a smooth looking picture of the 'average particles in the area'.
You probably want to use a particle system to render a fire effect, here's a NeHe tutorial on how to do just that: http://nehe.gamedev.net/data/lessons/lesson.asp?lesson=19